JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Martin Weidmann on March 18, 2025, 12:00:14 AM
-
Bledsoe testified that she recognized the shirt, previously shown to her at her house, by the Secret Service, because it had a hole in the right elbow.
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is the one he had out there that day?
Mr. BALL - Who had it out there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Some Secret Service man.
Mr. BALL - He brought it out. Now, I am---you have seen this shirt then before?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - It was brought out by the Secret Service man and shown to you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well---
Mr. BALL - Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though.
Mr. BALL - Who had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Oswald had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald had it on.
Mr. BALL - Now, what is there about the shirt that makes you believe that this is the shirt that Oswald had on when he was on the bus? What is there about it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, let's see the front of it. Yes See all this [indicating]? I remember that.
Mr. BALL - Tell me what you see there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I saw the---no; not so much that. It was done after---that is part I recognize more than anything.
Mr. BALL - You are pointing to a hole in the right elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
So, where is the hole?
(https://i.postimg.cc/rs8sTv6C/Oswaldshirt1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/c4HgQzsj/Oswaldshirtarrest.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
-
So, where is the hole?
They took two photos of Oswald's shirt, front and back, and they simply folded the sleaves so the elbow hole is visible in one view and not the other.
(https://i.postimg.cc/c4HgQzsj/Osw-aldshirtarrest.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/YCWzD72b/Oswald-shirt-Bledsoe.jpg)
Bledsoe was on McWatters bus. McWatters in his testimony and Bledsoe in her next day affidavit and her testimony describe many of the same events.
(https://i.postimg.cc/dQfCbfxX/Dallas-Bledsoea.jpg)
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Mary E. Bledsoe, w/f 67, 621 N. Marsalis, Dallas, Texas, Telephone WH2-1985 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Last Friday, November 22, 1963, I went downtown to see the President. I stood on Main Street just across the street from Titche's until the parade passed by. The I walked over to Elm Street and caught a bus to go home. The bus traveled West on Elm Street to about Murphy Street and made a stop and that is when I saw Lee Oswald get on the bus. The traffic was heavy and it took quite sometime [sic] to travel two or three blocks. During that time someone made the statement that the President had been shot and while the bus was stopped due to the heavy traffic, Oswald got off the bus and I didn't see him again. I know this man was Lee Oswald because he lived in my home from October 7, 1963 to October 14, 1963.
/s/ Mrs. Mary E. Bledsoe
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 23rd DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
JohnM
-
This is not the shirt...
The shirt in question has 2 no buttoned pockets.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rs8sTv6C/Oswaldshirt1.png)
She breaks down here>>>
Mr. BALL - It was brought out by the Secret Service man and shown to you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well---
Mr. BALL - Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though.
But...how could Bledsoe see a tear in the sleeve and missing buttons on the bus before the cops ripped it?
-
This is not the shirt...
The shirt in question has 2 no buttoned pockets.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rs8sTv6C/Oswaldshirt1.png)
But...how could Bledsoe see a tear in the sleeve on the bus before the cops ripped it?
This is not the shirt...
The shirt in question has 2 no buttoned pockets.
It also has a manufacturers label and Oswald's brown shirt does not.
But...how could Bledsoe see a tear in the sleeve on the bus before the cops ripped it?
It's not a tear, but a well established hole with dirty ragged fraying edges.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Cx7kQKTC/Oswald-hole-in-shirt-sleave.jpg)
And just to demonstrate that there is indeed a hole in the sleave as opposed to a tear which is being stretched open, I made this GIF showing the existing pattern of the shirt, definitively proving an old hole exists. BTW I used yellow squiggly lines, just for you!
(https://i.postimg.cc/BZr4F5zk/oswald-hole-in-sleave-brown-shirt.gif)
Not Oswald's shirt but the hole in the elbow shows the typical similar fraying.
(https://i.postimg.cc/25ztv3mP/hole-in-shirt.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/K87VRtXP/hole-in-shirt-close-up.jpg)
JohnM
-
Anyone genuinely interested in this specific issue should visit Pat Speer's website where he covers it in detail:
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence
Here is a snippet from this chapter:
(https://i.postimg.cc/RhHb96W2/bledsoeshirtspeer.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Pattern Recognition
The slide above presents a comparison of Oswald's right arm in the Winfrey and Heikes photos with the National Archives' photo of the shirt, in which the hole in the elbow is now readily apparent. The relative size of the sleeves was matched up by the pattern of the fabric. And yet the hole in the elbow in the archives photo is nowhere to be seen in the two photos taken on 11-22-63.
Hmmm... It seems clear the hole would have been apparent in the 11-22-63 photos, should the hole have existed at the time of the photos. But it is nowhere to be seen.
But let's triple-check this, just to be sure.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qd0m2k6H/bledsoeshirtspeer2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Hole-y Shirt!
Well, I'm sold. The Warren Commission and FBI, in order to silence skeptics claiming the shirt Oswald was wearing on the evening of 11-22-63 was not the shirt whose fibers matched the fibers found on the rifle, decided to re-create some of the press photos of Oswald on that evening, to demonstrate the shirts were one and the same. They then had FBI photo analyst Lyndal Shaneyfelt testify that the shirts matched. He did so on 9-1-64.
The problem, as one can tell by comparing the Dallas-Times Herald photo at right above with Shaneyfelt's recreation of this photo (at middle above), is that the recreated photo shows a hole in the elbow where no hole was apparent on the 22nd.
That Shaneyfelt was aware of this problem is suggested, moreover, by the extremely dark nature of the original photo as presented in Shaneyfelt's exhibit (at left above). It's as if he was trying to hide something... Hmmm...
In any event, I've concluded that someone (almost certainly the FBI itself) put a hole in the elbow of the shirt, in order to effect an ID of the shirt by Bledsoe.
What are the general thoughts about SSA Sorrels taking a piece of evidence out to the Bledsoe household?
In what universe does that just go under the radar?
-
Anyone genuinely interested in this specific issue should visit Pat Speer's website where he covers it in detail:
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence
Here is a snippet from this chapter:
(https://i.postimg.cc/RhHb96W2/bledsoeshirtspeer.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Pattern Recognition
The slide above presents a comparison of Oswald's right arm in the Winfrey and Heikes photos with the National Archives' photo of the shirt, in which the hole in the elbow is now readily apparent. The relative size of the sleeves was matched up by the pattern of the fabric. And yet the hole in the elbow in the archives photo is nowhere to be seen in the two photos taken on 11-22-63.
Hmmm... It seems clear the hole would have been apparent in the 11-22-63 photos, should the hole have existed at the time of the photos. But it is nowhere to be seen.
But let's triple-check this, just to be sure.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qd0m2k6H/bledsoeshirtspeer2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Hole-y Shirt!
Well, I'm sold. The Warren Commission and FBI, in order to silence skeptics claiming the shirt Oswald was wearing on the evening of 11-22-63 was not the shirt whose fibers matched the fibers found on the rifle, decided to re-create some of the press photos of Oswald on that evening, to demonstrate the shirts were one and the same. They then had FBI photo analyst Lyndal Shaneyfelt testify that the shirts matched. He did so on 9-1-64.
The problem, as one can tell by comparing the Dallas-Times Herald photo at right above with Shaneyfelt's recreation of this photo (at middle above), is that the recreated photo shows a hole in the elbow where no hole was apparent on the 22nd.
That Shaneyfelt was aware of this problem is suggested, moreover, by the extremely dark nature of the original photo as presented in Shaneyfelt's exhibit (at left above). It's as if he was trying to hide something... Hmmm...
In any event, I've concluded that someone (almost certainly the FBI itself) put a hole in the elbow of the shirt, in order to effect an ID of the shirt by Bledsoe.
What are the general thoughts about SSA Sorrels taking a piece of evidence out to the Bledsoe household?
In what universe does that just go under the radar?
In any event, I've concluded that someone (almost certainly the FBI itself) put a hole in the elbow of the shirt, in order to effect an ID of the shirt by Bledsoe.
Uh uh!
(https://i.postimg.cc/mkKXDfYD/Oswald-arrest-hole-in-sleave.jpg)
When comparing the corresponding landmarks of the wrist split and allowing for the shirt sleave twisted and bunching in the arrest photo we can see the holes are in the relative same position.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cLkpqjjv/oswald-hole-in-sleave-brown-shirt-3.gif)
JohnM
JohnM
-
Sadly, this image speaks the truth. What does it say about us? Maybe that we should honestly reconsider our prejudices? I think that a lot of the conspiracy theory books, movies, etc have also been sold based on the idea of appealing to the general public’s natural distrust of the people in power in the government. Not that I think we should blindly trust them. We do in this country have the right to publicly question things. It is just I believe that the attitude of “I will never believe anything the government tells me” is apparently way too common. Ask the questions, because that is being responsible. But at some point in time, after the questions have all been answered, the attitude (prejudice) becomes obvious and ridiculous. I think this hole in the shirt idea is a good example.
(https://i.vgy.me/K1dC5w.jpg)
-
But let's triple-check this, just to be sure.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qd0m2k6H/bledsoeshirtspeer2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Hole-y Shirt!
Huh?
The hole in Shaneyfelt's recreation is being obscured by the Detective's jacket in the Press photo.
(https://i.postimg.cc/t4VFNnhY/oswald-brown-shirt-elbow-hole-d-shaneyfeltt-b.jpg)
JohnM
-
Sadly, this image speaks the truth. What does it say about us? Maybe that we should honestly reconsider our prejudices? I think that a lot of the conspiracy theory books, movies, etc have also been sold based on the idea of appealing to the general public’s natural distrust of the people in power in the government. Not that I think we should blindly trust them. We do in this country have the right to publicly question things. It is just I believe that the attitude of “I will never believe anything the government tells me” is apparently way too common. Ask the questions, because that is being responsible. But at some point in time, after the questions have all been answered, the attitude (prejudice) becomes obvious and ridiculous. I think this hole in the shirt idea is a good example.
You make a valid point, but I believe the issue with threads like this is somewhat different. I think most Americans, including those with a skeptical view of government and official explanations (including me) would look at a thread such as this (and most threads on JFKA forums), roll their eyes, and say “Oh, Jesus, come on ….”
A couple of years ago, I read an excellent scholarly book that examined numerous conspiracy theories throughout U.S. history. For example, it was once widely believed that the Pearl Harbor attack was known in advance but FDR’s administration did nothing because they wanted an excuse for the U.S. to enter WW2, contrary to strong public opinion at the time.
The author’s point was that, in every case, there was government malfeasance, dissembling and cover-up. It had nothing to do with the supposed conspiracy but served as the basis for conspiracy theorizing. The theorizing was completely wrong, but the government malfeasance, dissembling and cover-up had fueled it. I happen to believe the JFKA is pretty much the same.
So this why, at a 30,000-foot level, a large percentage of the public has a general suspicion of the official explanation for the JFKA and a willingness to entertain a conspiracy in general terms. As my best friend says, “I think the Bay of Pigs had something to do with it.” That’s the level of his interest and knowledge in the JFKA: Yeah, there was probably more to it than just Oswald.
Not so with threads like this and Conspiracy Thinking in general. It’s a particular conspiracy-prone mindset that is thoroughly documented in the psychological and sociological literature. Those with this mindset aren't necessarily unintelligent, delusional or otherwise aberrant, but they are, compared to others, simply not thinking clearly.
My citations to the literature were, by far, my most detested posts at the Ed Forum. Play the game and debate the SBT ad nauseam and all is well; you're a Lone Nutter and thus Not One of Us, but at least you’re playing the game and pretending the our goofy arguments are worthy of debate. You’re ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that Conspiracy Thinking is fundamentally irrational. “You’re simply not thinking clearly” makes a CTer apoplectic, but it’s usually the truth.
I enjoy exposing specific Conspiracy Factoids from time to time because it exercises my brain and research skills, but continually engaging with CTers on issues like the one on this thread seems to me kind of pointless unless one just finds it entertaining.
-
Sadly, this image speaks the truth. What does it say about us? Maybe that we should honestly reconsider our prejudices? I think that a lot of the conspiracy theory books, movies, etc have also been sold based on the idea of appealing to the general public’s natural distrust of the people in power in the government. Not that I think we should blindly trust them. We do in this country have the right to publicly question things. It is just I believe that the attitude of “I will never believe anything the government tells me” is apparently way too common. Ask the questions, because that is being responsible. But at some point in time, after the questions have all been answered, the attitude (prejudice) becomes obvious and ridiculous. I think this hole in the shirt idea is a good example.
(https://i.vgy.me/K1dC5w.jpg)
Ironically, this "hole in the shirt idea" shows me what this forum could actually be.
The Secret Service taking the shirt out to Bledsoe is really weird. I'm just a layman regarding the justice system, but I find this incredibly strange and worthy of questioning.
So, Martin questions the hole in the shirt.
I went to Pat Speer's website and he covers this issue in great detail. The argument he puts forward is very compelling.
But then John puts forward a more superior argument.
I find John's presentation more convincing and now agree that the hole was in the shirt when Oswald was arrested.
This is how it should be.
"...after the questions have all been answered..."
You really think all the questions have been answered?
Even on this tiny detail of the case?
Why did Sorrels take the shirt out to Bledsoe?
Was this the shirt Oswald was wearing when Bledsoe saw him on the bus?
I don't think either of these questions have been answered satisfactorily.
-
Ironically, this "hole in the shirt idea" shows me what this forum could actually be.
The Secret Service taking the shirt out to Bledsoe is really weird. I'm just a layman regarding the justice system, but I find this incredibly strange and worthy of questioning.
So, Martin questions the hole in the shirt.
I went to Pat Speer's website and he covers this issue in great detail. The argument he puts forward is very compelling.
But then John puts forward a more superior argument.
I find John's presentation more convincing and now agree that the hole was in the shirt when Oswald was arrested.
This is how it should be.
"...after the questions have all been answered..."
You really think all the questions have been answered?
Even on this tiny detail of the case?
Why did Sorrels take the shirt out to Bledsoe?
Was this the shirt Oswald was wearing when Bledsoe saw him on the bus?
I don't think either of these questions have been answered satisfactorily.
Why did Sorrels take the shirt out to Bledsoe?
What is your source that Sorrels took the shirt out to Bledsoe? Just Bledsoe's testimony? Or is there something else that corroborates it?
-
Ironically, this "hole in the shirt idea" shows me what this forum could actually be.
The Secret Service taking the shirt out to Bledsoe is really weird. I'm just a layman regarding the justice system, but I find this incredibly strange and worthy of questioning.
So, Martin questions the hole in the shirt.
I went to Pat Speer's website and he covers this issue in great detail. The argument he puts forward is very compelling.
But then John puts forward a more superior argument.
I find John's presentation more convincing and now agree that the hole was in the shirt when Oswald was arrested.
This is how it should be.
"...after the questions have all been answered..."
You really think all the questions have been answered?
Even on this tiny detail of the case?
Why did Sorrels take the shirt out to Bledsoe?
Was this the shirt Oswald was wearing when Bledsoe saw him on the bus?
I don't think either of these questions have been answered satisfactorily.
Why did Sorrels take the shirt out to Bledsoe?
Here’s a snippet from “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi:
Earlier, when the FBI first showed Mrs. Bledsoe the shirt, she said, “No, no. That is not the shirt” Oswald was wearing. But the FBI report of the December 4, 1963, interview by Special Agents Carl Brown and Robert Butler goes on to say, “She then inquired as to whether the shirt had a ragged elbow. Upon further examination of the shirt, she observed a hole in the right elbow of the shirt, at which time she quickly stated, ‘Yes, yes. This is the shirt.’”
So it appears that your question should be: Why did the FBI agents take the shirt out to Bledsoe? I haven’t searched for their report. But it should be available as part of the records. My guess is that they wanted to find out if she remembered what the shirt LHO was wearing on the bus looked like. And they already had some fiber evidence that suggested that CE 150 was the shirt. If Bugliosi got things right, she apparently did remember a ragged elbow. Bugliosi addressed the question and gave it a thorough investigation. You can read it in his book starting on page 4724 on my Kindle version as viewed on my iPad. Or just search for CE 150 and it shows up as result number 12.
-
Why did Sorrels take the shirt out to Bledsoe?
Here’s a snippet from “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi:
Earlier, when the FBI first showed Mrs. Bledsoe the shirt, she said, “No, no. That is not the shirt” Oswald was wearing. But the FBI report of the December 4, 1963, interview by Special Agents Carl Brown and Robert Butler goes on to say, “She then inquired as to whether the shirt had a ragged elbow. Upon further examination of the shirt, she observed a hole in the right elbow of the shirt, at which time she quickly stated, ‘Yes, yes. This is the shirt.’”
So it appears that your question should be: Why did the FBI agents take the shirt out to Bledsoe? I haven’t searched for their report. But it should be available as part of the records. My guess is that they wanted to find out if she remembered what the shirt LHO was wearing on the bus looked like. And they already had some fiber evidence that suggested that CE 150 was the shirt. If Bugliosi got things right, she apparently did remember a ragged elbow. Bugliosi addressed the question and gave it a thorough investigation. You can read it in his book starting on page 4724 on my Kindle version as viewed on my iPad. Or just search for CE 150 and it shows up as result number 12.
Let's just have a look at Bledsoe's confusing testimony;
Mr. BALL - Now, I have got a piece of clothing here, which is marked---
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
Does Bledsoe recognize the shirt because she saw Oswald wearing it or because it was brought to her house?
Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?
So, she recognizes the shirt because "the man brought it out and let me see it"? She doesn't recognize the shirt because she saw Oswald wear it?
So, Ball tries again
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is the one he had out there that day?
Mr. BALL - Who had it out there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Some Secret Service man.
Mr. BALL - He brought it out. Now, I am---you have seen this shirt then before?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - It was brought out by the Secret Service man and shown to you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Bledsoe still seems to be sticking by her statement that she recognized the shirt because it was brought to her home and shown to her
Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well---
Mr. BALL - Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though.
Mr. BALL - Who had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Oswald had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald had it on.
Now it really gets confusing. When asked if she had seen the shirt before it was brought to her home, she answers "no; he had it on though". Does this make sense?
Mr. BALL - Now, what is there about the shirt that makes you believe that this is the shirt that Oswald had on when he was on the bus? What is there about it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, let's see the front of it. Yes See all this [indicating]? I remember that.
Mr. BALL - Tell me what you see there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I saw the---no; not so much that. It was done after---that is part I recognize more than anything.
Mr. BALL - You are pointing to a hole in the right elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
So, some five months after the assassination, she still does not really recognize the shirt as the one Oswald was wearing. All she really remembers is the hole in the right elbow. And that's a positive identification? Really?
-
Let's just have a look at Bledsoe's confusing testimony;
Mr. BALL - Now, I have got a piece of clothing here, which is marked---
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
Does Bledsoe recognize the shirt because she saw Oswald wearing it or because it was brought to her house?
Mr. BALL - I know. What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, because I can recognize it.
Mr. BALL - Recognize it as what?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, sir; see there?
Mr. BALL - Yes. You tell me what do you see here? What permits you to recognize it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I recognize---first thing I notice the elbow is out and then I saw---when the man brought it out and let me see it?
So, she recognizes the shirt because "the man brought it out and let me see it"? She doesn't recognize the shirt because she saw Oswald wear it?
So, Ball tries again
Mr. BALL - No, I am talking about---I am showing you this shirt now, and you said, "That is it." You mean---What do you mean by "that is it"?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is the one he had out there that day?
Mr. BALL - Who had it out there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Some Secret Service man.
Mr. BALL - He brought it out. Now, I am---you have seen this shirt then before?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - It was brought out by the Secret Service man and shown to you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Bledsoe still seems to be sticking by her statement that she recognized the shirt because it was brought to her home and shown to her
Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well---
Mr. BALL - Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though.
Mr. BALL - Who had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Oswald had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald had it on.
Now it really gets confusing. When asked if she had seen the shirt before it was brought to her home, she answers "no; he had it on though". Does this make sense?
Mr. BALL - Now, what is there about the shirt that makes you believe that this is the shirt that Oswald had on when he was on the bus? What is there about it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, let's see the front of it. Yes See all this [indicating]? I remember that.
Mr. BALL - Tell me what you see there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I saw the---no; not so much that. It was done after---that is part I recognize more than anything.
Mr. BALL - You are pointing to a hole in the right elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
So, some five months after the assassination, she still does not really recognizes the shirt as the one Oswald was wearing. All she really remembers is the hole in the right elbow. And that's a positive identification? Really?
So, some five months after the assassination, she still does not really recognizes the shirt as the one Oswald was wearing.
Even if that is true, so what!
1) Oswald had the bus transfer proving he was on the bus.
2) Bledsoe and McWatters corroborated testimony on specific details prove Bledsoe was on the bus.
3) Bledsoe's next day affidavit contained details which I never found being released to the public.
4) IIRC not one employee remembered that Oswald was wearing that shirt, suggesting he was just insignificant.
5) FBI's Stomberg testified that while the fibers were fresh, the exact time they were placed on the rifle could not be determined.
6) Oswald was wearing the shirt at the time of his arrest proving he was in possession of the shirt.
JohnM
-
Even if that is true, so what!
1) Oswald had the bus transfer proving he was on the bus.
2) Bledsoe and McWatters corroborated testimony on specific details prove Bledsoe was on the bus.
3) Bledsoe's next day affidavit contained details which I never found being released to the public.
4) IIRC not one employee remembered that Oswald was wearing that shirt, suggesting he was just insignificant.
5) FBI's Stomberg testified that while the fibers were fresh, the exact time they were placed on the rifle could not be determined.
6) Oswald was wearing the shirt at the time of his arrest proving he was in possession of the shirt.
JohnM
What's your point?
