JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Dan O'meara on December 19, 2021, 03:23:24 AM
-
From Barry Krusch's "Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald":
"When Day arrived at City Hall, he completed the earliest known document logging the discovery of this evidence (a Crime Scene Search [CSS] form from the Dallas Identification Bureau written by Lieutenant Day dated November 22, 1963, submitted between 1:30 pm and 2:15 pm CST, within two hours of the assassination). This document, which at first glance appears innocuous enough, turns out to be one of the most critical documents Kennedy assassination research has ever unearthed, a document whose first known appearance (to this author) was in the book Searching The Shadows by Steven Airhart, published in 1993 (this document can also be found in he Dallas Municipal Archives, Box 9, Folder 4, Item 31)."
(https://i.postimg.cc/cC3DDkJW/Screenshot-76.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The ramifications of this document are so staggering it's hard to know where to begin so I'll kick off with the basics. The document is dated 11-22-63, the day of the assassination. The time is given as "1.30 & 2.15", there is also a hint of the letter "P", presumably indicating "PM". The signatures of the officers submitting the evidence are "J C Day" and "R L Studebaker" (written underneath the signatures - "Dallas Police Dpt")
Now things start to get weird. The evidence being submitted is given as:
"From 6th floor Texas Book Depository
1 6.5 [?] action rifle #2766
2 Spent hulls from 6th floor window."
3 hulls are found on the 6th floor but only two are submitted. There are a number of problems with this, not least of which is that, according to the testimonies of Day, Fritz and R M Sims, the 3 hulls were given to Det. Sims at the scene who had possession of them until later that day. This means that, at around 2:15 pm that day there were two sets of shells - 3 with Sims and 2 submitted by Day as evidence.
Moving on, for now, the receiving officer is given as "Charles T Brown Jr" underneath which is written "Spec. Agent, FBI, Dallas". Even though the heading of the document reveals it is a Dallas Police Department document, it is an FBI man receiving the evidence. Even stranger is the note at the bottom:
"Vince Drain also present - actually took possession of all the evidence."
Krusch makes the point that, during his testimony, Day reveals that he is driven from the TSBD with the evidence by FBI SA Bardwell Odum, the evidence is submitted to FBI SA Charles Brown and is taken possession of by FBI SA Drain. At 2:15 pm that day the FBI had no jurisdiction yet here they are completely controlling the evidence.
And if that wasn't enough. The "Nature of the Offence" is given as "Murder", clearly a reference to the assassination of JFK (note, at the time the evidence was submitted it was known that JFK had died - hence "Murder")
When we look at "Suspect" we see written the name "Lee Harvey Oswald"!!
Let that sink in a minute.
At 2:15 pm Lee Harvey Oswald was given as the sole suspect for the assassination of JFK.
At 2:15 pm, as far as the Dallas Police Department were concerned, Lee Harvey Oswald was in the frame for the murder of the President.
He'd only been arrested 35 minutes earlier!
-
From Barry Krusch's "Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald":
"When Day arrived at City Hall, he completed the earliest known document logging the discovery of this evidence (a Crime Scene Search [CSS] form from the Dallas Identification Bureau written by Lieutenant Day dated November 22, 1963, submitted between 1:30 pm and 2:15 pm CST, within two hours of the assassination). This document, which at first glance appears innocuous enough, turns out to be one of the most critical documents Kennedy assassination research has ever unearthed, a document whose first known appearance (to this author) was in the book Searching The Shadows by Steven Airhart, published in 1993 (this document can also be found in he Dallas Municipal Archives, Box 9, Folder 4, Item 31)."
(https://i.postimg.cc/cC3DDkJW/Screenshot-76.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The ramifications of this document are so staggering it's hard to know where to begin so I'll kick off with the basics. The document is dated 11-22-63, the day of the assassination. The time is given as "1.30 & 2.15", there is also a hint of the letter "P", presumably indicating "PM". The signatures of the officers submitting the evidence are "J C Day" and "R L Studebaker" (written underneath the signatures - "Dallas Police Dpt")
Now things start to get weird. The evidence being submitted is given as:
"From 6th floor Texas Book Depository
1 6.5 [?] action rifle #2766
2 Spent hulls from 6th floor window."
3 hulls are found on the 6th floor but only two are submitted. There are a number of problems with this, not least of which is that, according to the testimonies of Day, Fritz and R M Sims, the 3 hulls were given to Det. Sims at the scene who had possession of them until later that day. This means that, at around 2:15 pm that day there were two sets of shells - 3 with Sims and 2 submitted by Day as evidence.
Moving on, for now, the receiving officer is given as "Charles T Brown Jr" underneath which is written "Spec. Agent, FBI, Dallas". Even though the heading of the document reveals it is a Dallas Police Department document, it is an FBI man receiving the evidence. Even stranger is the note at the bottom:
"Vince Drain also present - actually took possession of all the evidence."
Krusch makes the point that, during his testimony, Day reveals that he is driven from the TSBD with the evidence by FBI SA Bardwell Odum, the evidence is submitted to FBI SA Charles Brown and is taken possession of by FBI SA Drain. At 2:15 pm that day the FBI had no jurisdiction yet here they are completely controlling the evidence.
