A hole in Bledsoe's story?

[Charles Collins]

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.

[Michael Capasse]

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.

[John Mytton]

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

[Michael Capasse]

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?

[John Mytton]

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

[Michael Capasse]

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?

[Charles Collins]

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.