Of course Oswald was wearing the shirt at the time of his arrest.
So, why was it so important to place him on a bus wearing that particular shirt?
You are not getting any of this, aren't you?
-
What's your point?
Of course Oswald was wearing the shirt at the time of his arrest.
So, why was it so important to place him on a bus wearing that particular shirt?
You are not getting any of this, aren't you?
What's your point?
It's your thread, that you started with a plethora of mistakes and wrong assumptions which BTW you never acknowledged, and now it's my problem? Seriously?
Of course Oswald was wearing the shirt at the time of his arrest.
Whew, at least you got something right!
So, why was it so important to place him on a bus wearing that particular shirt?
The authorities were in the process of accumulating an excess of evidence to determine Oswald's flight from the scene of his crime.
You are not getting any of this, aren't you?
Apparently not? Besides this clear diversion and the facts that I have already stated, please explain to me why you believe Oswald wearing the brown shirt on the bus was so important?
JohnM
-
Was Oswald wearing the brown shirt when he got into the car with B.W. Frazier that morning of Nov/22/63?
Or was he wearing the other reddish brown shirt?
If the latter, then Bledsoe could not have seen any hole in the sleeve of the reddish brown shirt.
Was Oswald wearing a jacket when he boarded the bus? ( or was that some other man that McWatters saw?)
If yes, how could Bledsoe have seen a hole in the shirt sleeve? It would have to a be peculiar way of Oswald having pulled up his jacket sleeve halfway up his arm while leaving the shirt sleeve down to his wrist.
So imo , The bus transfer ticket is the only evidence that links Oswald to McWatters bus.
Could the ticket have been planted after Oswald was arrested?
If yes then the reason was to establish Oswald on the bus by 12:43 in order to negate Butch Burroughs and Jack Davis statements placing Oswald in the theater at 1:15 and 1:20 respectively.
Without the bus trip, Oswald could get to Whaleys taxi as early as 12:40 , get to his boarding house by 12:50 and exit at 12:54 thus he was able to have walked to the theater arriving by 1:15.
However, Oswald could not have shot Tippit even as early as 1:08 and then still made it to the theater by 1:15 ( unless he was given a ride)
-
It's your thread, that you started with a plethora of mistakes and wrong assumptions which BTW you never acknowledged, and now it's my problem? Seriously?
Whew, at least you got something right!
The authorities were in the process of accumulating an excess of evidence to determine Oswald's flight from the scene of his crime.
Apparently not? Besides this clear diversion and the facts that I have already stated, please explain to me why you believe Oswald wearing the brown shirt on the bus was so important?
JohnM
It's your thread, that you started with a plethora of mistakes and wrong assumptions which BTW you never acknowledged, and now it's my problem? Seriously?
I just asked a question. Stop being a drama queen!
But since you brought it up, how does showing a part of Bledsoe's testimony and two photos become "a plethora of mistakes and wrong assumptions"?
And no, it became your problem when you decided to join the conversation making all sorts of idiotic remarks that served no purpose at all.
The authorities were in the process of accumulating an excess of evidence to determine Oswald's flight from the scene of his crime.
Could you write this in Chinese? Perhaps I will then understand this gobbledigook.
Apparently not? Besides this clear diversion and the facts that I have already stated, please explain to me why you believe Oswald wearing the brown shirt on the bus was so important?
So, you can't answer my question? Got it!
-
Was Oswald wearing the brown shirt when he got into the car with B.W. Frazier that morning of Nov/22/63?
Or was he wearing the other reddish brown shirt?
If the latter, then Bledsoe could not have seen any hole in the sleeve of the reddish brown shirt.
Was Oswald wearing a jacket when he boarded the bus? ( or was that some other man that McWatters saw?)
If yes, how could Bledsoe have seen a hole in the shirt sleeve? It would have to a be peculiar way of Oswald having pulled up his jacket sleeve halfway up his arm while leaving the shirt sleeve down to his wrist.
So imo , The bus transfer ticket is the only evidence that links Oswald to McWatters bus.
Could the ticket have been planted after Oswald was arrested?
If yes then the reason was to establish Oswald on the bus by 12:43 in order to negate Butch Burroughs and Jack Davis statements placing Oswald in the theater at 1:15 and 1:20 respectively.
Without the bus trip, Oswald could get to Whaleys taxi as early as 12:40 , get to his boarding house by 12:50 and exit at 12:54 thus he was able to have walked to the theater arriving by 1:15.
However, Oswald could not have shot Tippit even as early as 1:08 and then still made it to the theater by 1:15 ( unless he was given a ride)
So imo , The bus transfer ticket is the only evidence that links Oswald to McWatters bus.
Hi Zeon, the bus transfer all by itself is conclusive evidence, but we also have Oswald admitting to catching a bus to Bookout, Hosty and Fritz and also Bledsoe's next day affidavit and the later corroboration with McWatters that Bledsoe was on McWatters bus at the same time as Oswald.
Mr. STERN - Yes. Did he ever complain that, "We have been over that ground before," or make any such statement?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; I don't recall anything along that line, but I can recall one subject matter probably in the first interview where he talked about his method of transportation after leaving the Texas Book Depository, having gotten on a bus, and then that subject was taken up again, as I recall, in the second interview, expressed the same answer at that time, and then subsequently to that interview he backed up and said that it wasn't actually true as to how he got home. That he had taken a bus, and due to the traffic jam he had left the bus and got a taxicab, by which means he actually arrived at his residence.
Mr HOSTY - ..........He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
In Bledsoe's testimony she goes into detail about a woman who also got off at the same time as Oswald who wanted to get to the train station which along with specific details in Bledsoe's next day affidavit can be confirmed by cross referencing with Bus Driver McWatters testimony. Also note McWatters agrees with Bledsoe that the man who got the transfer got off after a few blocks and that some guy who was also stuck in traffic came to the bus door and said the President was shot.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bledsoe.htm
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/bledsoe1.htm
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/mcwatters.htm
McWatters had a unique punch he used to indicate the bus transfer times which was identical with the punch holes in Oswald's bus transfer.
(https://i.postimg.cc/h43L9HCG/Mc-Watters-punch.jpg)
BTW the transfer was not pristine.
(https://i.postimg.cc/CLX4VWD2/back-of-osw-ald-bus-transferb.jpg)
JohnM
-
It's your thread, that you started with a plethora of mistakes and wrong assumptions which BTW you never acknowledged, and now it's my problem? Seriously?
I just asked a question. Stop being a drama queen!
But since you brought it up, how does showing a part of Bledsoe's testimony and two photos become "a plethora of mistakes and wrong assumptions"?
And no, it became your problem when you decided to join the conversation making all sorts of idiotic remarks that served no purpose at all.
The authorities were in the process of accumulating an excess of evidence to determine Oswald's flight from the scene of his crime.
Could you write this in Chinese? Perhaps I will then understand this gobbledigook.
Apparently not? Besides this clear diversion and the facts that I have already stated, please explain to me why you believe Oswald wearing the brown shirt on the bus was so important?
So, you can't answer my question? Got it!
And no, it became your problem when you decided to join the conversation making all sorts of idiotic remarks that served no purpose at all.
I only added clarity to your clear misinformation.
In your OP you inferred that the shirt didn't have a hole, you were wrong!
You posted a photo of what was supposed to be the "shirt" with the manufactures label, you were wrong!
You posted Oswald's brown shirt asking where was the hole but you posted the wrong side, you were wrong!
In every subsequent post you are yet to acknowledge or even attempt to correct your OP, and that's naughty!
So, you can't answer my question? Got it!
And here we go again when you're clearly stuck, more Martin games.
JohnM
-
I only added clarity to your clear misinformation.
In your OP you inferred that the shirt didn't have a hole, you were wrong!
You posted a photo of what was supposed to be the "shirt" with the manufactures label, you were wrong!
You posted Oswald's brown shirt asking where was the hole but you posted the wrong side, you were wrong!
In every subsequent post you are yet to acknowledge or even attempt to correct your OP, and that's naughty!
And here we go again when you're clearly stuck, more Martin games.
JohnM
You are not very good at this game, John. Try another hobby!
-
Why did Sorrels take the shirt out to Bledsoe?
What is your source that Sorrels took the shirt out to Bledsoe? Just Bledsoe's testimony? Or is there something else that corroborates it?
I'm possibly conflating these two pieces of testimony, one where Bledsoe insists a Secret Service agent brought the shirt out to the house and the other about Sorrels being out at the house. I'm not 100% sure whether Sorrels had the shirt with him when he visited Bledsoe's house.
If Bledsoe was wrong about a Secret Service man bringing it out I'm surprised her attorney, Miss Douthit, doesn't correct her as she seems quite on top of things. On the other hand, Bledsoe seems to think anyone in a suit is Secret Service.
Mr. BALL: But, before you go into that, I notice you have been reading from some notes before you.
Mrs. BLEDSOE: Well, because I forget what I have to say.
Mr. BALL: When did you make those notes?
Mrs. BLEDSOE: What day did I make them?
Miss DOUTHIT: When Mr. Sorrels and I were talking about her going to Washington, he made the suggestion that she put all the things down on paper because she might forget something, and I said, "Mary, you put everything on a piece of paper so that you can remember it and you won't forget anything, you know, what happened," and that's when she started making notes.
Mr. BALL: You have made the notes in the last week?
Mrs. BLEDSOE: Yes.
Miss DOUTHIT: At my suggestion and Mr. Sorrels.
...
Mr. BALL: Who had it out there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE: Some Secret Service man.
Mr. BALL: He brought it out. Now, I am---you have seen this shirt then before?
Mrs. BLEDSOE: Yes.
Mr. BALL: It was brought out by the Secret Service man and shown to you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE: Yes.
Personally,I don't think there's anything 'conspiratorial' about this shirt issue, it's more just an interest in how the investigation operated. You don't seem to think it's weird that investigating authorities, be it Secret Service or FBI, went out to her house with a piece of evidence. As Martin points out, it has clearly affected Bledsoe's remembering of the incident on the bus and may indicate some kind of coercion as the dark brown shirt Bledsoe identifies may well not have been the shirt Oswald wore to work that day.
For me it's hard to know whether Bledsoe confirms that Oswald was wearing the same shirt to work he was arrested in, or whether she 'remembered' the shirt due to someone coming out to the house and saying something along the lines of "this is the shirt Oswald was wearing when you saw him".
It really muddies the waters if it was the FBI looking for confirmation of the fibre evidence they had discovered.
-
I'm possibly conflating these two pieces of testimony, one where Bledsoe insists a Secret Service agent brought the shirt out to the house and the other about Sorrels being out at the house. I'm not 100% sure whether Sorrels had the shirt with him when he visited Bledsoe's house.
If Bledsoe was wrong about a Secret Service man bringing it out I'm surprised her attorney, Miss Douthit, doesn't correct her as she seems quite on top of things. On the other hand, Bledsoe seems to think anyone in a suit is Secret Service.
Mr. BALL: But, before you go into that, I notice you have been reading from some notes before you.
Mrs. BLEDSOE: Well, because I forget what I have to say.
Mr. BALL: When did you make those notes?
Mrs. BLEDSOE: What day did I make them?
Miss DOUTHIT: When Mr. Sorrels and I were talking about her going to Washington, he made the suggestion that she put all the things down on paper because she might forget something, and I said, "Mary, you put everything on a piece of paper so that you can remember it and you won't forget anything, you know, what happened," and that's when she started making notes.
Mr. BALL: You have made the notes in the last week?
Mrs. BLEDSOE: Yes.
Miss DOUTHIT: At my suggestion and Mr. Sorrels.
...
Mr. BALL: Who had it out there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE: Some Secret Service man.
Mr. BALL: He brought it out. Now, I am---you have seen this shirt then before?
Mrs. BLEDSOE: Yes.
Mr. BALL: It was brought out by the Secret Service man and shown to you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE: Yes.
Personally,I don't think there's anything 'conspiratorial' about this shirt issue, it's more just an interest in how the investigation operated. You don't seem to think it's weird that investigating authorities, be it Secret Service or FBI, went out to her house with a piece of evidence. As Martin points out, it has clearly affected Bledsoe's remembering of the incident on the bus and may indicate some kind of coercion as the dark brown shirt Bledsoe identifies may well not have been the shirt Oswald wore to work that day.
For me it's hard to know whether Bledsoe confirms that Oswald was wearing the same shirt to work he was arrested in, or whether she 'remembered' the shirt due to someone coming out to the house and saying something along the lines of "this is the shirt Oswald was wearing when you saw him".
It really muddies the waters if it was the FBI looking for confirmation of the fibre evidence they had discovered.
You don't seem to think it's weird that investigating authorities, be it Secret Service or FBI, went out to her house with a piece of evidence.
No I don’t think that its weird at all. Especially when we consider that the FBI had been ordered by LBJ to investigate the facts; that the Warren Commission had only been created a few days prior to 12/4/63 (the date of the FBI report that indicates two FBI agents showed the shirt to Bledsoe); and that the Warren Commission had not even had their first formal meeting or even decided how to organize themselves yet. Keep in mind that LHO was already dead, and that there could therefore be no trial. When put into the above specified context, the FBI agents showing Bledsoe the shirt appears to me to be within the bounds of the law and a perfectly legitimate way to determine whether or not Bledsoe would recognize the shirt. The FBI agents at Bledsoe’s house had no way of knowing what direction the Warren Commission would ultimately go with their investigation. I think that they were simply doing what they were instructed to do.
The whole idea of “muddying up the water” and implying something sinister is simply biased distrust of the authorities and makes no sense whatsoever.
-
You don't seem to think it's weird that investigating authorities, be it Secret Service or FBI, went out to her house with a piece of evidence.
No I don’t think that its weird at all. Especially when we consider that the FBI had been ordered by LBJ to investigate the facts; that the Warren Commission had only been created a few days prior to 12/4/63 (the date of the FBI report that indicates two FBI agents showed the shirt to Bledsoe); and that the Warren Commission had not even had their first formal meeting or even decided how to organize themselves yet. Keep in mind that LHO was already dead, and that there could therefore be no trial. When put into the above specified context, the FBI agents showing Bledsoe the shirt appears to me to be within the bounds of the law and a perfectly legitimate way to determine whether or not Bledsoe would recognize the shirt. The FBI agents at Bledsoe’s house had no way of knowing what direction the Warren Commission would ultimately go with their investigation. I think that they were simply doing what they were instructed to do.
The whole idea of “muddying up the water” and implying something sinister is simply biased distrust of the authorities and makes no sense whatsoever.
No I don’t think that its weird at all.
If it is indeed not weird, can you name one other instance where the FBI or the Secret Service took a piece of evidence to a witness' house?
-
Mary Bledsoe was Oswald's landlady for 7 days in Oct '63. She was also one of the longest witnesses on the stand, mostly fluff.
She kept records of her boarders on a calendar. Inexplicably, she no longer had Oct. in her papers.
They were trying get her to confirm the shirt she may have seen on the bus. Based on the unqualified uncertainty of her
character, most of her identification should have been rendered meaningless. Reading her entire testimony, one can see a tag
team effort by the WC attorneys, with additional help from Bledsoe's own attorney. When Bledsoe consistently proclaimed her
lack of knowledge, her own attorney objected, "Mary, pardon me, this is not for the record." WC Attorney Jenner, allowed that in.
Twice they tried to get her to say she had seen a long package or curtain rods brought in or out of the house.
She did not see any such thing.
Mr. JENNER - Anything that you thought could be curtain rods or----
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Uh-huh.
Mr. JENNER - Or shades that are on the spring, did he ever have any package that looked as though that sort of thing might be contained in it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No.
------------------------------------
Mr. JENNER - Was there ever an occasion when you saw him in possession, either in his room, or carrying a long object wrapped in paper or a blanket or---
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Or something as long as 45 inches long?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Seven or eight inches wide?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Didn't have anything like that with him.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
She quickly let it be known she did not like Lee very much. At one point she asked him to leave, then refused to pay his balance of rent.
One reason for eviction was he sometimes spoke in a foreign language on the phone; "I don't like anybody talking in a foreign language."
Specifically on the shirt, she was prepared what to say by SSA Sorrels. She went over what was expected of her prior to her testimony.
Attorney Ball, did not ask her how she knew what was going to be asked. Nearly all witnesses were previewed for what they could provide.
She gave it away when Ball asked her if she had seen the shirt prior to Secret Service bring it to her. She said, "No."
Mr. BALL - It was brought out by the Secret Service man and shown to you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well---
Mr. BALL - Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though.
Mr. BALL - Who had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Oswald had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald had it on.
How could she have not seen the shirt before SS showed her, and then Oswald somehow had it on? Ball led her to say it in another round.
They are cherry picking and leading her to the answer they want. She makes conflicting statements that render any value useless.
She didn't pay attention to that shirt anymore than Frazier paid attention to the bag. Funny, how LNs work that way.
Mr. BALL - First time you ever saw the shirt was when you saw him on the bus?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Uh-huh.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When describing the man's trousers, she said they were "...gray, and all ragged in here...at the waist?....uh, huh.
She was then shown both Exhibits CE 156 and CE 157, she said it could not have been CE 157, because "...it was ragged at the top"
There is no confidence in her answers. Then, she conceded it must have been CE 156.
Ball was leading her to say CE157, because Brennan had said a lighter color pants but she won't do it.
Mr. BALL - This other pair of pants, 156, does that look like any of the pants he had on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That must have been it, but seemed like it was ragged up at the top.
Mr. BALL - But, you think 156 may have been the pair of pants he had on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
Mr. BALL - You think CE 157---don't pay any attention to the fact that it is cut up does CE 157 look anything like the pants he had on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; I don't---
Finally, despite her vivid description of appearance and obvious dislike for Oswald, she did not connect him to the assassination even
after hearing his name. "...they kept talking about this boy Oswald and had on a brown shirt, and all of a sudden, well, I declare..."
She contacted her son, he called the police and she went down to the station the next day.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is a fine example of the Commission following the mandate it was given by the Katzenbach Memo back in Nov. '63.
"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large.."
Doubts of Oswald having even been on the bus, as well as other witnesses that saw a man look like him get into a car, remain.
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, was directing traffic at the top of Houston and Elm St., when he heard the shrill of a whistle from just ahead.
He looked over, and saw that a white male, standing at the west end of TSBD, had signaled this same vehicle Richard Carr had just seen.
This man ran down the embankment and piled into this light colored Nash Rambler station wagon, already filled with other Spanish looking men.
Without knowing who this guy was, Craig tried to pursue the wagon, but was then slowed by excessive traffic before he could close enough to it.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/3554
Roy Cooper, was following his boss, Marvin Robinson, through Dealey Plaza on their way to drop off Marvin's car, to then return to work.
Both drivers saw the same Nash Rambler station wagon, and both saw the man run down the embankment and get into the car.
In fact, when the vehicle merged back in, "...This station wagon pulled out real fast front of the Cadillac driven by his boss
and his employer had to stop abruptly and nearly hit this Nash Rambler." Neither mean paid attention to the look of the man,
or the driver, or even the state license plate. https://jfk.boards.net/post/3554
"Helen Forrest, witnessed the same scene Roger Craig did, but from the opposite side of the street. Forrest, told historian Michael Kurtz,
she was on the incline by the grassy knoll, when she, "...saw a man suddenly run from the rear of the Depository building, down
the incline, and then enter a Rambler station wagon." Like Roger Craig, Helen Forrest, was clear in identifying the running man.
"If it wasn't Oswald," she said, "it was his identical twin." [Quoted from: Douglass, James W. - JFK and the Unspeakable] https://jfk.boards.net/post/7693
It is not clear or reliable testimony. She had a prejudice against him, and although the two may have been on the bus. Lee got off.
Some ten minutes after the shooting, 4 witnesses, (2 of which) said a man that looked like Lee Oswald was seen leaving the plaza in a car full of Cubans.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7693
-
It was not unusual for the FBI to go to homes and places of business to interview people. It was not unusual for witnesses to be shown evidence by the FBI. Off the top of my head I can name Hosty’s visits to Ruth Paine’s home and Odum’s showing CE 399 to Tomlinson & Wright on 6/12/64. I am sure there are many other examples. So, no, I do not think it was at all weird for Bledsoe to be shown CE 150 in her home.
-
It was not unusual for the FBI to go to homes and places of business to interview people. It was not unusual for witnesses to be shown evidence by the FBI. Off the top of my head I can name Hosty’s visits to Ruth Paine’s home and Odum’s showing CE 399 to Tomlinson & Wright on 6/12/64. I am sure there are many other examples. So, no, I do not think it was at all weird for Bledsoe to be shown CE 150 in her home.
It was not unusual for the FBI to go to homes and places of business to interview people.
Nobody said it was.
It was not unusual for witnesses to be shown evidence by the FBI.
Again, nobody said it was.
What made the Bledsoe visit stand out is that they took the shirt to her home before her WC testimony.
Off the top of my head I can name Hosty’s visits to Ruth Paine’s home
Please refresh my memory? What exactly did Hosty do at Ruth Paine's home?
Odum’s showing CE 399 to Tomlinson & Wright on 6/12/64
Hardly the same as Bledsoe. Specter took testimony from Tomlinson but, although he asked him about where the bullet was found, he failed to show the actual bullet to the witness making it impossible for him to identify CE399.
And Wright didn't testify or give any other statement to the WC and was never shown CE399.
It was only when the WC questioned the chain of custody for several pieces of evidence, that Odum allegedly showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright to get an identification. An event that Odum denied ever happened and for which no internal FBI report exists.
-
It was not unusual for the FBI to go to homes and places of business to interview people.
Nobody said it was.
It was not unusual for witnesses to be shown evidence by the FBI.
Again, nobody said it was.
What made the Bledsoe visit stand out is that they took the shirt to her home before her WC testimony.
