A Game-Changing Document

[Gerry Down]

Does Malcolm Blunt “make a big deal” of this because he has some credible evidence that some of the evidence was actually “hidden” by the FBI? Or is he just jumping to conclusions about some possible imagined wrong doings like Barry Krusch obviously did regarding the DPD document in the original post of this thread?

When Blunt talks about this, he cites FBI agent James Cadigan in relation to this. Here is an example:

Malcolm Blunt Talking About Cadigan And Testimony Deletion
19 minutes to 23 minutes:

Malcolm Blunt interviewed by Bart Kamp at Canterbury 2019

Cadigan said the great mass of evidence from the DPD came up to the FBI on Nov 23rd 1963 (and apparently this passage was deleted from his testimony in the 26 volumes of the WC). When the FBI put their evidence back in to the national archives in 1966, Cadigan put back in his own deleted testimony. In his WC testimony, Eisenberg (the guy interviewing Cadigan with Dulles) asked Cadigan why they did not de-silver (i.e. clean) the evidence items after taking prints. Cadigan said they had so much evidence which they had to get back to the DPD that he did not have enough time to clean the evidence. Blunt says this passage was deleted as the WC did not want it being known that the FBI got possession of so much of the evidence. They were trying to pretend that only about 6 pieces of evidence was sent up on the morning of Nov 23rd, not 100’s of pieces of evidence. 

[Charles Collins]

When Blunt talks about this, he cites FBI agent James Cadigan in relation to this. Here is an example:

Malcolm Blunt Talking About Cadigan And Testimony Deletion
19 minutes to 23 minutes:

Malcolm Blunt interviewed by Bart Kamp at Canterbury 2019

Cadigan said the great mass of evidence from the DPD came up to the FBI on Nov 23rd 1963 (and apparently this passage was deleted from his testimony in the 26 volumes of the WC). When the FBI put their evidence back in to the national archives in 1966, Cadigan put back in his own deleted testimony. In his WC testimony, Eisenberg (the guy interviewing Cadigan with Dulles) asked Cadigan why they did not de-silver (i.e. clean) the evidence items after taking prints. Cadigan said they had so much evidence which they had to get back to the DPD that he did not have enough time to clean the evidence. Blunt says this passage was deleted as the WC did not want it being known that the FBI got possession of so much of the evidence. They were trying to pretend that only about 6 pieces of evidence was sent up on the morning of Nov 23rd, not 100’s of pieces of evidence.

So, Cadigan just supposedly quietly added this allegedly deleted testimony to the archives in 1966 after saying nothing about it for the previous couple of years? And then said nothing about adding it to the archives afterwards? Then this was eventually discovered by Blunt many years later?

[Gerry Down]

So, Cadigan just supposedly quietly added this allegedly deleted testimony to the archives in 1966 after saying nothing about it for the previous couple of years? And then said nothing about adding it to the archives afterwards? Then this was eventually discovered by Blunt many years later?

Apparently so. Blunt says the original testimony which was to be deleted had the word "delete" written on it. Blunt says he is familiar with Allen Dulles handwriting and that the word "delete" is in Allen Dulles handwriting.

This way it looks like the FBI were eager to get the evidence on Nov 22nd 1963 so they could remove any evidence that connected LHO to the FBI (ie most likely LHOs contact with DeBrueys earlier that summer in New Orleans). The DPD then wanted the evidence back for their records and so the FBI gave back the evidence on Nov 24th. Then the FBI took the evidence again when Johnson said the FBI were to take control of the investigation.

That is my reading of the situation.

[Charles Collins]

Apparently so. Blunt says the original testimony which was to be deleted had the word "delete" written on it. Blunt says he is familiar with Allen Dulles handwriting and that the word "delete" is in Allen Dulles handwriting.

This way it looks like the FBI were eager to get the evidence on Nov 22nd 1963 so they could remove any evidence that connected LHO to the FBI (ie most likely LHOs contact with DeBrueys earlier that summer in New Orleans). The DPD then wanted the evidence back for their records and so the FBI gave back the evidence on Nov 24th. Then the FBI took the evidence again when Johnson said the FBI were to take control of the investigation.

That is my reading of the situation.

Where is this so called “original testimony” with the word delete written on it? Does Blunt provide a copy for us?

[Gerry Down]

Where is this so called “original testimony” with the word delete written on it? Does Blunt provide a copy for us?

Not that I know of. But Blunt is considered trustworthy. So if he says something its pretty much true.

[Charles Collins]

Not that I know of. But Blunt is considered trustworthy. So if he says something its pretty much true.

I am not familiar with Blunt and had to look him up to find out who he is. I also found that Cadigan died in 1977 if I remember correctly. Did Blunt find this “original testimony” after Cadigan died? If so, how does Blunt determine that it was Cadigan who put the “original testimony” in the archives? Or is Blunt just speculating on some of his ideas?

[Gerry Down]

I am not familiar with Blunt and had to look him up to find out who he is. I also found that Cadigan died in 1977 if I remember correctly. Did Blunt find this “original testimony” after Cadigan died? If so, how does Blunt determine that it was Cadigan who put the “original testimony” in the archives? Or is Blunt just speculating on some of his ideas?

That i don't know. But he first started going to the National Archives in the mid-1990's and has been studying the documents ever since. He was friends with Pete Bagley (of the CIA Soviet Russia division around the time of Oswald) and got his insights on the whole assassination.