And if that wasn't enough. The "Nature of the Offence" is given as "Murder", clearly a reference to the assassination of JFK (note, at the time the evidence was submitted it was known that JFK had died - hence "Murder")
When we look at "Suspect" we see written the name "Lee Harvey Oswald"!!
Let that sink in a minute.
At 2:15 pm Lee Harvey Oswald was given as the sole suspect for the assassination of JFK.
At 2:15 pm, as far as the Dallas Police Department were concerned, Lee Harvey Oswald was in the frame for the murder of the President.
He'd only been arrested 35 minutes earlier!
The document is dated 11/27/63. :-\
-
The document is dated 11/27/63. :-\
I suspected this. The writer was just guessing the time of 2:15pm.
-
The document is dated 11/27/63.
If you look at all the other '2's and '7's that would be questionable. Also...why wait five days to write a report like this? So called evidence was already processed in Wash DC on the 23rd.
The note still reveals that just two shells are mentioned and then that wonky chain of evidence could hardly stand up in any kangaroo court.
Even so, this was announced on KBOX radio at @2:00 PM Nov 22 1963---
Detective J D Tippit along with his partner M N McDonald [tipped off by an usher at the Texas Theater] fought with a man...believed to be the assassin of [the president]...they bravely entered with guns drawn....two shots were fired.. Tippit fired into the air...[suspect] shot Tippit killing him..the man was arrested and believed to be the prime suspect in the assassination...
They had their man ::)
-
If you look at all the other '2's and '7's that would be questionable. Also...why wait five days to write a report like this? So called evidence was already processed in Wash DC on the 23rd.
The note still reveals that just two shells are mentioned and then that wonky chain of evidence could hardly stand up in any kangaroo court.
Even so, this was announced on KBOX radio at @2:00 PM Nov 22 1963---They had their man ::)
Either a 2 or a 7, no matter which way one chooses to interpret it, it makes sense. This is because this form appears to be something similar to what I would call a letter of transmittal. The purpose of such a document is to record the transfer of the items from one entity to another. In this case it appears to be the transfer of the items listed on the form from the DPD to the FBI. 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.
Either way, the assumptions and jumping to conclusions such as two sets of shells, and that the FBI had possession of these items at 2:15pm on 11/22/63 are ridiculous.
-
Either a 2 or a 7, no matter which way one chooses to interpret it, it makes sense. This is because this form appears to be something similar to what I would call a letter of transmittal. The purpose of such a document is to record the transfer of the items from one entity to another.
This is not a "letter of transmittal", if such a thing exists.
It is the document used when "specimens" from a crime scene are first admitted/submitted into evidence.
In this case it appears to be the transfer of the items listed on the form from the DPD to the FBI. 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.
If this were indeed a letter of transmittal it would include all the evidence being transferred to the FBI at that time but it does not.
As you say, the evidence had already been handed over to the FBI on the 22nd (with no letter of transmittal), and had been thoroughly tested in the laboratories in Washington. So everyone knew what evidence this was which means, if this is just a letter of transmittal, there was no need to helpfully point out that this evidence was "from 6th floor Texas School Book Depository" on the document. Everyone knew where it came from. There was no need to note the hulls came "from 6th floor window. This has already been established and has nothing to do with the transferral.
Indeed, there is no need to point out the location of this crime was "Elm + Houston", there is no need to point out the nature of the crime is "Murder" and that it occurred on "11-22-63". The FBI probably knew this already.
All these details are required if these are items being submitted as evidence from a crime scene but totally unnecessary if it is simply the transfer of evidence the FBI has already tested and already has documentation for.
Where are the "Q" numbers already assigned to the shells?
Where is the "K" number already assigned to the rifle?
They're not on this document because they are yet to be assigned to these pieces of evidence.
Why, after the signatures of Day and Studebaker, must it be noted that this evidence was "from scene"?
Is it in case the FBI had forgotten where it came from or is it because this evidence had literally just come from the scene of the crime?
We can be certain that this is not a "letter of transmittal".
It is the submission into evidence of items related to the crime in question.
Either way, the assumptions and jumping to conclusions such as two sets of shells, and that the FBI had possession of these items at 2:15pm on 11/22/63 are ridiculous.
It is definitely a source of frustration that Day writes the number "2" in different ways - one with a loop at the bottom and one without. The following is a close up of the digit in question:
(https://i.postimg.cc/nzTdCxbr/Screenshot-85.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Is it a two or a seven? Note at the bottom of the digit a "tail". Here is the number "7" from the document:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vBPzGvf6/Screenshot-86.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Note, there is no "tail" at the bottom. Here is a different number "2" from the date assigned to the "Nature of Offence":
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hk4bp2Cs/Screenshot-84.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Note the "tail" at the bottom. Certainly more pronounced but it is clear to see, the digit under question is a "2" and not a "7". In the CSS document below (again dealing with the submission of items into evidence) we see Day's penchant for using different types of "2" and we also see more examples of the number "7", without the "tail":
(https://i.postimg.cc/s2L9M4TF/Screenshot-88.png) (https://postimages.org/)
This document is an example of the logging of evidence, as is the document in the OP.