Off the top of my head I can name Hosty’s visits to Ruth Paine’s home
Please refresh my memory? What exactly did Hosty do at Ruth Paine's home?
Odum’s showing CE 399 to Tomlinson & Wright on 6/12/64
Hardly the same as Bledsoe. Specter took testimony from Tomlinson but, although he asked him about where the bullet was found, he failed to show the actual bullet to the witness making it impossible for him to identify CE399.
And Wright didn't testify or give any other statement to the WC and was never shown CE399.
It was only when the WC questioned the chain of custody for several pieces of evidence, that Odum allegedly showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright to get an identification. An event that Odum denied ever happened and for which no internal FBI report exists.
What made the Bledsoe visit stand out is that they took the shirt to her home before her WC testimony.
The FBI had no way of knowing on 12/4/63 that there was even going to be any WC testimony. Why does this supposedly “stand out” or even matter? It is only typical CT nonsense that tries (and fails) to make something out of nothing at all.
-
What made the Bledsoe visit stand out is that they took the shirt to her home before her WC testimony.
The FBI had no way of knowing on 12/4/63 that there was even going to be any WC testimony. Why does this supposedly “stand out” or even matter? It is only typical CT nonsense that tries (and fails) to make something out of nothing at all.
The FBI had no way of knowing on 12/4/63 that there was even going to be any WC testimony.
The Warren Commission, was established by LBJ through Executive Order 11130 on November 29, 1963, to investigate the assassination.
How do you suppose they could conduct their investigation without interviewing witnesses?
Do you really think Hoover was unaware about what was going to happen?
And if - as you claim - they didn't know that witnesses would be interviewed, what was the point of the Bledsoe visit?
-
The FBI had no way of knowing on 12/4/63 that there was even going to be any WC testimony.
The Warren Commission, was established by LBJ through Executive Order 11130 on November 29, 1963, to investigate the assassination.
How do you suppose they could conduct their investigation without interviewing witnesses?
Do you really think Hoover was unaware about what was going to happen?
And if - as you claim - they didn't know that witnesses would be interviewed, what was the point of the Bledsoe visit?
The Warren Commission didn’t even have a formal meeting until after this FBI interview. The WC had not even yet organized themselves or decided how to proceed. That is the point.
The FBI had already been tasked with investigating the facts of what happened. Bledsoe had already come forward and sworn that she knew LHO and had seen him on the bus just after the assassination. The FBI was obligated to interview her.
-
The Warren Commission didn’t even have a formal meeting until after this FBI interview. The WC had not even yet organized themselves or decided how to proceed. That is the point.
The FBI had already been tasked with investigating the facts of what happened. Bledsoe had already come forward and sworn that she knew LHO and had seen him on the bus just after the assassination. The FBI was obligated to interview her.
The FBI was obligated to interview her.
Bledsoe had only given the affidavit, shown below, to the DPD.
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Mary E. Bledsoe, w/f 67, 621 N. Marsalis, Dallas, Texas, Telephone WH2-1985 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Last Friday, November 22, 1963, I went downtown to see the President. I stood on Main Street just across the street from Titche's until the parade passed by. The I walked over to Elm Street and caught a bus to go home. The bus traveled West on Elm Street to about Murphy Street and made a stop and that is when I saw Lee Oswald get on the bus. The traffic was heavy and it took quite sometime [sic] to travel two or three blocks. During that time someone made the statement that the President had been shot and while the bus was stopped due to the heavy traffic, Oswald got off the bus and I didn't see him again. I know this man was Lee Oswald because he lived in my home from October 7, 1963 to October 14, 1963.
/s/ Mrs. Mary E. Bledsoe
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 23rd DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
There was no mention of Oswald's shirt.
So, even if the FBI was obligated to interview Bledsoe, why did they take Oswald's shirt to her home?
-
The FBI was obligated to interview her.
Bledsoe had only given the affidavit, shown below, to the DPD.
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Mary E. Bledsoe, w/f 67, 621 N. Marsalis, Dallas, Texas, Telephone WH2-1985 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Last Friday, November 22, 1963, I went downtown to see the President. I stood on Main Street just across the street from Titche's until the parade passed by. The I walked over to Elm Street and caught a bus to go home. The bus traveled West on Elm Street to about Murphy Street and made a stop and that is when I saw Lee Oswald get on the bus. The traffic was heavy and it took quite sometime [sic] to travel two or three blocks. During that time someone made the statement that the President had been shot and while the bus was stopped due to the heavy traffic, Oswald got off the bus and I didn't see him again. I know this man was Lee Oswald because he lived in my home from October 7, 1963 to October 14, 1963.
/s/ Mrs. Mary E. Bledsoe
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 23rd DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
There was no mention of Oswald's shirt.
So, even if the FBI was obligated to interview Bledsoe, why did they take Oswald's shirt to her home?
And as far as the obligation to interview witnesses goes, can you show me the FD 302 for the interviews with Tomlinson and Wright? And, btw, I'm not talking about the alleged Odum interviews, because no FD 302's have ever been found for those.
Maybe they just wanted to know whether or not Bledsoe would recognize the shirt. I have already said this. The point is that none of this is weird or stands out for any reason whatsoever.
-
Maybe they just wanted to know whether or not Bledsoe would recognize the shirt. I have already said this. The point is that none of this is weird or stands out for any reason whatsoever.
Maybe, perhaps, could have..... words LNs frequently use when they can't answer the question.
Well, rather than guessing, let me provide you with an actual fact;
The FD 302 dated December 4, 1963 about the visit at Bledsoe's home, written by Agents Brown and Butler, states; "When the shirt was removed from an envelope in which it was contained, Mrs. Bledsoe at first said "No no. That's not the shirt".
and "Upon further examination of the shirt, she observed a hole in the right elbow of the shirt at which time she quickly stated, "Yes, yes. This is the shirt".....
Four months later, during her WC testimony she said;
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
<>
Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well---
Mr. BALL - Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though.
Mr. BALL - Who had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Oswald had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald had it on.
Mr. BALL - Now, what is there about the shirt that makes you believe that this is the shirt that Oswald had on when he was on the bus? What is there about it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, let's see the front of it. Yes See all this [indicating]? I remember that.
Mr. BALL - Tell me what you see there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I saw the---no; not so much that. It was done after---that is part I recognize more than anything.
Mr. BALL - You are pointing to a hole in the right elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
So, first she told the FBI agents that it wasn't the shirt, only to then suddenly changing her mind when she sees a hole in the right sleeve. And then, four months later she identifies the shirt as the one shown to her by the FBI agents. But when asked if she had ever seen the shirt "before that" (meaning the FBI visit) she says "No" only to instantly follow it up by saying that "Oswald had it on". And then, when asked how she knows this is the shirt was wearing on the bus she again goes back to the hole in the right sleeve she had observed during the FBI visit.
Could it be, that maybe, perhaps, the FBI took the shirt to Bledsoe to ensure that she had seen it before giving testimony and she screwed it up nevertheless?
-
Maybe, perhaps, could have..... words LNs frequently use when they can't answer the question.
Well, rather than guessing, let me provide you with an actual fact;
The FD 302 dated December 4, 1963 about the visit at Bledsoe's home, written by Agents Brown and Butler, it states; "When the short was removed from an envelope in which it was contained, Mrs. Bledsoe at first said "No no. That's not the shirt".
and "Upon further examination of the shirt, she observed a hole in the right elbow of the shirt at which time she quickly stated, "Yes, yes. This is the shirt".....
Four months later, during her WC testimony she said;
Mr. BALL - Commission Exhibit 150.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - This is a shirt.
Mrs. BLEDSOE - That is it.
Mr. BALL - What do you mean by "that is it?"
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Because they brought it out to the house and showed it.
<>
Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well---
Mr. BALL - Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though.
Mr. BALL - Who had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald.
Mr. BALL - Oswald had it on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oswald had it on.
Mr. BALL - Now, what is there about the shirt that makes you believe that this is the shirt that Oswald had on when he was on the bus? What is there about it?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, let's see the front of it. Yes See all this [indicating]? I remember that.
Mr. BALL - Tell me what you see there?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I saw the---no; not so much that. It was done after---that is part I recognize more than anything.
Mr. BALL - You are pointing to a hole in the right elbow?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.
So, first she told the FBI agents that it wasn't the shirt, only to then suddenly changing her mind when she sees a hole in the right sleeve. And then, four months later she identifies the shirt as the one shown to her by the FBI agents. But when asked if she had ever seen the shirt "before that" (meaning the FBI visit) she says "No" only to instantly follow it up by saying that "Oswald had it on". And then, when asked how she knows this is the shirt was wearing on the bus she again goes back to the hole in the right sleeve she had observed during the FBI visit.
Could it be, that maybe, perhaps, the FBI took the shirt to Bledsoe to ensure that she had seen it before giving testimony and she screwed it up nevertheless?
Could it be, that maybe, perhaps, the FBI took the shirt to Bledsoe to ensure that she had seen it before giving testimony and she screwed it up nevertheless?
As I said before, the FBI (on 12/4/63) had no way of knowing how the Warren Commission was going to proceed. According to Howard Willens (History Will Prove Us Right, page 35):
Hoover staked out a clear position from the outset: if the president had to have this commission, its function should be to receive the FBI’s report, review it, ask questions aimed at clarifying its findings, then endorse the report and disband.
That was apparently the mindset of the FBI at that point in time. The FBI had not yet even submitted its report to JFK. Yet, your fantasy has them plotting to establish something so that Bledsoe would testify a certain way? It is astonishing that anyone could actually believe such a scenario as you described it.
-
Maybe they just wanted to know whether or not Bledsoe would recognize the shirt. I have already said this. The point is that none of this is weird or stands out for any reason whatsoever.
This entire thread is an embarrassment, from the abortion induced OP through to the pointless accusations being thrown around with gay abandon.
1) The FBI showing the shirt to Bledsoe was no secret, they gave a truthful summary which included Bledsoe's initial apprehension and even wrote a report which is accessible.
2) The WC/FBI which has had many accusations of altering testimony didn't in this case
3) The author of the OP alludes to some great mystery regarding the significance of Oswald wearing "that" shirt on the bus, but when confronted resorts to ad hominems, the weakest most pathetic form of rebuttal.
4) For reason I outlined in my previous posts, Oswald in his flight from the scene of the crime was on that bus, he even admitted to various Law Enforcement agents, he was on that bus.
5) Oswald was wearing that shirt later that same day, in fact he was arrested wearing it and now it is within the archives and part of history.
6) Stomberg testified that the three distinctly unique threads found on that rifle had a strong probability of coming from Oswald's shirt but he could not say when they were transferred.
This thread has degenerated into yet another feeble attempt to imply that this singular insignificant event somehow is reason to create doubt, but it is nothing of the kind because all of this evidence hasn't been deliberately hidden but was actually published as part of the record.
JohnM
-
Could it be, that maybe, perhaps, the FBI took the shirt to Bledsoe to ensure that she had seen it before giving testimony and she screwed it up nevertheless?
As I said before, the FBI (on 12/4/63) had no way of knowing how the Warren Commission was going to proceed. According to Howard Willens (History Will Prove Us Right, page 35):
Hoover staked out a clear position from the outset: if the president had to have this commission, its function should be to receive the FBI’s report, review it, ask questions aimed at clarifying its findings, then endorse the report and disband.
That was apparently the mindset of the FBI at that point in time. The FBI had not yet even submitted its report to JFK. Yet, your fantasy has them plotting to establish something so that Bledsoe would testify a certain way? It is astonishing that anyone could actually believe such a scenario as you described it.
It's important to remember that less than 48 hours after the assassination Hoover had determined the outcome of the investigation.
The FBI were to find that Oswald was the sole assassin. No confederates. No accomplice.
"If the president had to have this commission, its function should be to receive the FBI’s report, review it, ask questions aimed at clarifying its findings, then endorse the report and disband."
Less than 48 hours after the assassination Hoover had determined the outcome of the FBI's report, that Oswald was the lone assassin. The Warren Commission was to view this report, ask questions to clarify it's findings, then endorse the report.
That is exactly what the Warren Commission did.
The result of the Commission had been determined before the Commission had even come into being.
And it is in this light that any FBI involvement in the investigation of JFK's assassination must be viewed.
This includes something as seemingly pointless as Bledsoe and the shirt.
Viewed through this lens it becomes obvious that the FBI visited Bledsoe to make sure she 'remembered' Oswald wearing the shirt that they already had fibre evidence for.
But it wasn't the shirt Oswald wore to work that day which demonstrates the FBI fibre evidence was as suspect as Bledsoe's memory and that it was all part of the charade to achieve the outcome of the investigation that Hoover had already determined.
This doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it.
It just means to take the FBI's report (and therefore the findings of the Warren Commission) with a pinch of salt.
-
Could it be, that maybe, perhaps, the FBI took the shirt to Bledsoe to ensure that she had seen it before giving testimony and she screwed it up nevertheless?
As I said before, the FBI (on 12/4/63) had no way of knowing how the Warren Commission was going to proceed. According to Howard Willens (History Will Prove Us Right, page 35):
Hoover staked out a clear position from the outset: if the president had to have this commission, its function should be to receive the FBI’s report, review it, ask questions aimed at clarifying its findings, then endorse the report and disband.
That was apparently the mindset of the FBI at that point in time. The FBI had not yet even submitted its report to JFK. Yet, your fantasy has them plotting to establish something so that Bledsoe would testify a certain way? It is astonishing that anyone could actually believe such a scenario as you described it.
As I said before, the FBI (on 12/4/63) had no way of knowing how the Warren Commission was going to proceed
So, they just investigated the case without knowing what the purpose of the investigation was? Really?
It wouldn't take a genius to work out what the WC investigation would be about.
That was apparently the mindset of the FBI at that point in time. The FBI had not yet even submitted its report to JFK.
First of all, you probably mean LBJ instead of JFK.
Secondly, how in the world is it apparent to you what the mindset of the FBI was at that point in time?
Hoover declared Oswald guilty on 11/24/63 in a memo he wrote to LBJ. Before the end of the following week, Hoover presented LBJ with a FBI report which basically said the same thing. He then made clear to LBJ that he was not in favor of any other investigation.
And you still assume that Hoover had no clue how an investigation, other than his own, would proceed? Really?
Yet, your fantasy has them plotting to establish something so that Bledsoe would testify a certain way?
Prove me wrong and give me another plausible reason for two FBI agents taking Oswald's shirt to Bledsoe's house?
It is astonishing that anyone could actually believe such a scenario as you described it.
No, what is astonishing is that you seem to believe that, after Hoover had already submitted the FBI report and a memo to LBJ, two FBI agents nevertheless took a piece of evidence to a witness' home for the purpose of an identification without actually having a sound reason to do so.
You previously said;
Maybe they just wanted to know whether or not Bledsoe would recognize the shirt.
Which begs the question, why would they want to know that? Was it just curiosity? And if not, what was the purpose for the visit?
-
This entire thread is an embarrassment, from the abortion induced OP through to the pointless accusations being thrown around with gay abandon.
1) The FBI showing the shirt to Bledsoe was no secret, they gave a truthful summary which included Bledsoe's initial apprehension and even wrote a report which is accessible.
2) The WC/FBI which has had many accusations of altering testimony didn't in this case
3) The author of the OP alludes to some great mystery regarding the significance of Oswald wearing "that" shirt on the bus, but when confronted resorts to ad hominems, the weakest most pathetic form of rebuttal.
4) For reason I outlined in my previous posts, Oswald in his flight from the scene of the crime was on that bus, he even admitted to various Law Enforcement agents, he was on that bus.
5) Oswald was wearing that shirt later that same day, in fact he was arrested wearing it and now it is within the archives and part of history.
6) Stomberg testified that the three distinctly unique threads found on that rifle had a strong probability of coming from Oswald's shirt but he could not say when they were transferred.
This thread has degenerated into yet another feeble attempt to imply that this singular insignificant event somehow is reason to create doubt, but it is nothing of the kind because all of this evidence hasn't been deliberately hidden but was actually published as part of the record.
JohnM
I agree with you John. Sadly, the imaginations of the biased ones will run rampant regardless of their lack of evidence and logic.
-
It's important to remember that less than 48 hours after the assassination Hoover had determined the outcome of the investigation.
The FBI were to find that Oswald was the sole assassin. No confederates. No accomplice.
"If the president had to have this commission, its function should be to receive the FBI’s report, review it, ask questions aimed at clarifying its findings, then endorse the report and disband."
Less than 48 hours after the assassination Hoover had determined the outcome of the FBI's report, that Oswald was the lone assassin. The Warren Commission was to view this report, ask questions to clarify it's findings, then endorse the report.
That is exactly what the Warren Commission did.
The result of the Commission had been determined before the Commission had even come into being.
And it is in this light that any FBI involvement in the investigation of JFK's assassination must be viewed.
This includes something as seemingly pointless as Bledsoe and the shirt.
Viewed through this lens it becomes obvious that the FBI visited Bledsoe to make sure she 'remembered' Oswald wearing the shirt that they already had fibre evidence for.
But it wasn't the shirt Oswald wore to work that day which demonstrates the FBI fibre evidence was as suspect as Bledsoe's memory and that it was all part of the charade to achieve the outcome of the investigation that Hoover had already determined.
This doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it.
It just means to take the FBI's report (and therefore the findings of the Warren Commission) with a pinch of salt.
Viewed through this lens it becomes obvious that the FBI visited Bledsoe to make sure she 'remembered' Oswald wearing the shirt that they already had fibre evidence for.
Exactly.
This doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it.
It just means to take the FBI's report (and therefore the findings of the Warren Commission) with a pinch of salt.
Bingo.
Oswald being on the bus or not wasn't the point. They needed a way to put Oswald on the bus wearing that particular shirt because they had nobody except Bledsoe to confirm it.
And Bledsoe has proven herself to be a highly unreliable witness, which is exactly why LNs like Mytton throw a tantrum.
It's just one more piece of evidence that's so flimsy that it can barely evidence at all.
The bottom line is this: Bledsoe did not mention the shirt and the hole in the right sleeve in her first affidavit on 11/23/64. She merely stated that she recognized Oswald because he had lived in her house. That's it!
In her testimony we find out that she only recognized Oswald because of the hole in the right sleeve of a shirt. And, of course, she spills the beans by saying that Agents had brought the shirt to her house before she testified.
It isn't hard to figure out what was going on.....
-
I agree with you John. Sadly, the imaginations of the biased ones will run rampant regardless of their lack of evidence and logic.
When LNs start agreeing with eachother and complain about people they can not convince with their superficial BS as not being logical, you know that they have run out of arguments.
It's pathetic.
-
I agree with you John. Sadly, the imaginations of the biased ones will run rampant regardless of their lack of evidence and logic.
LNer's have the superior ability to see the width, length and depth of the entire picture whereas CT's lack the deductive reasoning to see the entire box and like little monkeys, are trapped in that box throwing faeces at the walls in a desperate attempt to understand.
JohnM
-
LNer's have the superior ability to see the width, length and depth of the entire picture whereas CT's lack the deductive reasoning to see the entire box and like little monkeys, are trapped in that box throwing faeces at the walls in a desperate attempt to understand.
JohnM
Exactly the kind of BS one would expect from a LN.
The biggest (and easiest to fool) idiot in the room is the one who declares himself to be "superior"
-
It's important to remember that less than 48 hours after the assassination Hoover had determined the outcome of the investigation.
The FBI were to find that Oswald was the sole assassin. No confederates. No accomplice.
"If the president had to have this commission, its function should be to receive the FBI’s report, review it, ask questions aimed at clarifying its findings, then endorse the report and disband."
Less than 48 hours after the assassination Hoover had determined the outcome of the FBI's report, that Oswald was the lone assassin. The Warren Commission was to view this report, ask questions to clarify it's findings, then endorse the report.
That is exactly what the Warren Commission did.
The result of the Commission had been determined before the Commission had even come into being.
And it is in this light that any FBI involvement in the investigation of JFK's assassination must be viewed.
This includes something as seemingly pointless as Bledsoe and the shirt.
Viewed through this lens it becomes obvious that the FBI visited Bledsoe to make sure she 'remembered' Oswald wearing the shirt that they already had fibre evidence for.
But it wasn't the shirt Oswald wore to work that day which demonstrates the FBI fibre evidence was as suspect as Bledsoe's memory and that it was all part of the charade to achieve the outcome of the investigation that Hoover had already determined.
This doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it.
It just means to take the FBI's report (and therefore the findings of the Warren Commission) with a pinch of salt.
The FBI were to find that Oswald was the sole assassin.
The FBI had experience with thousands of cases and certain patterns emerge, if there was probative evidence to suggest otherwise then perhaps that would sway the FBI, but look at what they had;
1) Oswald did the murder with a $13 dollar mail order rifle, an organised hit would use a cheap ass rifle? BTW Oswald's Carcano was tested and found to very capable.
2) Oswald didn't have anyone waiting to get him the hell out of there.
3) Oswald did his best impersonation of running around like a chicken without a head, in his pursuit of escape.
4) Oswald wasn't even organised enough to take his revolver but had to stop off at his room to collect it.
5) Oswald's final best bet wasn't to go to some preorganized safe house but to hide in a darkened theatre? LOL!
JohnM
-
It's important to remember that less than 48 hours after the assassination Hoover had determined the outcome of the investigation.
The FBI were to find that Oswald was the sole assassin. No confederates. No accomplice.
"If the president had to have this commission, its function should be to receive the FBI’s report, review it, ask questions aimed at clarifying its findings, then endorse the report and disband."
Less than 48 hours after the assassination Hoover had determined the outcome of the FBI's report, that Oswald was the lone assassin. The Warren Commission was to view this report, ask questions to clarify it's findings, then endorse the report.
