A hole in Bledsoe's story?

[Michael Capasse]

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.

[Charles Collins]

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. 

[Michael Capasse]

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. 

[Charles Collins]

OMG ! He said the words. 

Put them in context with the rest of the discussion.

[Michael Capasse]

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

[Charles Collins]

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?

[Michael Capasse]

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."

  That's for sure.