A hole in Bledsoe's story?

[Lance Payette]

Have you ever seen Rankin's outline? I'm betting you haven't because it's damn hard to find.


Lance, since it appears you have a knack for these things, do you have an idea where I could find a memo to the Warren Commission from Rankin dated May 12, 1964? This is some of what Howard Willens wrote about it in his book “History Will Prove Us Right”:

The memorandum summarizing the depositions went to the commission on May 12. Rankin told the members that this “is just a brief statement regarding each witness” and offered to provide the full testimony of any witness if any member wanted that. The fifty-two page memorandum listed the 288 witnesses deposed by the staff through May 7. Every one of these depositions required long hours of preparation—reading documents, consulting the testimony of other witnesses, assessing expert opinions and physical evidence—so that the questions put to the witness would seek to elicit everything the witness knew pertinent to our investigation. The summaries of the testimony were succinct, but provided the commission members with what we hoped was a useful overview of the investigation to date.64

That does appear to be a tough cookie. The best I can do over my morning coffee is tell you where I think you could locate it.

We start with the Texas Archival Resources Online - https://txarchives.org/home

Then we do a search for "Rankin 288."

This leads us to the "Texas Attorney General's Office John F. Kennedy Assassination Investigation Files: An Inventory of Attorney General's Office John F. Kennedy Assassination Investigation Files at the Texas State Archives, 1938, 1947-1961, 1963-1965, undated, bulk 1963-196." - https://txarchives.org/tslac/finding_aids/40112.xml

On the left side we find "View Inventory."

We scroll down and find:

Title:
Correspondence, reports, and other material, 1963-1965, undated
Box
1989/041-237b
Date(s) (Inclusive):
1963-1965, undated
Extent:
[ 3 folders ]
Administrative Information
Scope and Contents
[Folders contain summaries of transcripts of testimonies made to the Warren Commission, as well as brief summaries of testimonies made in the depositions of 288 witnesses.]

Alas, it appears this stuff is not available online. I think you would have to send an email to archinfo@tsl.texas.gov and ask them if they could please provide a copy of this summary from Box 1989/041-237b, "Correspondence, reports, and other material, 1963-1965, undated," of the "Texas Attorney General's Office John F. Kennedy Assassination Investigation Files: An Inventory of Attorney General's Office John F. Kennedy Assassination Investigation Files at the Texas State Archives, 1938, 1947-1961, 1963-1965, undated, bulk 1963-196."

Hopefully this is what you're looking for and I haven't sent you on a wild goose chase.

[Charles Collins]

That does appear to be a tough cookie. The best I can do over my morning coffee is tell you where I think you could locate it.

We start with the Texas Archival Resources Online - https://txarchives.org/home

Then we do a search for "Rankin 288."

This leads us to the "Texas Attorney General's Office John F. Kennedy Assassination Investigation Files: An Inventory of Attorney General's Office John F. Kennedy Assassination Investigation Files at the Texas State Archives, 1938, 1947-1961, 1963-1965, undated, bulk 1963-196." - https://txarchives.org/tslac/finding_aids/40112.xml

On the left side we find "View Inventory."

We scroll down and find:

Title:
Correspondence, reports, and other material, 1963-1965, undated
Box
1989/041-237b
Date(s) (Inclusive):
1963-1965, undated
Extent:
[ 3 folders ]
Administrative Information
Scope and Contents
[Folders contain summaries of transcripts of testimonies made to the Warren Commission, as well as brief summaries of testimonies made in the depositions of 288 witnesses.]

Alas, it appears this stuff is not available online. I think you would have to send an email to archinfo@tsl.texas.gov and ask them if they could please provide a copy of this summary from Box 1989/041-237b, "Correspondence, reports, and other material, 1963-1965, undated," of the "Texas Attorney General's Office John F. Kennedy Assassination Investigation Files: An Inventory of Attorney General's Office John F. Kennedy Assassination Investigation Files at the Texas State Archives, 1938, 1947-1961, 1963-1965, undated, bulk 1963-196."

Hopefully this is what you're looking for and I haven't sent you on a wild goose chase.

Thank you very much Lance. I will try to follow up with them and see what happens. The reason I am interested in this memo is to see what it might say about the testimonies of the police officers cited in the original (first) post in this thread. At the very least I believe that it would show that their testimonies were not “ignored” by the Warren Commission as has been claimed. Thanks again!

[Lance Payette]

Thank you very much Lance. I will try to follow up with them and see what happens. The reason I am interested in this memo is to see what it might say about the testimonies of the police officers cited in the original (first) post in this thread. At the very least I believe that it would show that their testimonies were not “ignored” by the Warren Commission as has been claimed. Thanks again!

I started at the obvious place, the Rankin collection at the National Archives, https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/finding-aids/rankin-records.html, but all my attempts at searches there turned up nothing. I don't know how helpful they are: "For questions about these records or copying information, please write to the Special Access and FOIA Staff at the National Archives at College Park, Room 6350, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001, or call at (301) 837-3190, or e-mail: specialaccess_foia@nara.gov."

The nice about Texas is that you can tell them exactly where to look.

[Martin Weidmann]

What's the purpose of this pointless diversion, I made a simple observation, yet you have no answers. Hilarious!