That is exactly what the Warren Commission did.
The result of the Commission had been determined before the Commission had even come into being.
And it is in this light that any FBI involvement in the investigation of JFK's assassination must be viewed.
This includes something as seemingly pointless as Bledsoe and the shirt.
Viewed through this lens it becomes obvious that the FBI visited Bledsoe to make sure she 'remembered' Oswald wearing the shirt that they already had fibre evidence for.
But it wasn't the shirt Oswald wore to work that day which demonstrates the FBI fibre evidence was as suspect as Bledsoe's memory and that it was all part of the charade to achieve the outcome of the investigation that Hoover had already determined.
This doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it.
It just means to take the FBI's report (and therefore the findings of the Warren Commission) with a pinch of salt.
Dan, frankly it is obvious that you have fallen for the nonsense that the CT crowd tends to write. If you would (with an open and unbiased mind) balance your reading by including some of what the folks who were actually there and a part of the Warren Commission have written, you should see that your post is full of nothing but conjecture and innuendo that couldn’t be further from the truth. Howard Willens, David Belin, and Arlen Specter have all written excellent books about their experiences and how the Warren Commission went about its business.
Here’s a small snippet from Willens’ book that you might appreciate:
The FBI delivered its report to the department late on December 5—a week after Hoover’s initial target date. I remember “being called to the Deputy’s office and asked to take possession of one of the few copies and review it before it went to the White House.” I prepared “a short two-page release regarding the finding of the report.” The report reflected a prodigious investigative effort conducted by the bureau in less than two weeks. It represented the work of some 150 agents under the direction of Gordon Shanklin, the head of the Dallas field office, who in turn reported to Alexander (“Al”) Rosen, the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s general investigative division.29 The report was seventy-five pages long, supplemented by a thirteen-page index and three volumes of exhibits. Part I described the assassination and identified Oswald as the killer. Part II set forth the evidence “conclusively showing that Oswald did assassinate the President.” Part III discussed what the FBI knew about Oswald prior to the assassination and reported the results of the FBI’s investigation, after the assassination, of Oswald’s background, activities, and associates. The exhibits included the documents relating to Oswald’s contacts with the Soviets and the Communist Party. The FBI found no evidence that Oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill the president. Although the scope of the investigation and the documentation in the FBI report were impressive, I immediately noticed some critical errors that required further review. I concluded that this initial report could not be accepted as a complete or authoritative assessment of the facts relating to the assassination.30
That is exactly what the Warren Commission did.
No they did just the opposite of your claim. But don’t take my word for this. Do your own research. What I just suggested above would be a good start.
Viewed through this lens it becomes obvious that the FBI visited Bledsoe to make sure she 'remembered' Oswald wearing the shirt that they already had fibre evidence for.
You are simply looking through the wrong lens. What is obvious through an unbiased and logical lens is that they were simply trying to find out whether or not Bledsoe remembered seeing that shirt on LHO when she saw him on the bus just after the assassination.
-
Exactly the kind of BS one would expect from a LN.
The biggest (and easiest to fool) idiot in the room is the one who declares himself to be "superior"
Keep throwing that faeces, little monkey!
JohnM
-
The FBI had experience with thousands of cases and certain patterns emerge, if there was probative evidence to suggest otherwise then perhaps that would sway the FBI, but look at what they had;
1) Oswald did the murder with a $13 dollar mail order rifle, an organised hit would use a cheap ass rifle? BTW Oswald's Carcano was tested and found to very capable.
2) Oswald didn't have anyone waiting to get him the hell out of there.
3) Oswald did his best impersonation of running around like a chicken without a head, in his pursuit of escape.
4) Oswald wasn't even organised enough to take his revolver but had to stop off at his room to collect it.
5) Oswald's final best bet wasn't to go to some preorganized safe house but to hide in a darkened theatre? LOL!
JohnM
You are right to ignore the fact that Hoover determined the outcome of the FBI investigation less than 48 hours after the assassination.
The investigation had barely begun and Hoover had already decided what the investigation was going to find.
This is a truth LNers will always have to choke on.
Just as they have to choke on the fact that the Warren Commission was nothing more than a rubber stamp for Hoover's predetermined outcome.
The Warren Commission is the worst kind of sham and it reveals the emptiness of the claim that LNers are those with "the superior ability to see the width, length and depth of the entire picture".
-
Viewed through this lens it becomes obvious that the FBI visited Bledsoe to make sure she 'remembered' Oswald wearing the shirt that they already had fibre evidence for.
You are simply looking through the wrong lens. What is obvious through an unbiased and logical lens is that they were simply trying to find out whether or not Bledsoe remembered seeing that shirt on LHO when she saw him on the bus just after the assassination.
Hilarious. Charles basically agrees with Dan about the purpose for the FBI taking the shirt to Bledsoe's house. They wanted to find out what she remembered.
The problem with Charles' version is that it doesn't explain why they brought the actual shirt along. If they only wanted to know what Bledsoe remembered, they simply could have asked her. So, what was the purpose of bringing the shirt to her house?
-
Keep throwing that faeces, little monkey!
JohnM
Did I bruise your ego yet again, oh superior one? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
You are right to ignore the fact that Hoover determined the outcome of the FBI investigation less than 48 hours after the assassination.
The investigation had barely begun and Hoover had already decided what the investigation was going to find.
This is a truth LNers will always have to choke on.
Just as they have to choke on the fact that the Warren Commission was nothing more than a rubber stamp for Hoover's predetermined outcome.
The Warren Commission is the worst kind of sham and it reveals the emptiness of the claim that LNers are those with "the superior ability to see the width, length and depth of the entire picture".
You are right to ignore the fact that Hoover determined the outcome of the FBI investigation less than 48 hours after the assassination.
I didn't only not ignore it, I met it full on and gave a multitude of reasons of why Oswald being a Lone Gunman was the only solution.
And consider Dan this very important fact, here we are 60+ years later and you and your team have spent a hellava lotta time perhaps ranging in the hundreds of thousands of hours searching in every nook and cranny for something/anything to link this assassination with anybody but Oswald and so far zilch, the initial findings of that initial weekend are still the rock solid foundation of this entire investigation.
And here you people in this very thread are still discussing the lowest of low hanging fruit in a wasted effort to find your "truth" it's all a bit sad, don't you think!
JohnM
-
Dan, frankly it is obvious that you have fallen for the nonsense that the CT crowd tends to write. If you would (with an open and unbiased mind) balance your reading by including some of what the folks who were actually there and a part of the Warren Commission have written, you should see that your post is full of nothing but conjecture and innuendo that couldn’t be further from the truth. Howard Willens, David Belin, and Arlen Specter have all written excellent books about their experiences and how the Warren Commission went about its business.
Here’s a small snippet from Willens’ book that you might appreciate:
The FBI delivered its report to the department late on December 5—a week after Hoover’s initial target date. I remember “being called to the Deputy’s office and asked to take possession of one of the few copies and review it before it went to the White House.” I prepared “a short two-page release regarding the finding of the report.” The report reflected a prodigious investigative effort conducted by the bureau in less than two weeks. It represented the work of some 150 agents under the direction of Gordon Shanklin, the head of the Dallas field office, who in turn reported to Alexander (“Al”) Rosen, the assistant director in charge of the FBI’s general investigative division.29 The report was seventy-five pages long, supplemented by a thirteen-page index and three volumes of exhibits. Part I described the assassination and identified Oswald as the killer. Part II set forth the evidence “conclusively showing that Oswald did assassinate the President.” Part III discussed what the FBI knew about Oswald prior to the assassination and reported the results of the FBI’s investigation, after the assassination, of Oswald’s background, activities, and associates. The exhibits included the documents relating to Oswald’s contacts with the Soviets and the Communist Party. The FBI found no evidence that Oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill the president. Although the scope of the investigation and the documentation in the FBI report were impressive, I immediately noticed some critical errors that required further review. I concluded that this initial report could not be accepted as a complete or authoritative assessment of the facts relating to the assassination.30
That is exactly what the Warren Commission did.
No they did just the opposite of your claim. But don’t take my word for this. Do your own research. What I just suggested above would be a good start.
Viewed through this lens it becomes obvious that the FBI visited Bledsoe to make sure she 'remembered' Oswald wearing the shirt that they already had fibre evidence for.
You are simply looking through the wrong lens. What is obvious through an unbiased and logical lens is that they were simply trying to find out whether or not Bledsoe remembered seeing that shirt on LHO when she saw him on the bus just after the assassination.
Let me get this straight.
According to Willens, Hoover's report to the Commission "identified Oswald as the killer", "conclusively showing that Oswald did assassinate the President" and that there was "no evidence that Oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill the president".
Hoover had already decided exactly this outcome less than 48 hours after the assassination.
He decided exactly this outcome before the investigation had barely started.
Don't you find that strange?
Is this another in the long line of things that you're not surprised about, that you should be surprised about?
As you've already posted, according to Willens:
"If the president had to have this commission, its function should be to receive the FBI’s report, review it, ask questions aimed at clarifying its findings, then endorse the report and disband."
The Warren Commission was nothing more than a rubber stamp for Hoover's predetermined outcome - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
What you've posted, as some kind of attempt to show otherwise, only confirms this.
I'd advise a little less reading what others think and more finding out for yourself.
-
Did I bruise your ego yet again, oh superior one? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Hilarious, your unnecessarily excessive usage of emoticons in a desperate effort to emphasize your meaningless pointless assertion is a true indication of how empty you and your arguments truly are. Pathetic!
JohnM
-
I didn't only not ignore it, I met it full on and gave a multitude of reasons of why Oswald being a Lone Gunman was the only solution.
And consider Dan this very important fact, here we are 60+ years later and you and your team have spent a hellava lotta time perhaps ranging in the hundreds of thousands of hours searching in every nook and cranny for something/anything to link this assassination with anybody but Oswald and so far zilch, the initial findings of that initial weekend are still the rock solid foundation of this entire investigation.
And here you people in this very thread are still discussing the lowest of low hanging fruit in a wasted effort to find your "truth" it's all a bit sad, don't you think!
JohnM
I didn't only not ignore it
You completely ignored the fact that Hoover had determined the outcome of the investigation less than 48 hours after the assassination.
You didn't deal with this issue in any way.
All you did was try to deflect from this uncomfortable truth and I understand why you did.
And here you people in this very thread are still discussing the lowest of low hanging fruit in a wasted effort to find your "truth" it's all a bit sad, don't you think!
I'll tell you what I think is sad, John, your 'all colours turn white in daylight' nonsense.
Now that is truly embarrassing.
It is also sad and disappointing.
-
Hilarious, your unnecessarily excessive usage of emoticons in a desperate effort to emphasize your meaningless pointless assertion is a true indication of how empty you and your arguments truly are. Pathetic!
JohnM
Oh, poor Johnny... so many words and nothing of any significance to say.
Just keep digging the hole, mr "superior" Thumb1:
-
I didn't only not ignore it
You completely ignored the fact that Hoover had determined the outcome of the investigation less than 48 hours after the assassination.
You didn't deal with this issue in any way.
All you did was try to deflect from this uncomfortable truth and I understand why you did.
And here you people in this very thread are still discussing the lowest of low hanging fruit in a wasted effort to find your "truth" it's all a bit sad, don't you think!
I'll tell you what I think is sad, John, your 'all colours turn white in daylight' nonsense.
Now that is truly embarrassing.
It is also sad and disappointing.
Dan repost the post where I specifically said the quote you attributed to me 'all colours turn white in daylight', and if you don't then I demand a public apology!
JohnM
-
I didn't only not ignore it, I met it full on and gave a multitude of reasons of why Oswald being a Lone Gunman was the only solution.
And consider Dan this very important fact, here we are 60+ years later and you and your team have spent a hellava lotta time perhaps ranging in the hundreds of thousands of hours searching in every nook and cranny for something/anything to link this assassination with anybody but Oswald and so far zilch, the initial findings of that initial weekend are still the rock solid foundation of this entire investigation.
And here you people in this very thread are still discussing the lowest of low hanging fruit in a wasted effort to find your "truth" it's all a bit sad, don't you think!
JohnM
And here you people in this very thread are still discussing the lowest of low hanging fruit in a wasted effort to find your "truth" it's all a bit sad, don't you think!
And here you are, day after day, trying to defend the WC findings and argue about so-called "low hanging fruit"!
It begs the question why you are actually here, when you constantly claim the case against Oswald is rock solid. I thought you once claimed you had a life, so is this it?
-
Oh, poor Johnny... so many words and nothing of any significance to say.
Just keep digging the hole, mr "superior" Thumb1:
Of course, we are the very definition of superior because we solved this decades ago and this FACT will, and always will be what is recorded in the History Books, whereas you are reduced in your confusion to slinging your own faeces at anyone who questions your stupidity.
JohnM
-
And here you people in this very thread are still discussing the lowest of low hanging fruit in a wasted effort to find your "truth" it's all a bit sad, don't you think!
And here you are, day after day, trying to defend the WC findings and argue about so-called "low hanging fruit"!
It begs the question why you are actually here, when you constantly claim the case against Oswald is rock solid. I thought you once claimed you had a life, so is this it?
This for me, is now more of a study into the psychology of the twisted misguided Conspiracy Theorist, who without a shred of proof and on a stack of lies have created an entire industry. It is absolutely fascinating that you all pray to your Gods(The Conspiracy authors who profit off and take advantage of your misery) and the way that you are all led around like mindless sheep quoting the misinformation and lies in your ever increasing list Biblical literature.
JohnM
-
Dan repost the post where I specifically said the quote you attributed to me 'all colours turn white in daylight', and if you don't then I demand a public apology!
JohnM
If I was attributing a quote to you I would have put it in quotation marks.
But I didn't.
For anyone unfamiliar with John's 'all colours turn white in daylight' theory just go to "The Man On The 6th Floor" thread where you will see it treated with the contempt it deserves.
In short, four of the five eyewitnesses who described the man on the 6th floor have him wearing an open-necked sports shirt that is so light coloured it almost appears white. Almost but not quite. This is a massive problem for those, like John, who believe it was Oswald who took the shots because Oswald wasn't wearing such a shirt that day.
The assassin was wearing clothes that Oswald wasn't.
It's just one piece of evidence among many supporting the view that it wasn't Oswald who actually took the shots.
So, how does John deal with this inconvenient piece of evidence?
His method is to take an overexposed photograph of Oswald that has the sun shining on some parts of his shirt. The part of the shirt that has the sun shining on it makes the colour of the shirt look almost white because the picture is overexposed.
He then argues that this is why the shirt the eyewitnesses saw the man on the 6th floor wearing looked almost white - because the sun was shining on it. He tries to argue that the effect of sunlight on colour in an overexposed photograph is the same effect seen in normal sunlight. He is, in effect, arguing that daylight turns all colours white.
You might think I'm joking but I'm not.
Anyone interested in this nonsense can find it at "The Man On The 6th Floor" thread.
-
Of course, we are the very definition of superior because we solved this decades ago and this FACT will, and always will be what is recorded in the History Books, whereas you are reduced in your confusion to slinging your own faeces at anyone who questions your stupidity.And here you people in this very thread are still discussing the lowest of low hanging fruit in a wasted effort to find your "truth" it's all a bit sad, don't you think!
JohnM
we solved this decades ago
Who is "we"? Are you actually one of the investigators in your wet dreams?
You solved nothing at all. You just was easily fooled like every fool who considers himself to be superior always will be.
this FACT will, and always will be what is recorded in the History Books
And there is the old crappy History books nonsense again. You fail to understand that those same History books also mention that the majority of the people did not and still do not believe the official story.
Maybe you could get away with your BS when the printing press was just invented and most people were not educated, but in this day and age, with the internet in play, that's not how it works anymore.
whereas you are reduced in your confusion to slinging your own faeces at anyone who questions your stupidity
Do you question my stupidity?
And here you people in this very thread are still discussing the lowest of low hanging fruit in a wasted effort to find your "truth" it's all a bit sad, don't you think!
Not as sad as some keyboard junkie who feels the need to try (and fail) to discredit a simple discussion about a 60 year old event and gets all worked up when his BS doesn't work.
I've known you long enough by now to understand that whenever you run out of credible arguments you automatically go ad hominem. This is just one more example....
-
This for me, is now more of a study into the psychology of the twisted misguided Conspiracy Theorist, who without a shred of proof and on a stack of lies have created an entire industry. It is absolutely fascinating that you all pray to your Gods(The Conspiracy authors who profit off and take advantage of your misery) and the way that you are all led around like mindless sheep quoting the misinformation and lies in your ever increasing list Biblical literature.
JohnM
This for me, is now more of a study into the psychology of the twisted misguided Conspiracy Theorist, who without a shred of proof and on a stack of lies have created an entire industry.
Yet you failed to understand that the Bledsoe matter is 100% evidence based and that it's actually about how the evidence should be interpreted.
It is absolutely fascinating that you all pray to your God
I'm an atheist and don't pray to any God. As far as I am concerned Darwin was correct.
the way that you are all led around like mindless sheep quoting the misinformation and lies in your ever increasing list Biblical literature.
Like you are blindly accepting the BS that the WC and your hero Bugs are telling you?
Mr "Superior" is blindly accepting whatever the official story is..... is that what it is, Johnny?
-
[quohttps://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Themes/FadedCurve/images/bbc/img.gifte author=Dan O'meara link=topic=4212.msg161930#msg161930 date=1742434482]
If I was attributing a quote to you I would have put it in quotation marks.
But I didn't.
For anyone unfamiliar with John's 'all colours turn white in daylight' theory just go to "The Man On The 6th Floor" thread where you will see it treated with the contempt it deserves.
In short, four of the five eyewitnesses who described the man on the 6th floor have him wearing an open-necked sports shirt that is so light coloured it almost appears white. Almost but not quite. This is a massive problem for those, like John, who believe it was Oswald who took the shots because Oswald wasn't wearing such a shirt that day.
The assassin was wearing clothes that Oswald wasn't.
It's just one piece of evidence among many supporting the view that it wasn't Oswald who actually took the shots.
So, how does John deal with this inconvenient piece of evidence?
His method is to take an overexposed photograph of Oswald that has the sun shining on some parts of his shirt. The part of the shirt that has the sun shining on it makes the colour of the shirt look almost white because the picture is overexposed.
He then argues that this is why the shirt the eyewitnesses saw the man on the 6th floor wearing looked almost white - because the sun was shining on it. He tries to argue that the effect of sunlight on colour in an overexposed photograph is the same effect seen in normal sunlight. He is, in effect, arguing that daylight turns all colours white.
You might think I'm joking but I'm not.
Anyone interested in this nonsense can find it at "The Man On The 6th Floor" thread.
[/quote]
...sports shirt that is so light coloured it almost appears white. Almost but not quite.
Interesting so you admit your quote of what I supposedly said 'all colours turn white in daylight' was a lie! Despicable!
Brennan who got the best look for a length of time describes Khaki coloured.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what kind of clothes he was wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. Light colored clothes, more of a khaki color.
And for the nth time Oswald's shirt appeared a light Khaki when exposed to the sun.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Sxmr8pr5/oswald-arrest-theatre-b.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/2b/6f/8e/2b6f8e8fd46db721040f8a0fd2b27c19.jpg)
JohnM
-
If I was attributing a quote to you I would have put it in quotation marks.
But I didn't.
For anyone unfamiliar with John's 'all colours turn white in daylight' theory just go to "The Man On The 6th Floor" thread where you will see it treated with the contempt it deserves.
In short, four of the five eyewitnesses who described the man on the 6th floor have him wearing an open-necked sports shirt that is so light coloured it almost appears white. Almost but not quite. This is a massive problem for those, like John, who believe it was Oswald who took the shots because Oswald wasn't wearing such a shirt that day.
The assassin was wearing clothes that Oswald wasn't.
It's just one piece of evidence among many supporting the view that it wasn't Oswald who actually took the shots.
So, how does John deal with this inconvenient piece of evidence?
His method is to take an overexposed photograph of Oswald that has the sun shining on some parts of his shirt. The part of the shirt that has the sun shining on it makes the colour of the shirt look almost white because the picture is overexposed.
He then argues that this is why the shirt the eyewitnesses saw the man on the 6th floor wearing looked almost white - because the sun was shining on it. He tries to argue that the effect of sunlight on colour in an overexposed photograph is the same effect seen in normal sunlight. He is, in effect, arguing that daylight turns all colours white.
You might think I'm joking but I'm not.
Anyone interested in this nonsense can find it at "The Man On The 6th Floor" thread.
Mr. John "Superior" Mytton once claimed that Oswald in the sniper's nest on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not only able to see Norman and Jarman directly beneath them (which in reality was physically impossible) but also see them walk on Houston to the back of the building and then conclude they would enter the back of the building.
This guy will claim anything, no matter how pathetic or impossible, to defend the official story. He's not to be taken seriously!
-
Mr. John "Superior" Mytton once claimed that Oswald in the sniper's nest on the 6th floor of the TSBD was not only able to see Norman and Jarman directly beneath them (which in reality was physically impossible) but also see them walk on Houston to the back of the building and then conclude they would enter the back of the building.
This guy will claim anything, no matter how pathetic or impossible, to defend the official story. He's not to be taken seriously!
Sorry Martin, your claim comes from not being able to see through a closed window when you allegedly visited the 6th floor museum, but not only was the window open on the 22nd but Oswald was sitting sideways on the window, did you try sitting sideways on the sniper's nest window when you visited the 6th floor museum? Or as usual are you making self serving assumptions?! Try again.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.
