Some Info about Malcom Blunt and Bruce Solie

[Tom Graves]

He was in the Office of Security, heading the Research staff. Read his HSCA testimony as to the scope of his duties. Moreover, Shaw's attorneys were posing questions as to Shaw's possible CIA connections (and even whether the CIA had files on THEM!). We have no idea what the "inquiry" may have related to in the context of Solie's position.

In fact, the All-Seeing Eye of AI tells me this is exactly what Solie was doing - assisting in the inquiry as to whether Shaw in fact had any CIA connections as alleged. Moreover, there are many materials with Solie's name in reference to WC critics like Weisberg and Epstein and characters like Nagell. Why? Because these were potential SECURITY issues and he headed the RESEARCH staff. Indeed, pesky Mr. AI interrupted my breakfast to add, "Bruce Solie, a high-ranking official in the CIA’s Office of Security (OS) and its Security Research Staff (SRS), was interested in Jim Garrison’s investigation because it threatened to expose sensitive CIA operations and personnel."

On pages 11-17 of this PDF are organizational charts for the Office of Security. It wasn't exactly "Howard Osborn and Bruce Solie sharing a desk in the corner."

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32404556.pdf

This is my problem with characters like Blunt, whom I put in the same category as Newman. They absolutely BURY themselves (and you, their eager readers) in documents and acronyms and fill in the vast gaps with dark speculation driven by what they want to see. "Read Newman's Jesus book," advises the sage Mr. Payette. You will realize that Newman and Blunt, your heroes, are, in their own little way ... absolutely nutty.

Memo to Solie referencing Garrison's investigation = Solie is outside his assigned area = Solie is monitoring the Garrison investigation = Solie is a KGB mole.

Dear Fancy Pants Rants,

Was it "nutty" of Blunt to find, at the National Archives, and show to Bagley a memo to-or-from Warren Commission attorney W. David Slawson, in the margins of which Slawson had written in April 1964 that Solie had tried to convince him in a (now missing) letter or memo to let Nosenko testify to the Warren Commission, even though harsh (but not tortuous) interrogations of Nosenko had just begun, and even though many officers in the Soviet Russia Division and the Counterintelligence Staff doubted that Nosenko was bona fide?

Was it "nutty" of Blunt to show Bagley some CIA documents that Bagley hadn't been privy to in 1959-1960 and which indicated that someone in Solie's office had arranged in advance with the Records Integration Division and the Office of Mail Logistics to have all of the incoming non-CIA cables on Oswald's upcoming defection be sent to Solie's office instead of where they would normally go -- the Soviet Russia Division?

-- Tom