Let me repeat what should have an easy answer for a man in your league, and this time focus!

"So the Dallas Police who are supposedly trying to frame Oswald, suppress Oswald's wallet at the Tippit crime scene?"

Try again and next time don't make me laugh!

JohnM

Talk about having no answers and diversions. 

I've asked you a number of fact based questions and, as per usual, you failed to answer all of them.

This was the last question I asked you;

Sorry Johnny, but you are so far out of your league that I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

But I'll play your little game;

Mr. ROSE. Yes; we did.
Mr. BALL. Did you search him?
Mr. ROSE. He had already been searched and someone had his billfold. I don't know whether it was the patrolman who brought him in that had it or not.
Mr. BALL. And the contents of the billfold supposedly were before you?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.

Who was the patrolman that gave Rose the billfold? And how did he get it when Bentley took it from Oswald in the car that took them to DPD HQ?
Where is the chain of custody?

It's just a simple question which I am sure you can answer, right?

and you replied with a nonsensical question of your own.

What's the purpose of this pointless diversion, I made a simple observation, yet you have no answers. Hilarious!

Let me repeat what should have an easy answer for a man in your league, and this time focus!

"So the Dallas Police who are supposedly trying to frame Oswald, suppress Oswald's wallet at the Tippit crime scene?"

Try again and next time don't make me laugh!

JohnM

I was not talking about "Oswald's wallet at the Tippit crime scene". Anybody who knows the basic facts of this case knows that Bentley took a wallet from Oswald in the car after his arrest at the Texas Theater.

It seems you actually believe that Gus Rose was given "Oswald's wallet from the Tippit crime scene" which is extremely telling!

My actual question was;

Who was the patrolman that gave Rose the billfold? And how did he get it when Bentley took it from Oswald in the car that took them to DPD HQ?
Where is the chain of custody?

By now it's obvious that you simply can not answer these questions, so all you've got is 

[John Iacoletti]

Take off your rose coloured CT glasses for just a sec and look at a fraction of the basic facts that were accumulated by that time.

"facts".  LOL.

Oswald owned the rifle that killed the President.

LOL.

Oswald carried a long package to work,

That's not evidence.

a long package with his prints

No, you don't know that it was the CE142 "bag" that Oswald "carried to work".  Frazier said it was not.

and a long package Oswald lied about.

No, you don't just get to assume he "lied".

Oswald's close description was given by Brennan

"Close".  LOL.

and was all over the Police radio within 15 minutes of the assassination.

No. You don't get to assume the broadcast description even came from Brennan.  Sawyer said he didn't remember anything about the person who gave it to him.

Oswald in his frenzied flight

LOL.

killed a Police Officer

LOL.

and tried to kill more Police Officer's when arrested.

LOL.

Oswald lied about anything to do with the rifle.

LOL.

Claims aren't evidence.  Nor are they "facts".

[John Iacoletti]

It's not about trusting the interrogators, it about questioning the way the interrogations were conducted and (not properly) documented.

Not only that, but the different accounts are contradictory.  Contradictory accounts cannot all be correct.  This is where "Mytton"'s faith-based approach fails.

[John Iacoletti]

Where I find the JFKA debate ultimately tedious and boring is that the majority of CTers uncritically accept and parrot factoids as though they were facts.  Factoid Busting is fun in small doses just for mental exercise since I did spend my entire professional life busting fallacious legal arguments, but Conspiracy World is almost nothing but a near-impenetrable forest of factoids.

Have you ever seen Rankin's outline? I'm betting you haven't because it's damn hard to find.

Rankin's January 11, 1964 "Memorandum for Members of the Commission" was just a short cover memo to which was attached a "Progress Report" that Warren had asked him to prepare, to wit:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files%20Original/W%20Disk/Warren%20Commission/File/Item%2003.pdf.

The Progress Report referred to a "Tentative Outline of the Work of the President's Commission" that was attached as Appendix C. The description of the outline in the Progress Report, alas, does not match any version of the Tentative Outline that I've been able to find. For example, the PR says the TO includes a section on "Oswald's Foreign Activity (Military Excluded)," which the versions I have seen do not. Such a section could obviously encompass possible conspiratorial contacts by Oswald.

I hate to burst your "factoid-busting" bubble, but you didn't look very hard.  The tentative outline from the January 11 memo is in the same folder.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Meagher%20Sylvia%20Folders/Warren%20Commission%20Working%20Papers%20Memos%20Lists/WC%20Papers%2006.pdf

This doesn't quite fit your preferred narrative, does it?

Not sure what you think my "preferred narrative" is.

(The partial TO and Redlich's memo can be found as Appendices A and C of Howard Roffman's conspiracy-oriented Presumed Guilty, https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PG.pdf.)

And so was the outline that you claimed was "damn hard to find".  So it's not clear what you think you're "busting" here.  It's exactly as I stated: an outline was presented before the WC called their very first witness that indicated that Oswald was the assassin.

Did the WC operate on the presumption Oswald was guilty? Well, yeah - duh.

The exact definition of a predetermined conclusion.  Glad to see you on board.

By January of 1964, there was a mountain of evidence that he was.

LOL.