JohnM
-
Sorry Martin, your claim comes from not being able to see through a closed window when you allegedly visited the 6th floor museum, but not only was the window open on the 22nd but Oswald was sitting sideways on the window, did you try sitting sideways on the sniper's nest window when you visited the 6th floor museum? Or as usual are you making self serving assumptions?! Try again.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.
JohnM
Sorry Martin, your claim comes from not being able to see through a closed window when you allegedly visited the 6th floor museum, but not only was the window open on the 22nd but Oswald was sitting sideways on the window, did you try sitting sideways on the sniper's nest window when you visited the 6th floor museum? Or as usual are you making self serving assumptions?! Try again.
There is no need for me to try again. You've already made a fool of yourself. Anybody who claims that a person on the 6th floor not only can see people standing below him at street level but also walking next to the building in Houston is just either delusional or a liar. Which one are you?
-
Sorry Martin, your claim comes from not being able to see through a closed window when you allegedly visited the 6th floor museum, but not only was the window open on the 22nd but Oswald was sitting sideways on the window, did you try sitting sideways on the sniper's nest window when you visited the 6th floor museum? Or as usual are you making self serving assumptions?! Try again.
There is no need for me to try again. You've already made a fool of yourself. Anybody who claims that a person on the 6th floor not only can see people standing below him at street level but also walking next to the building in Houston is just either delusional or a liar. Which one are you?
Calm down Martin before you pop!
(https://i.postimg.cc/Cxb3MYKQ/Weidmann-about-to-explode.gif)
Of course you can look down to street level if you are sitting sideways high up on a window sill, haven't you never left your Parents basement?
And Oswald who had an obvious vested interest in keeping track of what was happening with his fellow employees, sees Junior and Norman disappear from below and then he can hear them suddenly appear on the floor right below, Oswald knows that they didn't get Beamed up ala Star Trek, but went up by the rear lift/stairs.
BTW have you worked out yet what a "room" is? Hahahaha!
• Just one more thing that I need to post!
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he told me he was having lunch when the President was shot.
Mr. BALL. With whom?
Mr. FRITZ. With someone called Junior, someone he worked with down there, but he didn't remember the other boy's name.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you what he was eating?
Jarman says that he never saw Oswald after 12 PM
The last time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon when he was taking the elevator upstairs to go get some boxes.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/jarman1.htm
Norman testified that to the best of his memory that he never saw Oswald after 10 AM
On the 22nd of November, 1963, to the best of my memory, the last time I saw him was about 10:00 A.M. when we were both working on the first floor of the building. I did not speak to him at that time.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/norman_1.htm
JohnM
-
Calm down Martin before you pop!
(https://i.postimg.cc/Cxb3MYKQ/Weidmann-about-to-explode.gif)
Of course you can look down to street level if you are sitting sideways high up on a window sill, haven't you never left your Parents basement?
And Oswald who had an obvious vested interest in keeping track of what was happening with his fellow employees, sees Junior and Norman disappear from below and then he can hear them suddenly appear on the floor right below, Oswald knows that they didn't get Beamed up ala Star Trek, but went up by the rear lift/stairs.
BTW have you worked out yet what a "room" is? Hahahaha!
Just one more thing that I need to post!
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he told me he was having lunch when the President was shot.
Mr. BALL. With whom?
Mr. FRITZ. With someone called Junior, someone he worked with down there, but he didn't remember the other boy's name.
Mr. BALL. Did he tell you what he was eating?
The last time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon when he was taking the elevator upstairs to go get some boxes.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/jarman1.htm
On the 22nd of November, 1963, to the best of my memory, the last time I saw him was about 10:00 A.M. when we were both working on the first floor of the building. I did not speak to him at that time.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/norman_1.htm
JohnM
Getting desperate again, Johnny?
-
[quohttps://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Themes/FadedCurve/images/bbc/img.gifte author=Dan O'meara link=topic=4212.msg161930#msg161930 date=1742434482]
If I was attributing a quote to you I would have put it in quotation marks.
But I didn't.
For anyone unfamiliar with John's 'all colours turn white in daylight' theory just go to "The Man On The 6th Floor" thread where you will see it treated with the contempt it deserves.
In short, four of the five eyewitnesses who described the man on the 6th floor have him wearing an open-necked sports shirt that is so light coloured it almost appears white. Almost but not quite. This is a massive problem for those, like John, who believe it was Oswald who took the shots because Oswald wasn't wearing such a shirt that day.
The assassin was wearing clothes that Oswald wasn't.
It's just one piece of evidence among many supporting the view that it wasn't Oswald who actually took the shots.
So, how does John deal with this inconvenient piece of evidence?
His method is to take an overexposed photograph of Oswald that has the sun shining on some parts of his shirt. The part of the shirt that has the sun shining on it makes the colour of the shirt look almost white because the picture is overexposed.
He then argues that this is why the shirt the eyewitnesses saw the man on the 6th floor wearing looked almost white - because the sun was shining on it. He tries to argue that the effect of sunlight on colour in an overexposed photograph is the same effect seen in normal sunlight. He is, in effect, arguing that daylight turns all colours white.
You might think I'm joking but I'm not.
Anyone interested in this nonsense can find it at "The Man On The 6th Floor" thread.
Interesting so you admit your quote of what I supposedly said 'all colours turn white in daylight' was a lie! Despicable!
Brennan who got the best look for a length of time describes Khaki coloured.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what kind of clothes he was wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. Light colored clothes, more of a khaki color.
And for the nth time Oswald's shirt appeared a light Khaki when exposed to the sun.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Sxmr8pr5/oswald-arrest-theatre-b.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/2b/6f/8e/2b6f8e8fd46db721040f8a0fd2b27c19.jpg)
JohnM
And for the nth time Oswald's shirt appeared a light Khaki when exposed to the sun.
I literally can't believe you're standing by this argument.
This is the actual shirt that Oswald is wearing in the photo John posted and this is the colour it would have appeared in daylight:
(https://i.postimg.cc/c4HgQzsj/Oswaldshirtarrest.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
The day of the assassination was a beautiful, clear day. Blue skies and sunshine. The perfect day for the human eye to detect the full spectrum of visible colour.
Oswald's shirt would have appeared the colour that it really was.
John's argument, that this colour would have bleached to the almost white colour he points out in the overexposed photo he posted, is bizarre bordering on disturbing.
He has been given the chance to retract this nonsense but instead he's decided to double down on it.
Why has he taken this irrational path?
Ronald Fischer, Bob Edwards, Arnold Rowland and Howard Brennan all describe the man on the 6th floor wearing a shirt that was so light coloured it was almost white.
They are describing clothes that Oswald wasn't wearing that day.
This is one piece of powerful evidence that the assassin was not Oswald.
If it was just one eyewitness it could be brushed off, but it's four.
LNers have to deal with this and, in a panic, end up spouting the kind of irrational nonsense John is, rather than accept the evidence.
John should do what all other LNers do with this type of evidence - stay quiet until it has passed by.
-
Hilarious. Charles basically agrees with Dan about the purpose for the FBI taking the shirt to Bledsoe's house. They wanted to find out what she remembered.
The problem with Charles' version is that it doesn't explain why they brought the actual shirt along. If they only wanted to know what Bledsoe remembered, they simply could have asked her. So, what was the purpose of bringing the shirt to her house?
The questions should be:
Why wouldn’t they bring the actual shirt along?
Why wouldn’t they want to show this shirt to Bledsoe and any others who saw LHO that day?
Why is this supposed to be something sinister (in your imagination)?
What is wrong with your thinking?
-
Let me get this straight.
According to Willens, Hoover's report to the Commission "identified Oswald as the killer", "conclusively showing that Oswald did assassinate the President" and that there was "no evidence that Oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill the president".
Hoover had already decided exactly this outcome less than 48 hours after the assassination.
He decided exactly this outcome before the investigation had barely started.
Don't you find that strange?
Is this another in the long line of things that you're not surprised about, that you should be surprised about?
As you've already posted, according to Willens:
"If the president had to have this commission, its function should be to receive the FBI’s report, review it, ask questions aimed at clarifying its findings, then endorse the report and disband."
The Warren Commission was nothing more than a rubber stamp for Hoover's predetermined outcome - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
What you've posted, as some kind of attempt to show otherwise, only confirms this.
I'd advise a little less reading what others think and more finding out for yourself.
Don't you find that strange?
The Dallas Police Department and District Attorney decided there was enough evidence to charge LHO with two murders within 12-hours of the assassination. When all the evidence points to LHO, and only LHO, that is the logical conclusion. The only thing I find strange is why, over 60-years later, people are still skeptical.
The Warren Commission was nothing more than a rubber stamp for Hoover's predetermined outcome - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
That is simply not true. It was apparently what Hoover himself would have preferred. But the Warren Commission and its staff took their assignment very seriously. Willens’ read their report before it even went to the White House. I already posted what he wrote about his reading of it. The creation of the Warren Commission ensured that Hoover would not have the final word. You don’t have to look very hard to see that this is true.
-
As I said before, the FBI (on 12/4/63) had no way of knowing how the Warren Commission was going to proceed
So, they just investigated the case without knowing what the purpose of the investigation was? Really?
It wouldn't take a genius to work out what the WC investigation would be about.
That was apparently the mindset of the FBI at that point in time. The FBI had not yet even submitted its report to JFK.
First of all, you probably mean LBJ instead of JFK.
Secondly, how in the world is it apparent to you what the mindset of the FBI was at that point in time?
Hoover declared Oswald guilty on 11/24/63 in a memo he wrote to LBJ. Before the end of the following week, Hoover presented LBJ with a FBI report which basically said the same thing. He then made clear to LBJ that he was not in favor of any other investigation.
And you still assume that Hoover had no clue how an investigation, other than his own, would proceed? Really?
Yet, your fantasy has them plotting to establish something so that Bledsoe would testify a certain way?
Prove me wrong and give me another plausible reason for two FBI agents taking Oswald's shirt to Bledsoe's house?
It is astonishing that anyone could actually believe such a scenario as you described it.
No, what is astonishing is that you seem to believe that, after Hoover had already submitted the FBI report and a memo to LBJ, two FBI agents nevertheless took a piece of evidence to a witness' home for the purpose of an identification without actually having a sound reason to do so.
You previously said;
Which begs the question, why would they want to know that? Was it just curiosity? And if not, what was the purpose for the visit?
No, what is astonishing is that you seem to believe that, after Hoover had already submitted the FBI report and a memo to LBJ, two FBI agents nevertheless took a piece of evidence to a witness' home for the purpose of an identification without actually having a sound reason to do so.
You are wrong again. The report dated 12/4/63 is clearly before Hoover submitted the report late in the day on 12/5/63. The FBI clearly had reason (and an obligation) to interview Bledsoe.
-
Don't you find that strange?
The Dallas Police Department and District Attorney decided there was enough evidence to charge LHO with two murders within 12-hours of the assassination. When all the evidence points to LHO, and only LHO, that is the logical conclusion. The only thing I find strange is why, over 60-years later, people are still skeptical.
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.
The Warren Commission was nothing more than a rubber stamp for Hoover's predetermined outcome - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
That is simply not true. It was apparently what Hoover himself would have preferred. But the Warren Commission and its staff took their assignment very seriously. Willens’ read their report before it even went to the White House. I already posted what he wrote about his reading of it. The creation of the Warren Commission ensured that Hoover would not have the final word. You don’t have to look very hard to see that this is true.
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.
-
And for the nth time Oswald's shirt appeared a light Khaki when exposed to the sun.
I literally can't believe you're standing by this argument.
This is the actual shirt that Oswald is wearing in the photo John posted and this is the colour it would have appeared in daylight:
(https://i.postimg.cc/c4HgQzsj/Oswaldshirtarrest.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
The day of the assassination was a beautiful, clear day. Blue skies and sunshine. The perfect day for the human eye to detect the full spectrum of visible colour.
Oswald's shirt would have appeared the colour that it really was.
John's argument, that this colour would have bleached to the almost white colour he points out in the overexposed photo he posted, is bizarre bordering on disturbing.
He has been given the chance to retract this nonsense but instead he's decided to double down on it.
Why has he taken this irrational path?
Ronald Fischer, Bob Edwards, Arnold Rowland and Howard Brennan all describe the man on the 6th floor wearing a shirt that was so light coloured it was almost white.
They are describing clothes that Oswald wasn't wearing that day.
This is one piece of powerful evidence that the assassin was not Oswald.
If it was just one eyewitness it could be brushed off, but it's four.
LNers have to deal with this and, in a panic, end up spouting the kind of irrational nonsense John is, rather than accept the evidence.
John should do what all other LNers do with this type of evidence - stay quiet until it has passed by.
I had a close look at the testimonies of Fischer and Edwards, to see what may be missing from your abbreviated synopsis.
Edwards saw Oswald for the total time of a few seconds, WOW! And describes an open neck shirt.
Mr. BELIN - How long did you look at him?
Mr. EDWARDS - Just a few seconds.
Mr. BELIN - What kind of clothes did he have on?
Mr. EDWARDS - Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck.
Fischer who saw Oswald after being alerted by Edwards sees Oswald for 10 to 15 seconds and says that Oswald was wearing an open neck shirt which could have been a T-Shirt, a small detail that you omitted.
Mr. FISCHER - .......And I looked up and I watched the man for, oh, I'd say, 10 or 15 seconds.
Mr. FISCHER - He was in the---as you're looking toward that window, he was in the lower right portion of the window. He seemed to be sitting a little forward.
And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white,
While I still believe that they saw Oswald's shirt which was much lighter in sunlight, another plausible consideration which satisfies your criteria is the following photo which after a quick look of just seconds, appears white.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mDW4YsLv/Dark-shirt-qhieq-e-shirt.jpg)
And as for Rowland he saw an elderly negro, and along with his history of exaggeration and lies, he will not be considered. Window "A" is the sniper's nest window.
Mr. SPECTER - At about what time was it that you observed someone hanging out of the window that you have marked as window "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - Again about 12:15 just before I noticed the other man.
Mr. SPECTER - You have marked the double window there. Would you draw the arrow in the red pencil indicating specifically which window it was.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe with as much particularity as you can what that man looked like?
Mr. ROWLAND - It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I didn't pay very much attention to him.
(https://i.postimg.cc/63FM2WBZ/CE-356-Rowland-windows.jpg)
JohnM
-
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?
-
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.
-
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”.
-
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
-
“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.
.
-
“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.
-
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?
-
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
-
The questions should be:
Why wouldn’t they bring the actual shirt along?
Why wouldn’t they want to show this shirt to Bledsoe and any others who saw LHO that day?
Why is this supposed to be something sinister (in your imagination)?
What is wrong with your thinking?
Why wouldn’t they bring the actual shirt along?
You seem to be under the impression that there is nothing abnormal about FBI agents carrying pieces of evidence around, when in fact it's not normal at all.
Your opinion is just as wacky as the one you have about the chain of custody.
Why wouldn’t they want to show this shirt to Bledsoe and any others who saw LHO that day?
Except, they didn't show it to others. They only showed it to Bledsoe and it could be (and is) construed as witness tampering.
What is wrong with your thinking?
Nothing, but I'm afraid you will never understand that.
-
??
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
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7692/thread
-
Another snip from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 42-42:
The commission had a long discussion about the FBI report and its annexes, which the members had received a week earlier. Warren and Russell noted that virtually everything contained in the FBI report had already appeared in the press. One major issue that came up right away was the bureau’s preliminary finding regarding the bullets that struck President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally. The FBI concluded that two bullets had struck the president and a third had wounded Connally. To support this assessment, the FBI relied in part on the initial, but inaccurate, information from Parkland Hospital that the first bullet that hit Kennedy had not exited from his body. As captured in the transcript of the meeting, the members did not react favorably. BOGGS: “There is nothing in there about Governor Connally.” CHAIRMAN: “No.” COOPER: “ And whether or not they found any bullets in him.” MCCLOY: “This bullet business leaves me confused.” CHAIRMAN: “It’s totally inconclusive.” […] MCCLOY: “I think you ought to have the autopsy documents.” CHAIRMAN: “By all means we ought to have the medical reports.” McCloy reminded members that the FBI had been under considerable pressure to complete the report.42 Warren proposed that the commission request all agencies submitting reports to provide the underlying investigative materials on which they were based. He told the members that after reading the FBI report he had the feeling that “unless we had the raw materials that went into the making of this report and had an opportunity to examine those raw materials and make our own appraisal, that any appraisal of this report would be little or nothing.” He added that the commission should continue to get such raw materials as they are obtained from the agencies so that it could be kept current regarding ongoing investigations. The commission unanimously approved his motion and followed this practice with respect to all the summary reports submitted by the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service. By emphasizing its need to see the basic investigative materials—the interview reports, the ballistic and other scientific analyses, and key documents—the commission was driving home the message that it alone had the responsibility to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions.43
This is not, I repeat not, depending solely on the FBI for their information.
-
Another snip from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 42-42:
The commission had a long discussion about the FBI report and its annexes, which the members had received a week earlier. Warren and Russell noted that virtually everything contained in the FBI report had already appeared in the press. One major issue that came up right away was the bureau’s preliminary finding regarding the bullets that struck President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally. The FBI concluded that two bullets had struck the president and a third had wounded Connally. To support this assessment, the FBI relied in part on the initial, but inaccurate, information from Parkland Hospital that the first bullet that hit Kennedy had not exited from his body. As captured in the transcript of the meeting, the members did not react favorably. BOGGS: “There is nothing in there about Governor Connally.” CHAIRMAN: “No.” COOPER: “ And whether or not they found any bullets in him.” MCCLOY: “This bullet business leaves me confused.” CHAIRMAN: “It’s totally inconclusive.” […] MCCLOY: “I think you ought to have the autopsy documents.” CHAIRMAN: “By all means we ought to have the medical reports.” McCloy reminded members that the FBI had been under considerable pressure to complete the report.42 Warren proposed that the commission request all agencies submitting reports to provide the underlying investigative materials on which they were based. He told the members that after reading the FBI report he had the feeling that “unless we had the raw materials that went into the making of this report and had an opportunity to examine those raw materials and make our own appraisal, that any appraisal of this report would be little or nothing.” He added that the commission should continue to get such raw materials as they are obtained from the agencies so that it could be kept current regarding ongoing investigations. The commission unanimously approved his motion and followed this practice with respect to all the summary reports submitted by the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service. By emphasizing its need to see the basic investigative materials—the interview reports, the ballistic and other scientific analyses, and key documents—the commission was driving home the message that it alone had the responsibility to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions.43
This is not, I repeat not, depending solely on the FBI for their information.
Absolutely they are. Their basis for the SBT was from the FBI report as a beginning point.
They had no independent investigators to conclude the SBT. It was FBI Shaneyfelt.
-
Don't you find that strange?
The Dallas Police Department and District Attorney decided there was enough evidence to charge LHO with two murders within 12-hours of the assassination. When all the evidence points to LHO, and only LHO, that is the logical conclusion. The only thing I find strange is why, over 60-years later, people are still skeptical.
The Warren Commission was nothing more than a rubber stamp for Hoover's predetermined outcome - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
That is simply not true. It was apparently what Hoover himself would have preferred. But the Warren Commission and its staff took their assignment very seriously. Willens’ read their report before it even went to the White House. I already posted what he wrote about his reading of it. The creation of the Warren Commission ensured that Hoover would not have the final word. You don’t have to look very hard to see that this is true.
The Dallas Police Department and District Attorney decided there was enough evidence to charge LHO with two murders within 12-hours of the assassination.
Charging somebody with a crime doesn't automatically make them guilty. Any investigator will tell you that frequently investigations ultimately yield different results than what was at first assumed.
When all the evidence points to LHO, and only LHO, that is the logical conclusion.
They were in no position to conclude in such a short time period that the evidence only pointed to LHO. There is no way they could have eliminated everybody else at the time they charged Oswald.
They jumped to a conclusion.
-
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7692/thread
??
Richard Carr, ..... told the FBI ...... stories of more than one man in the window.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: You can say what you said.
RICHARD RANDOLPH CARR: I thought he was a Secret Agent man or an FBI man.
Q: What did the man in the window look like?
RICHARD RANDOLPH CARR: He had on a hat, a felt hat, a light hat, he had on heavy-rimmed glasses, dark, the glasses were heavy-rimmed, and heavy ear pieces on his glasses.
Q: Go ahead.
RICHARD RANDOLPH CARR: He had on a tie, he had on a light shirt, a tan sport coat.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/carrshaw.htm
JohnM
-
Why wouldn’t they bring the actual shirt along?
You seem to be under the impression that there is nothing abnormal about FBI agents carrying pieces of evidence around, when in fact it's not normal at all.
Your opinion is just as wacky as the one you have about the chain of custody.
Why wouldn’t they want to show this shirt to Bledsoe and any others who saw LHO that day?
Except, they didn't show it to others. They only showed it to Bledsoe and it could be (and is) construed as witness tampering.
What is wrong with your thinking?
Nothing, but I'm afraid you will never understand that.
The FBI also carried CE 399 back to Parkland Hospital to show it to the witnesses in June. The DPD showed the bag to Wesley Frazier. It is not so unusual for witnesses to be shown evidence. You are freaking out about nothing unusual at all.
-
??
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
Carolyn Walther to FBI:
"This man was standing in about the middle of the window. In this same window, to the left of this man, she could see a portion of another man standing by the side of the man with a rifle. This other man was standing erect, and his head was above the opened portion of the window. As the window was very dirty, she could not see the head of this second man. She is positive this window was not as high as the sixth floor. This second man was apparently wearing a brown suit coat, and the only thing she could see was the right side of the man, from about the waist to the shoulders." https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce2086.htm
Richard Carr to Shaw trial:
"The same man that I saw here in this window was with the three men that I told you a minute ago, they came out
from behind the School Book Depository, got in the station wagon, one man crossed the street and then came down
this side of Houston Street and turned onto Commerce Street."
