A Game-Changing Document

[Dan O'meara]

Letters of transmittal are very common in the business world. I have processed thousands of them over the years. They are typically form letters in which one simply fills in the blanks. I don’t know whether or not the DPD had anything specifically named a letter of transmittal back in 1963. What I said was this form “appears to be something similar to what I would call a letter of transmittal”. The 1963 DPD was not a commercial business entity, but rather a governmental entity which likely used their own custom made forms. It appears to me that they chose to use that particular form to document the transfer of the items to the FBI on 11/27/63. Thanks to Mitch Todd for the link to the better scan it can be clearly seen that the date is most definitely, without question, 11/27/63.
You can continue to believe whatever your heart desires. But in my opinion what you have posted is pure nonsense.

I had taken the document Krusch reproduced in good faith but it appears Mitch's post has revealed it as a forgery.
There can be no doubt the document posted by Mitch is dated 11/27/63.
It is interesting that Mr Krusch is offering a very large cash reward to anyone who can successfully challenge his claims. Considering his claims appear to be based on a forgery it should be easy money.

[Charles Collins]

I had taken the document Krusch reproduced in good faith but it appears Mitch's post has revealed it as a forgery.
There can be no doubt the document posted by Mitch is dated 11/27/63.
It is interesting that Mr Krusch is offering a very large cash reward to anyone who can successfully challenge his claims. Considering his claims appear to be based on a forgery it should be easy money.

If someone did actually manage to collect any money from Krusch, that would be a game-changer.

[Gerry Down]

These items were in fact transferred to the FBI on both dates (11/22/63 and 11/27/63). They were returned to the DPD (on 11/24/63, iirc) after the initial FBI examination. Subsequently, mostly due to the murder of LHO later in the day on 11/24/63, the FBI was given all of the evidence. The second transfer of these items from the DPD to the FBI took place in the early hours of 11/27/63.

The FBI taking the evidence twice is often portrayed as something suspicious. Are you suggesting that if LHO had not been killed on Nov 24th 1963 after the FBI had returned the evidence, that the FBI would never have taken the evidence again on Nov 27th?

Why would Oswalds murder warrant the evidence being taken by the FBI for a second time?

[Charles Collins]

The FBI taking the evidence twice is often portrayed as something suspicious. Are you suggesting that if LHO had not been killed on Nov 24th 1963 after the FBI had returned the evidence, that the FBI would never have taken the evidence again on Nov 27th?

Why would Oswalds murder warrant the evidence being taken by the FBI for a second time?

Are you suggesting that if LHO had not been killed on Nov 24th 1963 after the FBI had returned the evidence, that the FBI would never have taken the evidence again on Nov 27th?

Absolutely, because this case was the jurisdiction of Texas and Dallas. Therefore, they had the responsibility of bringing LHO and all of the evidence to trial. They didn’t have to let the FBI examine any of the evidence. But they decided to cooperate with the FBI’s request and let them borrow the evidence under the condition that they would return all of it after a day.

Why would Oswalds murder warrant the evidence being taken by the FBI for a second time?

Because the FBI was directed to investigate the assassination and the murder of LHO. If I remember correctly, LBJ was part of the decision to put the FBI in that position. Again, the Dallas authorities didn’t have to turn everything over without a court order. But they wanted to cooperate, much like they wanted to cooperate with the press.

[Gerry Down]

Are you suggesting that if LHO had not been killed on Nov 24th 1963 after the FBI had returned the evidence, that the FBI would never have taken the evidence again on Nov 27th?

Absolutely, because this case was the jurisdiction of Texas and Dallas. Therefore, they had the responsibility of bringing LHO and all of the evidence to trial. They didn’t have to let the FBI examine any of the evidence. But they decided to cooperate with the FBI’s request and let them borrow the evidence under the condition that they would return all of it after a day.

Why would Oswalds murder warrant the evidence being taken by the FBI for a second time?

Because the FBI was directed to investigate the assassination and the murder of LHO. If I remember correctly, LBJ was part of the decision to put the FBI in that position. Again, the Dallas authorities didn’t have to turn everything over without a court order. But they wanted to cooperate, much like they wanted to cooperate with the press.

This is interesting. Because Malcolm blunt in his recent videos has been making a big deal about the fbi taking the evidence twice. The way he phrases it is the fbi unofficially took the evidence early on Nov 23rd, only returned some of it on Nov 24th (ie they hid some of it) and then they 'officially' took the evidence on Nov 27th with of course the stuff they hid on Nov 23rd not being catalogued when the evidence was handed over on Nov 27th. He cites it as an unofficial handing over of evidence and an official handing over of evidence.

[Charles Collins]

This is interesting. Because Malcolm blunt in his recent videos has been making a big deal about the fbi taking the evidence twice. The way he phrases it is the fbi unofficially took the evidence early on Nov 23rd, only returned some of it on Nov 24th (ie they hid some of it) and then they 'officially' took the evidence on Nov 27th with of course the stuff they hid on Nov 23rd not being catalogued when the evidence was handed over on Nov 27th. He cites it as an unofficial handing over of evidence and an official handing over of evidence.

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?

[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?