"The FBI came to my house—there were two of them—and they said they heard I witnessed the assassination
and I said I did. They told me, "If you didn't see Lee Harvey Oswald up in the School Book Depository with a rifle,
you didn't witness it." I said, “ Well, the man I saw on television that they tell me is Lee Harvey Oswald was not
in the window of the School Book Depository. That’s not the man.” And [one of the agents] said I better keep my mouth shut.
He did not ask me what I saw, he told me what I saw."
More than one man in the window
-
Absolutely they are. Their basis for the SBT was from the FBI report as a beginning point.
They had no independent investigators to conclude the SBT. It was FBI Shaneyfelt.
The point is that the Warren Commission began questioning the FBI’s conclusions from the very beginning. And they insisted on having the raw evidence on which to base their own conclusions. The Warren Commission went to Dealey Plaza and conducted their own investigation in order to verify that the single bullet theory was correct. That is completely opposite to what you are claiming.
-
The point is that the Warren Commission began questioning the FBI’s conclusions from the very beginning. And they insisted on having the raw evidence on which to base their own conclusions. The Warren Commission went to Dealey Plaza and conducted their own investigation in order to verify that the single bullet theory was correct. That is completely opposite to what you are claiming.
"...insisted on having the raw evidence..."
Is there a document for this?
What? their own investigation? They followed Shaneyfelt's conclusion of the SBT
Is there a WC document or meeting that they discussed this investigation? - It is not in Executive session.
Please don't quote a book some 30+ years too late
-
Carolyn Walther to FBI:
"This man was standing in about the middle of the window. In this same window, to the left of this man, she could see a portion of another man standing by the side of the man with a rifle. This other man was standing erect, and his head was above the opened portion of the window. As the window was very dirty, she could not see the head of this second man. She is positive this window was not as high as the sixth floor. This second man was apparently wearing a brown suit coat, and the only thing she could see was the right side of the man, from about the waist to the shoulders." https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce2086.htm
Richard Carr to Shaw trial:
"The same man that I saw here in this window was with the three men that I told you a minute ago, they came out
from behind the School Book Depository, got in the station wagon, one man crossed the street and then came down
this side of Houston Street and turned onto Commerce Street."
"The FBI came to my house—there were two of them—and they said they heard I witnessed the assassination
and I said I did. They told me, "If you didn't see Lee Harvey Oswald up in the School Book Depository with a rifle,
you didn't witness it." I said, “ Well, the man I saw on television that they tell me is Lee Harvey Oswald was not
in the window of the School Book Depository. That’s not the man.” And [one of the agents] said I better keep my mouth shut.
He did not ask me what I saw, he told me what I saw."
More than one man in the window
??
Carr saw 1 man in the window! There was not four men in the window. Carr's story in the Shaw trial goes from three men emerging from behind the Depository to four?
Q: What did the man in the window look like?
A: He had on a hat, a felt hat, a light hat, he had on heavy-rimmed glasses, dark, the glasses were heavy-rimmed, and heavy ear pieces on his glasses.
Q: North being the top of the photomap, north is the top as you have indicated?
A: North is the top, and it was headed in this direction towards the railroad tracks, and immediately after the shooting there was three men that emerged from behind the School Book Depository
THE COURT: You may explain.
A: The same man that I saw here in this window was with the three men that I told you a minute ago, they came out from behind the School Book Depository
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/carrshaw.htm
JohnM
-
??
Carr saw 1 man in the window! There was not four men in the window. Carr's story in the Shaw trial goes from three men emerging from behind the Depository to four?
Q: What did the man in the window look like?
A: He had on a hat, a felt hat, a light hat, he had on heavy-rimmed glasses, dark, the glasses were heavy-rimmed, and heavy ear pieces on his glasses.
Q: North being the top of the photomap, north is the top as you have indicated?
A: North is the top, and it was headed in this direction towards the railroad tracks, and immediately after the shooting there was three men that emerged from behind the School Book Depository
THE COURT: You may explain.
A: The same man that I saw here in this window was with the three men that I told you a minute ago, they came out from behind the School Book Depository
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/carrshaw.htm
JohnM
Then saw more than one man run out of back of TSBD - and they all got into a car together.....
"The same man that I saw here in this window was with the three men that I told you a minute ago, they came out
from behind the School Book Depository, got in the station wagon, one man crossed the street and then came down
this side of Houston Street and turned onto Commerce Street."
"And [one of the agents] said I better keep my mouth shut. He did not ask me what I saw, he told me what I saw."
-
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7692/thread
The page you linked to is full of misinformation and total garbage. Whoever wrote it, is a crackpot!
JohnM
-
Here's another one:
Johnny Powell, was an inmate in the Dallas County Jail, on a 3 day lock up for vagrancy. He was seventeen years old on November 22nd.
His cell was on the 6th floor at the corner of Houston & Elm St., where he and other inmates, had a corner view of the 'sniper's nest' at TSBD.
In 1978, he told Dallas Reporter, Earl Golz, "...he watched two men with a rifle on the 6th floor of TSBD across the street..."
"When he looked the men were "fooling with" a scope on a rifle." They were "darker than light", with, "brownish type work clothes.."
In Sept.'64 one of Jack Ruby's attorneys, Stanley Kaufman, made a suggestion to Commission Assistant Counsel,
Leon Herbert, that the prisoners, "...had a good view of what took place..." "it might be helpful to the Commission to
know that there were people in jail who saw the actual killing." That suggestion was ignored.
Powell, corroborates the others. More than one person in the window, with a darker than white complexion, and light brown clothing
https://jfk.boards.net/post/7692
-
"...insisted on having the raw evidence..."
Is there a document for this?
What? their own investigation? They followed Shaneyfelt's conclusion of the SBT
Is there a WC document or meeting that they discussed this investigation? - It is not in Executive session.
Please don't quote a book some 30+ years too late
The reference note #42 in the quote from Willens’ book that I already posted reads:
Warren Commission, Executive Session Transcript, 2/16/63, 11-12, RIf 179-10001-10002; JFK Summary Report 1, 18.
Additionally:
The Willens book is based on his contemporary journal that he kept and updated regularly during his time with the Warren Commission. If this interests you, you can watch a very lengthy multi-day interview that the Sixth Floor Museum did with Howard Willens about that journal. The Sixth Floor Museum also has online a copy or transcript of his original journal for anyone to review.
-
The reference note #42 in the quote from Willens’ book that I already posted reads:
Warren Commission, Executive Session Transcript, 2/16/63, 11-12, RIf 179-10001-10002; JFK Summary Report 1, 18.
Additionally:
The Willens book is based on his contemporary journal that he kept and updated regularly during his time with the Warren Commission. If this interests you, you can watch a very lengthy multi-day interview that the Sixth Floor Museum did with Howard Willens about that journal. The Sixth Floor also has online a copy or transcript of his original journal for anyone to review.
There was no independent investigation of the SBT. WC followed the recommendations of FBI Shaneyfelt
-
Then saw more than one man run out of back of TSBD - and they all got into a car together.....
"The same man that I saw here in this window was with the three men that I told you a minute ago, they came out
from behind the School Book Depository, got in the station wagon, one man crossed the street and then came down
this side of Houston Street and turned onto Commerce Street."
"And [one of the agents] said I better keep my mouth shut. He did not ask me what I saw, he told me what I saw."
Carr's testimony is clear as mud;
1 man was in the window, then on his way to the rear of the building he met three men who ran out first, then later he clarified the man in the window left with the three men and they became four?? WTF!
JohnM
-
Carr's testimony is clear as mud;
1 man was in the window, then on his way to the rear of the building he met three men who ran out first, then later he clarified the man in the window left with the three men and they became four?? WTF!
JohnM
Because the FBI wanted nothing to do with him.
-
There was no independent investigation of the SBT. WC followed the recommendations of FBI Shaneyfelt
No they did not. If you think Shaneyfelt came up with this idea and provided all the information needed to verify that it was correct, then why did this not find it’s way into the 12/5/63 FBI report? You need to cite your sources.
-
No they did not. If you think Shaneyfelt came up with this idea and provided all the information needed to verify that it was correct, then why did this not find it’s way into the 12/5/63 FBI report? You need to cite your sources.
Please cite who, where, and when the WC independently came up with the SBT.
The entire case and conclusion was brought to them by the FBI.
"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."
-
Because the FBI wanted nothing to do with him.
Yeah no kidding Sherlock, he was a nutcase.
As for your other eyewitness Carolyn Walther, she was a nutcase too, her floor guess was either the 4th or 5th floor, yeah the 4th floor with all the ladies or the 5th floor the one with the black fella's? Hahaha!
And on your linked page you say Brennan got the floor wrong too, but Brennan's first day affidavit describes the 2nd floor from the top, the 6th floor! Doh!
I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east endof [sic] the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
And in case you missed my previous post; "The page you linked to is full of misinformation and total garbage. Whoever wrote it, is a crackpot!"
JohnM
-
Yeah no kidding Sherlock, he was a nutcase.
As for your other eyewitness Carolyn Walther, she was a nutcase too, her floor guess was either the 4th or 5th floor, yeah the 4th floor with all the ladies or the 5th floor the one with the black fella's? Hahaha!
And on your linked page you say Brennan got the floor wrong too, but Brennan's first day affidavit describes the 2nd floor from the top, the 6th floor! Doh!
I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east endof [sic] the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
And in case you missed my previous post; "The page you linked to is full of misinformation and total garbage. Whoever wrote it, is a crackpot!"
JohnM
You know he did it, because you know he did it.
That's how you know he did it.
-
No they did not. If you think Shaneyfelt came up with this idea and provided all the information needed to verify that it was correct, then why did this not find it’s way into the 12/5/63 FBI report? You need to cite your sources.
The initial FBI report suggested iirc three shots, three hits.
1) Kennedy back
2) Connally back
3) Kennedy head
JohnM
-
The initial FBI report suggested iirc three shots, three hits.
1) Kennedy back
2) Connally back
3) Kennedy head
JohnM
Yes.
-
The initial FBI report suggested iirc three shots, three hits.
1) Kennedy back
2) Connally back
3) Kennedy head
Yes.
Then better evidence emerged.
These Zapruder alternating frames I don't believe were part of the initial analysis but IMO best illustrate both men being struck simultaneously.
Here is Connally's jacket billowing outwards.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FR1rpQwG/Z-Film-Clip-SBT-In-Motion-3.gif)
Here is both men reacting simultaneously.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6QM6CQby/109-Z225-Z226-Toggling-Clip.gif)
JohnM
-
The initial FBI report suggested iirc three shots, three hits.
1) Kennedy back
2) Connally back
3) Kennedy head
JohnM
Exactly, and the Warren Commission immediately had issues and questions about that conclusion. That is not what anyone should call rubber-stamping the FBI report and not doing their own investigation.
-
Then better evidence emerged.
These Zapruder alternating frames I don't believe were part of the initial analysis but IMO best illustrate both men being struck simultaneously.
Here is Connally's jacket billowing outwards.
JohnM
"...billowing outwards" LOL
"Bye Bye Jacket Bulge"
https://jfk.boards.net/post/710/thread
-
Exactly, and the Warren Commission immediately had issues and questions about that conclusion. That is not what anyone should call rubber-stamping the FBI report and not doing their own investigation.
where specifically are are those " issues and questions about that conclusion..."
Even so, it was FBI Shaneyfelt that came up with it.
DPD Officer Foster and James Teague brought them a missed shot. That was April & June '64
“They had to go back and rewrite the Warren Commission,” Tague said. “That’s where the magic bullet came from. That’s the only thing they could come up with. That one bullet went through two people.”
-
"...billowing outwards" LOL
"Bye Bye Jacket Bulge"
https://jfk.boards.net/post/710/thread
Herbert Blenner's psycho babble vs my own two eyes! Hmmm?
(https://i.postimg.cc/FR1rpQwG/Z-Film-Clip-SBT-In-Motion-3.gif)
BTW you have Herbert Blenner "in fond remembrance", has he passed?
JohnM
-
BTW you have Herbert Blenner "in fond remembrance", has he passed?
JohnM
Yes he has.
-
Yes he has.
That's a shame, I enjoyed my debates with Herbert.
JohnM
-
where specifically are are those " issues and questions about that conclusion..."
Even so, it was FBI Shaneyfelt that came up with it.
DPD Officer Foster and James Teague brought them a missed shot. That was April & June '64
“They had to go back and rewrite the Warren Commission,” Tague said. “That’s where the magic bullet came from. That’s the only thing they could come up with. That one bullet went through two people.”
I already posted the quote and source note. Here is more from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 46:
The commission had earlier deferred the question whether it should issue a public statement after it had received the FBI report. Before appointing the commission, President Johnson had announced that the FBI report would be made public. Based on their initial review of the FBI report, the commission members did not wish to endorse or reject the bureau’s conclusions until the commission itself had examined the underlying materials and conducted the additional investigation necessary. Consequently, after adjournment that day, Warren told reporters that the commission would not be issuing any summary of the FBI report or any statement about it. That struck me as a wise decision. Any endorsement of the report at that early stage of the commission’s existence would have thoroughly compromised its mission, in light of the widespread skepticism about the FBI report and the outstanding questions not addressed by it. Hoover was displeased. He complained to his lieutenants that Warren’s insistence on seeing the supporting materials for the report was an insult. He described Warren’s comment as “entirely unwarranted” and could have been better phrased “so as not to leave the impression, at least by innuendo, that the FBI had not done a thorough job.”51
51. Church Committee Report, 48
By the way, I have (and have read) an autographed copy of Tague’s book. Yes, Shaneyfelt did help find and document the bullet mark on the south curb of Main Street near where Tague was standing. I showed some of that work in my “The Other Single Bullet Theory” thread. But I do not believe that the idea of the original single bullet theory was first derived from Shaneyfelt’s work.
-
I already posted the quote and source note. Here is more from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 46:
The commission had earlier deferred the question whether it should issue a public statement after it had received the FBI report. Before appointing the commission, President Johnson had announced that the FBI report would be made public. Based on their initial review of the FBI report, the commission members did not wish to endorse or reject the bureau’s conclusions until the commission itself had examined the underlying materials and conducted the additional investigation necessary. Consequently, after adjournment that day, Warren told reporters that the commission would not be issuing any summary of the FBI report or any statement about it. That struck me as a wise decision. Any endorsement of the report at that early stage of the commission’s existence would have thoroughly compromised its mission, in light of the widespread skepticism about the FBI report and the outstanding questions not addressed by it. Hoover was displeased. He complained to his lieutenants that Warren’s insistence on seeing the supporting materials for the report was an insult. He described Warren’s comment as “entirely unwarranted” and could have been better phrased “so as not to leave the impression, at least by innuendo, that the FBI had not done a thorough job.”51
51. Church Committee Report, 48
By the way, I have (and have read) an autographed copy of Tague’s book. Yes, Shaneyfelt did help find and document the bullet mark on the south curb of Main Street near where Tague was standing. I showed some of that work in my “The Other Single Bullet Theory” thread. But I do not believe that the idea of the original single bullet theory was first derived from Shaneyfelt’s work.
How does this provide any source for an independent investigation of the murder or the SBT?
The only source of evidence the WC had was the FBI. WC only saw what they showed them.
-
The FBI also carried CE 399 back to Parkland Hospital to show it to the witnesses in June. The DPD showed the bag to Wesley Frazier. It is not so unusual for witnesses to be shown evidence. You are freaking out about nothing unusual at all.
The FBI also carried CE 399 back to Parkland Hospital to show it to the witnesses in June
Really? There is no FD 302 for this visit, Odum denies it ever took place and Tomlinson is on record saying that he was only shown a bullet once, by SAC Shanklin in December 1963,
The DPD showed the bag to Wesley Frazier.
Yes, they did, on Friday evening at the police station. The bag never left the building.
It is not so unusual for witnesses to be shown evidence. You are freaking out about nothing unusual at all.
What is it? "not so unusual" or "nothing unusual"? Make your mind up!
As you clearly are a WC apologist there isn't anything I can say that you will accept.
-
"This "Tentative Outline" was attached to a "Progress Report" dated January 11, 1964, from Commission Chairman Earl Warren to the other Commission members, and reveals the extent to which the Commission's conclusions were formulated prior to its investigation."
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappA.html
The source of this evidence is the FBI Investigation.
-
How does this provide any source for an independent investigation of the murder or the SBT?
The only source of evidence the WC had was the FBI. WC only saw what they showed them.
Again, the WC had the authority to do its own investigation. And it did so. Here is another small example of the WC exercising that authority. They had plenty of other sources than the FBI.
Snip from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 50:
Beginning on December 20, 1963, I devoted the next three weeks to assisting Rankin in getting the commission staffed and organized. He asked that I review all applications we received and prepare recommendations of qualified candidates to fill our younger lawyer slots, reserving the selection of senior lawyers to Warren and himself. We implemented the commission’s desire for underlying investigative materials by getting letters out to a long list of federal agencies requesting documents and information about any relationship the agencies might have had with Oswald, his wife Marina, his family, or his associates. I began to prepare an outline of the overall investigation for his consideration, building on the earlier effort by criminal division lawyers. And, as the FBI began to provide the underlying supporting materials, I undertook to review them, however superficially, in an initial effort to determine where they fell within the range of the commission’s work, so that they could be duplicated and ready for distribution to our lawyers when they arrived.57
I even underlined the part where the WC went directly to other sources than the FBI so that it would stand out for you.
-
Again, the WC had the authority to do its own investigation. And it did so. Here is another small example of the WC exercising that authority. They had plenty of other sources than the FBI.
Snip from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 50:
Beginning on December 20, 1963, I devoted the next three weeks to assisting Rankin in getting the commission staffed and organized. He asked that I review all applications we received and prepare recommendations of qualified candidates to fill our younger lawyer slots, reserving the selection of senior lawyers to Warren and himself. We implemented the commission’s desire for underlying investigative materials by getting letters out to a long list of federal agencies requesting documents and information about any relationship the agencies might have had with Oswald, his wife Marina, his family, or his associates. I began to prepare an outline of the overall investigation for his consideration, building on the earlier effort by criminal division lawyers. And, as the FBI began to provide the underlying supporting materials, I undertook to review them, however superficially, in an initial effort to determine where they fell within the range of the commission’s work, so that they could be duplicated and ready for distribution to our lawyers when they arrived.57
I even underlined the part where the WC went directly to other sources than the FBI so that it would stand out for you.
Again, the WC had the authority to do its own investigation
But they didn't do it and relied on the FBI for all evidence requests
"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."
You forgot this part:
...as the FBI began to provide the underlying supporting materials,...
Tentative Outline | Jan. 11 1964
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappA.html
This came from Chief Justice Earl Warren, I would guess it was given to him by DOJ
-
We are supposed to believe that the fantasy conspirators didn't have enough on their plate assassinating the president in broad daylight, framing Oswald for the crime, covering up the involvement of anyone else including retrieving any such evidence from the authorities, but they also need to place Oswald on a bus that takes him absolutely nowhere and advances the plot not one iota? To do this they have to find an old lady willing to lie about his presence of the bus. How to make this convincing? Ah yes, claim she recognized his shirt because it had a hole in it. Quick like a bunny obtain the shirt and cut a hole in it. No worries that he was arrested and filmed in that shirt before the world press. That makes perfect sense. So clever these conspirators. Putting on that bus that gets stuck in traffic was a stroke of genius. LOL.
-
We are supposed to believe that the fantasy conspirators didn't have enough on their plate assassinating the president in broad daylight, framing Oswald for the crime, covering up the involvement of anyone else including retrieving any such evidence from the authorities, but they also need to place Oswald on a bus that takes him absolutely nowhere and advances the plot not one iota? To do this they have to find an old lady willing to lie about his presence of the bus. How to make this convincing? Ah yes, claim she recognized his shirt because it had a hole in it. Quick like a bunny obtain the shirt and cut a hole in it. No worries that he was arrested and filmed in that shirt before the world press. That makes perfect sense. So clever these conspirators. Putting on that bus that gets stuck in traffic was a stroke of genius. LOL.
You create your own argument that even doesn't exist.
No one is saying more than half of what you printed here.
-
You create your own argument that even doesn't exist.
No one is saying more than half of what you printed here.
So Oswald was on the bus as confirmed by a witness? He had a hole in his shirt that she recognized etc. No one here is saying that was the product of lies and fakery on behalf of the authorities to frame Oswald? No one? LOL.
-
So Oswald was on the bus as confirmed by a witness? He had a hole in his shirt that she recognized etc. No one here is saying that was the product of lies and fakery on behalf of the authorities to frame Oswald? No one? LOL.
So Oswald was on the bus as confirmed by a witness?
Well, that's what Bledsoe said. All we have is her word for it.
He had a hole in his shirt that she recognized etc.
In her affidavit of 11/23/63 she says nothing about Oswald's shirt.
That only came into play later and her testimony about it is at best extremely confusing.
No one here is saying that was the product of lies and fakery on behalf of the authorities to frame Oswald?
What was "the product of lies and fakery"?
As per usual you completely miss the point. This was never about placing Oswald on the bus where Bledsoe saw him.
It was all about trying to put Oswald's arrest shirt (with the hole in the right sleeve) on him while he was on the bus.
-
So this entire complex fantasy is about trying to put a shirt on Oswald while he was on the bus? They stage Oswald's presence on a bus, somehow convince a random witness to confirm he got on, keep everyone else on the bus forever silent, and tamper with evidence to do this. Why was that necessary? The only explanation that I've ever seen is that they wanted to connect the shirt to the fibers on the rifle. But hold on Batman. As CTers endlessly point out, the FBI never said the shirt fibers came from the shirt. They merely said they were consistent with those fibers. Why engage in this risky exercise for that limited purpose? If they were controlling and manipulating the evidence, why not just say that any shirt that Oswald was wearing upon his arrest matched the fibers found on the rifle and any claims that he changed his shirt were just a fabrication of a guilty person? No one would ever dispute that. And who would care if they did. Instead they engage in this elaborate fabrication drawing others into the plot. That's laughable.
-
Another snip from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 65, that indicates the Warren Commission was not rubber stamping the FBI’s reports but conducting its own investigation.
The initial press coverage of the commission was favorable. Although the commission had made no public statement regarding its initial decisions, one Washington Post reporter apparently had a very good source among the commission members. Early in January, he reported that the commission “is undertaking a far more wide-ranging and independent inquiry than most Washington observers expected.” He went on to report that the commission would not be accepting any set of premises, or formulating even tentative conclusions, until it made its own investigation. He said the commission would use “its own counsel and staff to interview sources already questioned by the FBI and the police,” conduct its own investigation, and take the testimony of witnesses in Washington.17
17. Roscoe Drummond, “The Warren Commission…. The Task is Broadened”, Washington Post, January 4, 1964.
-
We are supposed to believe that the fantasy conspirators didn't have enough on their plate assassinating the president in broad daylight, framing Oswald for the crime, covering up the involvement of anyone else including retrieving any such evidence from the authorities, but they also need to place Oswald on a bus that takes him absolutely nowhere and advances the plot not one iota? To do this they have to find an old lady willing to lie about his presence of the bus. How to make this convincing? Ah yes, claim she recognized his shirt because it had a hole in it. Quick like a bunny obtain the shirt and cut a hole in it. No worries that he was arrested and filmed in that shirt before the world press. That makes perfect sense. So clever these conspirators. Putting on that bus that gets stuck in traffic was a stroke of genius. LOL.
The CT's just want to make out that almost every single fact in this case that contributes to Oswald's guilt, is a product of lies. But what would the WC have to do just in this one instance to manufacture a fake Bus journey to nowhere?
1) Locate the lady who rented out a room in early October to Oswald.
2) Or just make it all up with some generic Old Lady who somehow accounts for a week of Oswald's life and hope that the true whereabouts of Oswald in that week isn't exposed.
3) Have the Dallas Police and/or the FBI collaborate with this old lady, so her Oswald on the Bus story in her second day affidavit is convincing.
4) Have Fritz in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
5) Have Bookout in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
6) Having Hosty in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
7) Find a bus that was in traffic at the same time and have the Bus Driver part of the plan.
8] Get the bus driver to lie about giving out a Bus Transfer to a man who only travelled a few blocks.
9) Get the old lady to say that the man only travelled a few blocks.
10) Have the old lady and the bus driver collaborate on some minor details, like the guy coming to the bus door and saying the President has been shot and the lady carrying her luggage going to to the railway station and who received a Bus Transfer and got off at the same time as Oswald, so as to make the bus journey convincing.
11) Have the bus Driver get a bus transfer and punch it with the appropriate time.
12) Have the Police plant the bus transfer on Oswald
12) Or have another Police officer lie about searching Oswald and recovering the bus transfer.
13) Have the bus driver attend a Line-up and tell him not to identify Oswald, because, well, why not?
14) Take out a shirt to the old lady and convince her to say Oswald was wearing that shirt.
15) Cut out a hole in Oswald's shirt sleave because we need some distinctive feature.
16) Have the FBI agents who took the shirt write in their report that the old lady initially didn't think that the shirt was the same shirt but she eventually came around.
17) Accidentally have the old lady recall this incident in her testimony and then forget to erase this uncomfortable fact from the record.
Wow eh? For this one inconsequential bus ride we need to go to a lot of trouble and involve an excessive cast of liars.
Now to be an effective liar you need to be convincing and have a good memory so as to make the entire story plausible, and this story needs to be collaborated consistently across an entire group of vastly different individuals, and let's not forget this single story is just one tiny aspect of many of the witnesses testimony!
The CT's rarely think through their allegations and how their accusations would actually play out in the Real World! It's easy to say that this or that is faked but to actually make a believable narrative, as seen above, requires a massive amount of co-ordination.
JohnM
-
Another snip from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 65, that indicates the Warren Commission was not rubber stamping the FBI’s reports but conducting its own investigation.
The initial press coverage of the commission was favorable. Although the commission had made no public statement regarding its initial decisions, one Washington Post reporter apparently had a very good source among the commission members. Early in January, he reported that the commission “is undertaking a far more wide-ranging and independent inquiry than most Washington observers expected.” He went on to report that the commission would not be accepting any set of premises, or formulating even tentative conclusions, until it made its own investigation. He said the commission would use “its own counsel and staff to interview sources already questioned by the FBI and the police,” conduct its own investigation, and take the testimony of witnesses in Washington.17
17. Roscoe Drummond, “The Warren Commission…. The Task is Broadened”, Washington Post, January 4, 1964.
"..already questioned by the FBI..."
-
So this entire complex fantasy is about trying to put a shirt on Oswald while he was on the bus? They stage Oswald's presence on a bus, somehow convince a random witness to confirm he got on, keep everyone else on the bus forever silent, and tamper with evidence to do this. Why was that necessary? The only explanation that I've ever seen is that they wanted to connect the shirt to the fibers on the rifle. But hold on Batman. As CTers endlessly point out, the FBI never said the shirt fibers came from the shirt. They merely said they were consistent with those fibers. Why engage in this risky exercise for that limited purpose? If they were controlling and manipulating the evidence, why not just say that any shirt that Oswald was wearing upon his arrest matched the fibers found on the rifle and any claims that he changed his shirt were just a fabrication of a guilty person? No one would ever dispute that. And who would care if they did. Instead they engage in this elaborate fabrication drawing others into the plot. That's laughable.
Once again you are creating your own strawman argument. Seems common for you.
Who said that they staged Oswald's presence on a bus?
As per usual you've got in backwards. Bledsoe signed an affidavit on 11/23/63 in which she states that she saw Oswald on the bus. A pretty harmless matter by itself.
The only explanation that I've ever seen is that they wanted to connect the shirt to the fibers on the rifle.
You're slow, but you are starting to understand.
As CTers endlessly point out, the FBI never said the shirt fibers came from the shirt. They merely said they were consistent with those fibers.
Which is absolutely true. And it shows just how weak the case against Oswald really is.
They found a rifle at the TSBD which, at best, they can only tentatively link to Oswald by a questionable opinion of an FBI handwriting expert and a photo copy of an internal Klein's document with a handwritten serial number on it.
What they don't have is a witness who saw Oswald wear the shirt he was arrested in at the TSBD. That means those fibers, which, at best, have limited evidentiary value by themselves and no value whatsoever if they can not link it to a source.
And then they have this old, very confused, lady named Blesloe..... Can you figure out what the next step could be to try to connect the fibres to the rifle and the arrest shirt?
If they were controlling and manipulating the evidence, why not just say that any shirt that Oswald was wearing upon his arrest matched the fibers found on the rifle and any claims that he changed his shirt were just a fabrication of a guilty person?
Easy to answer, but it will probably go way over your head anyway! The best lie is the one that stays as close to the truth as possible. Why make up a bogus story and risk that at some point in the future the truth is actually discovered?
-
The CT's just want to make out that almost every single fact in this case that contributes to Oswald's guilt, is a product of lies. But what would the WC have to do just in this one instance to manufacture a fake Bus journey to nowhere?
1) Locate the lady who rented out a room in early October to Oswald.
2) Or just make it all up with some generic Old Lady who somehow accounts for a week of Oswald's life and hope that the true whereabouts of Oswald in that week isn't exposed.
3) Have the Dallas Police and/or the FBI collaborate with this old lady, so her Oswald on the Bus story in her second day affidavit is convincing.
4) Have Fritz in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
5) Have Bookout in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
6) Having Hosty in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
7) Find a bus that was in traffic at the same time and have the Bus Driver part of the plan.
8] Get the bus driver to lie about giving out a Bus Transfer to a man who only travelled a few blocks.
9) Get the old lady to say that the man only travelled a few blocks.
10) Have the old lady and the bus driver collaborate on some minor details, like the guy coming to the bus door and saying the President has been shot and the lady carrying her luggage going to to the railway station and who received a Bus Transfer and got off at the same time as Oswald, so as to make the bus journey convincing.
11) Have the bus Driver get a bus transfer and punch it with the appropriate time.
12) Have the Police plant the bus transfer on Oswald
12) Or have another Police officer lie about searching Oswald and recovering the bus transfer.
13) Have the bus driver attend a Line-up and tell him not to identify Oswald, because, well, why not?
14) Take out a shirt to the old lady and convince her to say Oswald was wearing that shirt.
15) Cut out a hole in Oswald's shirt sleave because we need some distinctive feature.
16) Have the FBI agents who took the shirt write in their report that the old lady initially didn't think that the shirt was the same shirt but she eventually came around.
17) Accidentally have the old lady recall this incident in her testimony and then forget to erase this uncomfortable fact from the record.
Wow eh? For this one inconsequential bus ride we need to go to a lot of trouble and involve an excessive cast of liars.
Now to be an effective liar you need to be convincing and have a good memory so as to make the entire story plausible, and this story needs to be collaborated consistently across an entire group of vastly different individuals, and let's not forget this single story is just one tiny aspect of many of the witnesses testimony!
The CT's rarely think through their allegations and how their accusations would actually play out in the Real World! It's easy to say that this or that is faked but to actually make a believable narrative, as seen above, requires a massive amount of co-ordination.
JohnM
This is why no one can take you seriously.
-
The CT's just want to make out that almost every single fact in this case that contributes to Oswald's guilt, is a product of lies. But what would the WC have to do just in this one instance to manufacture a fake Bus journey to nowhere?
1) Locate the lady who rented out a room in early October to Oswald.
2) Or just make it all up with some generic Old Lady who somehow accounts for a week of Oswald's life and hope that the true whereabouts of Oswald in that week isn't exposed.
3) Have the Dallas Police and/or the FBI collaborate with this old lady, so her Oswald on the Bus story in her second day affidavit is convincing.
4) Have Fritz in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
5) Have Bookout in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
6) Having Hosty in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
7) Find a bus that was in traffic at the same time and have the Bus Driver part of the plan.
8] Get the bus driver to lie about giving out a Bus Transfer to a man who only travelled a few blocks.
9) Get the old lady to say that the man only travelled a few blocks.
10) Have the old lady and the bus driver collaborate on some minor details, like the guy coming to the bus door and saying the President has been shot and the lady carrying her luggage going to to the railway station and who received a Bus Transfer and got off at the same time as Oswald, so as to make the bus journey convincing.
11) Have the bus Driver get a bus transfer and punch it with the appropriate time.
12) Have the Police plant the bus transfer on Oswald
12) Or have another Police officer lie about searching Oswald and recovering the bus transfer.
13) Have the bus driver attend a Line-up and tell him not to identify Oswald, because, well, why not?
14) Take out a shirt to the old lady and convince her to say Oswald was wearing that shirt.
15) Cut out a hole in Oswald's shirt sleave because we need some distinctive feature.
16) Have the FBI agents who took the shirt write in their report that the old lady initially didn't think that the shirt was the same shirt but she eventually came around.
17) Accidentally have the old lady recall this incident in her testimony and then forget to erase this uncomfortable fact from the record.
Wow eh? For this one inconsequential bus ride we need to go to a lot of trouble and involve an excessive cast of liars.
Now to be an effective liar you need to be convincing and have a good memory so as to make the entire story plausible, and this story needs to be collaborated consistently across an entire group of vastly different individuals, and let's not forget this single story is just one tiny aspect of many of the witnesses testimony!
The CT's rarely think through their allegations and how their accusations would actually play out in the Real World! It's easy to say that this or that is faked but to actually make a believable narrative, as seen above, requires a massive amount of co-ordination.
JohnM
I always love a list that goes to 17. It's laughable that CTers believe all this was faked for such a limited purpose. It's even internally inconsistent if the CTers believe the conspirators had the willingness and ability to manipulate the evidence to their desired purpose. But logic is wasted on the contrarian/CTer "mind." They would not be CTers to begin with if they understood and could apply logic to this case.
-
The CT's just want to make out that almost every single fact in this case that contributes to Oswald's guilt, is a product of lies. But what would the WC have to do just in this one instance to manufacture a fake Bus journey to nowhere?
1) Locate the lady who rented out a room in early October to Oswald.
2) Or just make it all up with some generic Old Lady who somehow accounts for a week of Oswald's life and hope that the true whereabouts of Oswald in that week isn't exposed.
3) Have the Dallas Police and/or the FBI collaborate with this old lady, so her Oswald on the Bus story in her second day affidavit is convincing.
4) Have Fritz in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
5) Have Bookout in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
6) Having Hosty in on the deal as he tells lies about Oswald saying he was on the Bus.
7) Find a bus that was in traffic at the same time and have the Bus Driver part of the plan.
8] Get the bus driver to lie about giving out a Bus Transfer to a man who only travelled a few blocks.
9) Get the old lady to say that the man only travelled a few blocks.
10) Have the old lady and the bus driver collaborate on some minor details, like the guy coming to the bus door and saying the President has been shot and the lady carrying her luggage going to to the railway station and who received a Bus Transfer and got off at the same time as Oswald, so as to make the bus journey convincing.
11) Have the bus Driver get a bus transfer and punch it with the appropriate time.
12) Have the Police plant the bus transfer on Oswald
12) Or have another Police officer lie about searching Oswald and recovering the bus transfer.
13) Have the bus driver attend a Line-up and tell him not to identify Oswald, because, well, why not?
14) Take out a shirt to the old lady and convince her to say Oswald was wearing that shirt.
15) Cut out a hole in Oswald's shirt sleave because we need some distinctive feature.
16) Have the FBI agents who took the shirt write in their report that the old lady initially didn't think that the shirt was the same shirt but she eventually came around.
17) Accidentally have the old lady recall this incident in her testimony and then forget to erase this uncomfortable fact from the record.
Wow eh? For this one inconsequential bus ride we need to go to a lot of trouble and involve an excessive cast of liars.
Now to be an effective liar you need to be convincing and have a good memory so as to make the entire story plausible, and this story needs to be collaborated consistently across an entire group of vastly different individuals, and let's not forget this single story is just one tiny aspect of many of the witnesses testimony!
The CT's rarely think through their allegations and how their accusations would actually play out in the Real World! It's easy to say that this or that is faked but to actually make a believable narrative, as seen above, requires a massive amount of co-ordination.
JohnM
how their accusations would actually play out in the Real World!
You are confusing your own little fairytale land with the real world!
Your "reasoning" is so superficial that it would be pointless to try and educate you, so I'll just leave you with your silly strawman narrative.
But let me try to make this as simple as I can make it. If you don't make up that ridiculous story and stay as close to the truth as possible all your 17 points are gone.... Can you figure out why?
-
Does anyone think his guilt hinges on a fleeting glance at his elbow?
-
This is why no one can take you seriously.
Indeed Thumb1:
-
"..already questioned by the FBI..."
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.
-
Wonder why they did not ask Bledsoe if Oswald was wearing a jacket?
McWatters says the guy he saw was wearing a jacket.
McWatters did not say anything about the jacket sleeves being pushed up high enough to expose a shirt sleeve with hole in it.
Question is whether Bledsoe could have had such disdain for Oswald as to lie outright
about recognizing him?
IDK. Maybe she saw a guy who looked similar , and latter, after seeing the news, she decided in error that she that the guy was Oswald.
This is why it is difficult to decide what the truth is when Bledsoe and McWatters ( almost) are placing Oswald on a bus about 12:40-42, while 2 other witness, Burroughs and Davis have Oswald in the theatre at 1:15 and 1:20.
Bill Browns thread on Burroughs shows some doubt about Burroughs 1:07 and 1:15 time and the Gary Mack interview with Jack Davis demonstrates that Davis himself isn’t certain the time was 1:20. McWatters is not certain the man was Oswald , and Bledsoe saw a hole in a shirt that Oswald was not yet wearing yet and and she did not confirm Oswald was wearing a jacket as McWatters saw.
Therefore it comes down to basically the transfer ticket being the only piece of evidence to place Oswald on the bus.
Was the ticket planted after Oswald’s arrest?
It seems a unnecessary thing to do since they can use Whaleys taxi variable range manifest to say that Oswald went straight to the taxi at 12:40 which would have made it very easy to reconcile Markam and Bowley times of 1;07 and 1:10, and not have be playing around with editing documents and suggesting the hospital clock was 10 minutes slow or introducing a document that changes the DOA from 1:15 to1:25.
And if the reason was to plant a ticket post arrest of Oswald to make impossible that Burroughs and Davis saw Oswald from1:15 and 1:20, would it not have been easier just to examine Burroughs and Davis and establish that they were uncertain just as Gary Mack found Davis was? Why mess up an easier timeline establishing Oswald directly going to Whaleys Taxi, boarding at 12:40 which also reinforces the theory that Oswald was in a hurry to return to his boarding house?
Given all the other sloppy communication and handling of evidence, it could be that because of the Hoover directive to make sure no conspiracy there was an overzealous idea to plant a ticket to place Oswald on the bus to reinforce Bledsoes affidavit, and to negate the conflict with Burroughs and Davis which if believed by the public would make it impossible that Oswald was the Tippit shooter.
Placing Oswald on the bus in the range of 12:40-12:43 although making it a little more difficult to reconcile with Markam and Bowleys 1:07/1:10 times, none less allow Oswald to have some probability of having shot Tippit by 1:15 while it making it impossible for Oswald to be seen by Burroughs and Davis from 1:15 -1:20.
So if I’m correct that the ticket was an error of overzealous “embellishment” then Oswald was never on the bus and he could have made it to 10th/Patton easily by 1:07 and since Burroughs is in doubt from his WC testimony and Davis appears uncertain in the Mack interview, then it is possible that the time was 1:35-1:40 when Davis saw Oswald, not 1:20.
Which means that it is not so improbable that Oswald was the man seen by witness Markam shooting Tippit about 1:08 and fleeing the scene by 1:09, and Oswald arrived to Brewers store at 1:30 , wearing only the brown shirt.
But feel free to tear this constructed alternative to shreds as I’m not a dedicated LN nor a CT but just an ordinary person still confused by all the contradictions. 😳
-
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.
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.
And there go all the FBI's FD 302's... Thumb1:
-
I always love a list that goes to 17. It's laughable that CTers believe all this was faked for such a limited purpose. It's even internally inconsistent if the CTers believe the conspirators had the willingness and ability to manipulate the evidence to their desired purpose. But logic is wasted on the contrarian/CTer "mind." They would not be CTers to begin with if they understood and could apply logic to this case.
Yeah, right!
I see Martin brought up the rifle, which requires probably even more steps, here's a quick summary;
1) Like forging the mail order.
2) Forging the envelope
3) Forging the Money order.
4) Getting the mail order onto Kleins microfilm
5) Getting the money order into the Federal reserve.
6) Forging internal Kleins paperwork.
7) Forging the backyard photos or at least have Oswald pose with an identical rifle with a unique identical mark on the forestock.
8] Have Marina lie about the rifle at Neely street
9) Have De Mohrenschildt lie about seeing the rifle at Neely street.
10) Have Marina lie about the rifle in the blanket and fake looking pale when the rifle wasn't there.
11) Plant the rifle in the Depository.
12) Have Wesley lie about where in his car he saw the long package.
13) Have Fritz lie when he says Oswald told him he he only had his lunch.
14) Plant the fibers on the rifle
15) Plant the prints on the rifle.
16) Have Day lie about recovering a palm print.
17) Plant Carcano bullet fragments in Kennedy's Limo.
18) Plant Carcano shells in the sniper's nest.
19) Have multiple Police Officers lie about the brown sack in the Sniper's nest
20) Manufacture the appropriate sized Rifle paper bag.
21) Plant Oswald's prints on the bag
I could go on but why bother?
Every aspect of this case which involves conspiracy, of which there are apparently many, requires lies, forgery, planting evidence and ETC but also requires pliable unrelated witnesses at every stage and for each of these witnesses to recall with deceptive pinpoint accuracy their exact role in the entire scheme.
Like I said, in the Real World the one that the CT's don't concern themselves with, for their JFKA conspiracy narrative to work requires a gargantuan conspiratorial effort at every corner and when you add them ALL together the difficulty expands exponentially, which frankly isn't only impossible but complete nonsense!
JohnM
-
Yeah, right!
I see Martin brought up the rifle, which requires probably even more steps, here's a quick summary;
1) Like forging the mail order.
2) Forging the envelope
3) Forging the Money order.
4) Getting the mail order onto Kleins microfilm
5) Getting the money order into the Federal reserve.
6) Forging internal Kleins paperwork.
7) Forging the backyard photos or at least have Oswald pose with an identical rifle with a unique identical mark on the forestock.
8] Have Marina lie about the rifle at Neely street
9) Have De Mohrenschildt lie about seeing the rifle at Neely street.
10) Have Marina lie about the rifle in the blanket and fake looking pale when the rifle wasn't there.
11) Plant the rifle in the Depository.
12) Have Wesley lie about where in his car he saw the long package.
13) Have Fritz lie when he says Oswald told him he he only had his lunch.
14) Plant the fibers on the rifle
15) Plant the prints on the rifle.
16) Have Day lie about recovering a palm print.
17) Plant Carcano bullet fragments in Kennedy's Limo.
18) Plant Carcano shells in the sniper's nest.
19) Have multiple Police Officers lie about the brown sack in the Sniper's nest
20) Manufacture the appropriate sized Rifle paper bag.
21) Plant Oswald's prints on the bag
I could go on but why bother?
Every aspect of this case which involves conspiracy, of which there are apparently many, requires lies, forgery, planting evidence and ETC but also requires pliable unrelated witnesses at every stage and for each of these witnesses to recall with deceptive pinpoint accuracy their exact role in the entire scheme.
Like I said, in the Real World the one that the CT's don't concern themselves with, for their JFKA conspiracy narrative to work requires a gargantuan conspiratorial effort at every corner and when you add them ALL together the difficulty expands exponentially, which frankly isn't only impossible but complete nonsense!
JohnM
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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?
I just did address it. Apparently while you were typing.
-
"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...
BS:
Who said the comment was related to the outline?
Who said it was any directive to go home? It was a realization that the conclusion has already been drawn by Jan. 22, 1964.
Read the transcript.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/2185/thread
-
The person with the most influence on the Warren Commission and how it conducted its business was J. Edgar Hoover.
-
BS:
Who said the comment was related to the outline?
Who said it was any directive to go home? It was a realization that the conclusion has already been drawn by Jan. 22, 1964.
Read the transcript.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/2185/thread
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
You most certainly implied it when you wrote:
Here he is telling you it was a "rubber stamp.
And it was an obvious sarcastic remark regarding his suspicions (at that point in time and context) about the FBI. Regardless of what your opinion is, the Warren Commission did not rubber-stamp the FBI’s reports. They conducted their own independent investigation. I have already shown some supporting documentation and will provide more. And I will soon show you what Willens wrote regarding the outline.
-
The person with the most influence on the Warren Commission and how it conducted its business was J. Edgar Hoover.
He most certainly influenced the WC. But not in the way you are implying. The reality is they did just the opposite of what JEH would have liked for them to do.
-
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?
Why would I address that quote, when I agree with you?
-
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?
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.
-
And it was an obvious sarcastic remark regarding his suspicions (at that point in time and context) about the FBI.
BS: 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.
-
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.
BS:
You have nothing.
-
BS: 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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
That’s a non-responsive reaction to a very specific question.
How so?
-
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."
BS: 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.
-
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."
BS: 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.
Thank you for keeping the discussion about the WC.
This is a very serious discussion in Executive Session.
I agree. This is an emergency session called for just to discuss this issue. However, Boggs puts this discussion into context and proper context when he states:
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.
The above Boggs’ statement is critical to understanding exactly what they are discussing. They are trying to consider the consequences of what the situation might be if this proves to be anything more than a false allegation. It is a very serious conversation. But it isn’t indicative of whatever it might be that you are trying to say it is.
They already have evidence of it.
No they do not. They are simply discussing an allegation with absolutely no evidence to support it whatsoever.
Where is the sarcasm? - Is he joking? - Does he mean something else?
They are discussing (hypothetically) possible motives (if this were true) of the FBI for accusing LHO of the assassination if he was a paid informant. And trying to make some sense out of the various hypothetical situations. Sarcasm may not have been the best choice of words to describe his remarks. He was speculating about hypothetical scenarios and saying that this might be a way the FBI could use to essentially close the WC investigation down.
There is no sarcasm.
If I come up with a better word I will let you know.
-
Thank you for keeping the discussion about the WC.
This is a very serious discussion in Executive Session.
I agree. This is an emergency session called for just to discuss this issue. However, Boggs puts this discussion into context and proper context when he states:
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.
The above Boggs’ statement is critical to understanding exactly what they are discussing. They are trying to consider the consequences of what the situation might be if this proves to be anything more than a false allegation. It is a very serious conversation. But it isn’t indicative of whatever it might be that you are trying to say it is.
They already have evidence of it.
No they do not. They are simply discussing an allegation with absolutely no evidence to support it whatsoever.
Where is the sarcasm? - Is he joking? - Does he mean something else?
They are discussing (hypothetically) possible motives (if this were true) of the FBI for accusing LHO of the assassination if he was a paid informant. And trying to make some sense out of the various hypothetical situations. Sarcasm may not have been the best choice of words to describe his remarks. He was speculating about hypothetical scenarios and saying that this might be a way the FBI could use to essentially close the WC investigation down.
There is no sarcasm.
If I come up with a better word I will let you know.
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.
-
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.
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. ::)
-
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. ::)
OMG ! He said the words. :D
-
OMG ! He said the words. :D
Put them in context with the rest of the discussion.
-
Put them in context with the rest of the discussion.
Read the transcript, then tell me what he means.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/2185/thread
-
Read the transcript, then tell me what he means.
https://jfk.boards.net/post/2185/thread
I just read the whole page. What I said before still stands. What are all the typographical errors doing in that transcript? Your errors or on the original? And why do we only have Qs and As instead of who is speaking?
-
I just read the whole page. What I said before still stands. What are all the typographical errors doing in that transcript? Your errors or on the original? And why do we only have Qs and As instead of who is speaking?
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."
Thumb1: That's for sure.
-
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."
Thumb1: 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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
(https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/3064/full)
(https://i.postimg.cc/5tVZvK0y/Warren-Commission-members-at-TSBD.jpg)
JohnM
-
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.”
-
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.”
Not the source Hudgens gave. He said it was a reliable individual in Dallas.
Aynesworth was on the FBI side of this story
How is Rankin referring to any of this in his comment on the 1/22?
How could the WC do this investigation independently without FBI direction?
-
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.
JohnM
It doesn't matter what Mr. Bogus-liosi said 30 years later. I'm well aware of it.
You said Rankin is referring to conspiracy in his comment? - what does that mean? sarcasm? how so?
How exactly does all THIS relate to Rankins comment?
-
Another snip from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 76:
Hoover subsequently sent several letters to Rankin in early February that summarized interviews with people alleged to have information supporting the allegation that Oswald was an FBI informant and provided affidavits in support of the bureau’s denial of the allegation. He advised Rankin that Wade stated that he had no information to support this allegation and that Hudkins had refused to supply the name of a Dallas law enforcement official who had made the allegation to him. Hoover also provided his own affidavit, the affidavit of the agent who participated in two of the interviews of Oswald, and nine additional affidavits of bureau personnel “who, because of their assignments, would have been responsible for or cognizant of any attempt to develop Lee Harvey Oswald as an informant of the FBI.” All of them denied the allegation.34
-
Another snip from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 76:
Hudkins had refused to supply the name of a Dallas law enforcement official who had made the allegation to him.
Thumb1: That's right. He called it a reliable source he wouldn't want to lose.
And now, Hoover is involved overseeing this investigation for the protection of his FBI - who did they call?
He would never tell if it was true anyway.
-
Another snip from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 76:
The Commission’s Decides to Do Its Own Investigating
Our discovery that the FBI was hiding information, apparently for self-serving reasons, required a decision about the continued use of FBI agents in our investigation. Could the commission work with an agency that proved willing to withhold information from us? I thought we could handle this problem and, in fact, had no alternative. We had very competent lawyers who would be hard to fool as they became more knowledgeable about the facts. I had seen instances at the Justice Department where department lawyers had some reservations about Hoover’s direction of the FBI, but found ways to work around the problem. They used other investigative agencies to cross-check what the FBI told them; they developed their own sources; and they always were aware of the possibility that the FBI was gaming them in some respect. FBI agents out in the field tended to act with fewer “political” motives than their Washington superiors, especially while working closely with department lawyers to prosecute a case successfully. But we all feared that this instance of deliberately withheld information was not likely to be an isolated event. Our continued use of the FBI did give rise to criticism over the years that we failed to use “independent” investigators not employed by the federal government. Some critics believed that the commission’s investigation was already fatally tainted because of its initial reliance on the FBI and other federal agencies. In their view, federal agents could not be relied upon to investigate allegations that their own agencies failed in their responsibilities. In addition, critics claimed that federal agents (and their superiors) would be more susceptible to political pressures within the federal government to ensure that the investigation came to a predetermined conclusion. I understood these concerns, but saw no problem in using federal agencies so long as the commission’s ultimate decisions were based on its own extensive record of sworn testimony. By late January, commission lawyers had identified hundreds of details that had to be checked out, stories that had to be confirmed or rejected, and additional physical evidence that had to be recovered. Only the FBI could muster the resources and manpower to do this work within an acceptable time frame. We had no other comparable pool of trained and experienced investigators in the United States. If the FBI and other federal agencies were barred from assisting the commission, candidates would have to come primarily from state and local police departments, with no assurance of their quality or independence. Many of these law enforcement officials had been employed or trained by the FBI, so they might not be considered “independent” investigators. Even if such candidates were found in suitable numbers, the required security clearances (typically done by the FBI) would have delayed any significant investigation by the commission for several months. I simply didn’t see any practical or politically acceptable alternative to using investigators from the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service. The commission members, all of whom had extensive Washington experience, came to the same conclusion, despite reservations about Hoover’s trustworthiness. Former commission members Ford and McCloy later emphasized the ability of the commission’s staff and its supervision of the federal agencies. Ford noted, Although the staff and the Commission utilized the investigative personnel and capabilities of organizations within the Federal establishment, we as a Commission and the staff were never satisfied with what information we got from these Federal organizations. What we did was to use them as a base, and then the staff and the Commission took off from there and handled individually the inquiries, the questions, and any leads that came to the Commission or to the staff.36 McCloy supported Ford’s position and stated: “It is not true, as has been alleged, that we relied entirely on the agencies of the Government.”37 Rankin explained later that he had examined the possibilities of using an independent investigative staff. He concluded and reported to the commission “that it would be a long time before we got any such staff put together that could handle all the problems that were involved with the size of the investigation” that we were conducting. Because President Johnson had instructed all government agencies to cooperate fully with the commission, Rankin decided “that it seemed prudent to try to use the intelligence facilities that the Government had at hand.”38 Redlich and I shared the view that our reliance on an FBI we didn’t fully trust meant we would have to work harder and longer to be sure we checked out every fact. We felt the weight of the staff lawyers’ distrust of the FBI as they accelerated the pace of investigative requests to check and double-check facts. Rankin had instructed that all such investigative requests should go to me before they went to him for approval. Rankin also felt the burden as he approved the taking of sworn testimony from an ever-growing list of individuals with potentially relevant information. This process ultimately produced testimony from 552 people: 94 witnesses who appeared before the commission, 395 witnesses deposed by commission lawyers, 61 witnesses who provided sworn affidavits, and 2 who provided statements. In assessing this entire record of testimony, and more than three thousand exhibits, the commission had the responsibility to do what federal investigative agencies do not customarily do—evaluate all the available evidence and make reasoned judgments of the conclusions that are supported by that evidence. This process is one that lawyers routinely are called upon by their clients—whether public or private—to undertake, and the commission members and lawyers had a wealth of experience in doing exactly that.
-
Another snip from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 76:
The Commission’s Decides to Do Its Own Investigating Our discovery that the FBI was hiding information, apparently for self-serving reasons, required a decision about the continued use of FBI agents in our investigation. Could the commission work with an agency that proved willing to withhold information from us? I thought we could handle this problem and, in fact, had no alternative. We had very competent lawyers who would be hard to fool as they became more knowledgeable about the facts. I had seen instances at the Justice Department where department lawyers had some reservations about Hoover’s direction of the FBI, but found ways to work around the problem. They used other investigative agencies to cross-check what the FBI told them; they developed their own sources; and they always were aware of the possibility that the FBI was gaming them in some respect. FBI agents out in the field tended to act with fewer “political” motives than their Washington superiors, especially while working closely with department lawyers to prosecute a case successfully. But we all feared that this instance of deliberately withheld information was not likely to be an isolated event. Our continued use of the FBI did give rise to criticism over the years that we failed to use “independent” investigators not employed by the federal government. Some critics believed that the commission’s investigation was already fatally tainted because of its initial reliance on the FBI and other federal agencies. In their view, federal agents could not be relied upon to investigate allegations that their own agencies failed in their responsibilities. In addition, critics claimed that federal agents (and their superiors) would be more susceptible to political pressures within the federal government to ensure that the investigation came to a predetermined conclusion. I understood these concerns, but saw no problem in using federal agencies so long as the commission’s ultimate decisions were based on its own extensive record of sworn testimony. By late January, commission lawyers had identified hundreds of details that had to be checked out, stories that had to be confirmed or rejected, and additional physical evidence that had to be recovered. Only the FBI could muster the resources and manpower to do this work within an acceptable time frame. We had no other comparable pool of trained and experienced investigators in the United States. If the FBI and other federal agencies were barred from assisting the commission, candidates would have to come primarily from state and local police departments, with no assurance of their quality or independence. Many of these law enforcement officials had been employed or trained by the FBI, so they might not be considered “independent” investigators. Even if such candidates were found in suitable numbers, the required security clearances (typically done by the FBI) would have delayed any significant investigation by the commission for several months. I simply didn’t see any practical or politically acceptable alternative to using investigators from the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service. The commission members, all of whom had extensive Washington experience, came to the same conclusion, despite reservations about Hoover’s trustworthiness. Former commission members Ford and McCloy later emphasized the ability of the commission’s staff and its supervision of the federal agencies. Ford noted, Although the staff and the Commission utilized the investigative personnel and capabilities of organizations within the Federal establishment, we as a Commission and the staff were never satisfied with what information we got from these Federal organizations. What we did was to use them as a base, and then the staff and the Commission took off from there and handled individually the inquiries, the questions, and any leads that came to the Commission or to the staff.36 McCloy supported Ford’s position and stated: “It is not true, as has been alleged, that we relied entirely on the agencies of the Government.”37 Rankin explained later that he had examined the possibilities of using an independent investigative staff. He concluded and reported to the commission “that it would be a long time before we got any such staff put together that could handle all the problems that were involved with the size of the investigation” that we were conducting. Because President Johnson had instructed all government agencies to cooperate fully with the commission, Rankin decided “that it seemed prudent to try to use the intelligence facilities that the Government had at hand.”38 Redlich and I shared the view that our reliance on an FBI we didn’t fully trust meant we would have to work harder and longer to be sure we checked out every fact. We felt the weight of the staff lawyers’ distrust of the FBI as they accelerated the pace of investigative requests to check and double-check facts. Rankin had instructed that all such investigative requests should go to me before they went to him for approval. Rankin also felt the burden as he approved the taking of sworn testimony from an ever-growing list of individuals with potentially relevant information. This process ultimately produced testimony from 552 people: 94 witnesses who appeared before the commission, 395 witnesses deposed by commission lawyers, 61 witnesses who provided sworn affidavits, and 2 who provided statements. In assessing this entire record of testimony, and more than three thousand exhibits, the commission had the responsibility to do what federal investigative agencies do not customarily do—evaluate all the available evidence and make reasoned judgments of the conclusions that are supported by that evidence. This process is one that lawyers routinely are called upon by their clients—whether public or private—to undertake, and the commission members and lawyers had a wealth of experience in doing exactly that.
Do you read what you post?
Only the FBI could muster the resources and manpower to do this work within an acceptable time frame. We had no other comparable pool of trained and experienced investigators in the United States. If the FBI and other federal agencies were barred from assisting the commission, candidates would have to come primarily from state and local police departments, with no assurance of their quality or independence.
-
And yet another snip from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 80:
By the end of January, we had begun to move along an independent path. The FBI had essentially concluded its investigation and had no intention of initiating further work to supplement or amend its summary reports on Oswald and Ruby. During the commission meeting of January 27, Rankin advised the commission that the FBI’s January report on Oswald “filled in some of the holes” in its first report, but left more than half of the commission’s questions unanswered.40 The hundreds of investigative requests and the tenacity of the staff in the following months uncovered important new information, developed new ways of interpreting the scientific and physical evidence, and brought us much clearer insights into how Oswald and Ruby could succeed in doing what they did. Looking forward to February, the commission was going to hear its first witness, Marina Oswald, early in the month, with more witnesses to follow. The pending issues with the FBI had to be addressed to the extent possible, but more conflict was virtually certain. We were now ready to start dealing with the Treasury Department about presidential protection and with the CIA and the State Department about Oswald’s foreign activities. As soon as Ruby’s trial for the murder of Oswald, scheduled to begin in February, was concluded in Texas, our lawyers would be headed for Dallas to initiate the commission’s program of taking testimony under oath from witnesses who had knowledge of the facts we needed to determine and evaluate.
-
And yet another snip from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 80:
By the end of January, we had begun to move along an independent path. The FBI had essentially concluded its investigation and had no intention of initiating further work to supplement or amend its summary reports on Oswald and Ruby. During the commission meeting of January 27, Rankin advised the commission that the FBI’s January report on Oswald “filled in some of the holes” in its first report, but left more than half of the commission’s questions unanswered.
The FBI certainly was not finished with guiding the investigation. It handled all requests the Commission had for evidence.
-
Only the FBI could muster the resources and manpower to do this work within an acceptable time frame. We had no other comparable pool of trained and experienced investigators in the United States. If the FBI and other federal agencies were barred from assisting the commission, candidates would have to come primarily from state and local police departments, with no assurance of their quality or independence.
Do you read what you post?
Did you read the entire post?
What we did was to use them as a base, and then the staff and the Commission took off from there and handled individually the inquiries, the questions, and any leads that came to the Commission or to the staff.
BTW I can understand why Charles is avoiding you, and this above is a perfect example, you keep isolating passages and then apply conspiracy logic without considering the surrounding context.
JohnM
-
Did you read the entire post?
What we did was to use them as a base, and then the staff and the Commission took off from there and handled individually the inquiries, the questions, and any leads that came to the Commission or to the staff.
BTW I can understand why Charles is avoiding you, and this above is a perfect example, you keep isolating passages and then apply conspiracy logic without considering the surrounding context.
JohnM
The quote above re enforces the fact that the WC had to rely on the FBI for all its evidence.
What witness or evidence went into the report without the preset of the FBI?
-
The quote above re enforces the fact that the WC had to rely on the FBI for all its evidence.
What witness or evidence went into the report without the preset of the FBI?
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
-
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
I'm not denying any of that.
One correction on above - A few members of the WC went to Dallas ONE time in June '64. There were not several occasions.
Most witnesses were a deposition taken at the local court house or Post Office by a Commission attorney and reporter.
All evidence requests went thru the FBI. AND monthly FBI reports would be guiding the Commission in the progess of the narrative.
So>>>>What witness or piece of evidence went in to the Report without that preset from the FBI?
-
Some more from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 100:
Because Rankin had required that all investigative requests be reviewed by me before going to him for approval, I had more dealings than others on the staff with James Malley, the FBI inspector who was our official liaison with the bureau. There were approximately three hundred such investigative requests, most to the FBI. On occasion, Malley discussed a particular request with Rankin or me (or other lawyers) and suggested ways to rephrase or break it down into more limited requests. We almost always agreed to make these suggested changes. If the responsible lawyer and Malley could not agree, Rankin would resolve the issue. Malley described his relationship with the commission as businesslike, and I agree with that. He knew that I worked for the Justice Department and had access to high officials there. I knew that he had superiors at FBI headquarters who insisted that he keep them fully informed about the commission.
The commission’s lawyers weren’t hesitant about questioning the FBI’s work. They understood that they had been appointed from the private sector in large measure to ensure their independence in conducting a thorough investigation. In fact, they relished proving FBI conclusions wrong. Most of our lawyers focused on finding flaws in the FBI conclusion that there were no conspiracies involving Oswald or Ruby. Many likely thought that someone (or some organization) more able and intelligent than Oswald and Ruby might have had a hand in this national tragedy and that this possibility had to be fully investigated. The team worked hard to examine every possible angle from which a conspiracy might have arisen. Conspiracies are almost always eventually revealed. No one on the staff wanted to go down in history as among those who failed to uncover the conspiracy that had taken a president’s life. None of us regarded the FBI denial of conspiracies involving Oswald or Ruby as established fact.
-
Some more from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 100:
Because Rankin had required that all investigative requests be reviewed by me before going to him for approval, I had more dealings than others on the staff with James Malley, the FBI inspector who was our official liaison with the bureau. There were approximately three hundred such investigative requests, most to the FBI. On occasion, Malley discussed a particular request with Rankin or me (or other lawyers) and suggested ways to rephrase or break it down into more limited requests. We almost always agreed to make these suggested changes. If the responsible lawyer and Malley could not agree, Rankin would resolve the issue. Malley described his relationship with the commission as businesslike, and I agree with that. He knew that I worked for the Justice Department and had access to high officials there. I knew that he had superiors at FBI headquarters who insisted that he keep them fully informed about the commission.
The commission’s lawyers weren’t hesitant about questioning the FBI’s work. They understood that they had been appointed from the private sector in large measure to ensure their independence in conducting a thorough investigation. In fact, they relished proving FBI conclusions wrong. Most of our lawyers focused on finding flaws in the FBI conclusion that there were no conspiracies involving Oswald or Ruby. Many likely thought that someone (or some organization) more able and intelligent than Oswald and Ruby might have had a hand in this national tragedy and that this possibility had to be fully investigated. The team worked hard to examine every possible angle from which a conspiracy might have arisen. Conspiracies are almost always eventually revealed. No one on the staff wanted to go down in history as among those who failed to uncover the conspiracy that had taken a president’s life. None of us regarded the FBI denial of conspiracies involving Oswald or Ruby as established fact.
James Malley, the FBI inspector = Captain's 1st mate to guide the ship.
Most of our lawyers focused on finding flaws in the FBI conclusion that there were no conspiracies involving Oswald or Ruby. Many likely thought that someone (or some organization) more able and intelligent than Oswald and Ruby might have had a hand in this national tragedy and that this possibility had to be fully investigated. The team worked hard to examine every possible angle from which a conspiracy might have arisen
No they didn't. One proof of that is how they handled the Hudgens allegations. They buried it.
They followed the mandate set out by the Katzenbach Memo.
Jan. 22 1964 | Executive Session
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.