I would be interested to see another example of a letter of transmittal.
-
This is not a "letter of transmittal", if such a thing exists.
It is the document used when "specimens" from a crime scene are first admitted/submitted into evidence.
If this were indeed a letter of transmittal it would include all the evidence being transferred to the FBI at that time but it does not.
As you say, the evidence had already been handed over to the FBI on the 22nd (with no letter of transmittal), and had been thoroughly tested in the laboratories in Washington. So everyone knew what evidence this was which means, if this is just a letter of transmittal, there was no need to helpfully point out that this evidence was "from 6th floor Texas School Book Depository" on the document. Everyone knew where it came from. There was no need to note the hulls came "from 6th floor window. This has already been established and has nothing to do with the transferral.
Indeed, there is no need to point out the location of this crime was "Elm + Houston", there is no need to point out the nature of the crime is "Murder" and that it occurred on "11-22-63". The FBI probably knew this already.
All these details are required if these are items being submitted as evidence from a crime scene but totally unnecessary if it is simply the transfer of evidence the FBI has already tested and already has documentation for.
Where are the "Q" numbers already assigned to the shells?
Where is the "K" number already assigned to the rifle?
They're not on this document because they are yet to be assigned to these pieces of evidence.
Why, after the signatures of Day and Studebaker, must it be noted that this evidence was "from scene"?
Is it in case the FBI had forgotten where it came from or is it because this evidence had literally just come from the scene of the crime?
We can be certain that this is not a "letter of transmittal".
It is the submission into evidence of items related to the crime in question.
It is definitely a source of frustration that Day writes the number "2" in different ways - one with a loop at the bottom and one without. The following is a close up of the digit in question:
(https://i.postimg.cc/nzTdCxbr/Screenshot-85.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Is it a two or a seven? Note at the bottom of the digit a "tail". Here is the number "7" from the document:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vBPzGvf6/Screenshot-86.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Note, there is no "tail" at the bottom. Here is a different number "2" from the date assigned to the "Nature of Offence":
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hk4bp2Cs/Screenshot-84.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Note the "tail" at the bottom. Certainly more pronounced but it is clear to see, the digit under question is a "2" and not a "7". In the CSS document below (again dealing with the submission of items into evidence) we see Day's penchant for using different types of "2" and we also see more examples of the number "7", without the "tail":
(https://i.postimg.cc/s2L9M4TF/Screenshot-88.png) (https://postimages.org/)
This document is an example of the logging of evidence, as is the document in the OP.
I would be interested to see another example of a letter of transmittal.
This is a better, larger scan courtesy of the folks at UNT:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338676/m1/1/?q=crime%20scene%20section%20form (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338676/m1/1/?q=crime%20scene%20section%20form)
-
This is not a "letter of transmittal", if such a thing exists.
It is the document used when "specimens" from a crime scene are first admitted/submitted into evidence.
If this were indeed a letter of transmittal it would include all the evidence being transferred to the FBI at that time but it does not.
As you say, the evidence had already been handed over to the FBI on the 22nd (with no letter of transmittal), and had been thoroughly tested in the laboratories in Washington. So everyone knew what evidence this was which means, if this is just a letter of transmittal, there was no need to helpfully point out that this evidence was "from 6th floor Texas School Book Depository" on the document. Everyone knew where it came from. There was no need to note the hulls came "from 6th floor window. This has already been established and has nothing to do with the transferral.
Indeed, there is no need to point out the location of this crime was "Elm + Houston", there is no need to point out the nature of the crime is "Murder" and that it occurred on "11-22-63". The FBI probably knew this already.
All these details are required if these are items being submitted as evidence from a crime scene but totally unnecessary if it is simply the transfer of evidence the FBI has already tested and already has documentation for.
Where are the "Q" numbers already assigned to the shells?
Where is the "K" number already assigned to the rifle?
They're not on this document because they are yet to be assigned to these pieces of evidence.
Why, after the signatures of Day and Studebaker, must it be noted that this evidence was "from scene"?
Is it in case the FBI had forgotten where it came from or is it because this evidence had literally just come from the scene of the crime?
We can be certain that this is not a "letter of transmittal".
It is the submission into evidence of items related to the crime in question.
It is definitely a source of frustration that Day writes the number "2" in different ways - one with a loop at the bottom and one without. The following is a close up of the digit in question:
(https://i.postimg.cc/nzTdCxbr/Screenshot-85.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Is it a two or a seven? Note at the bottom of the digit a "tail". Here is the number "7" from the document:
(https://i.postimg.cc/vBPzGvf6/Screenshot-86.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Note, there is no "tail" at the bottom. Here is a different number "2" from the date assigned to the "Nature of Offence":
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hk4bp2Cs/Screenshot-84.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Note the "tail" at the bottom. Certainly more pronounced but it is clear to see, the digit under question is a "2" and not a "7". In the CSS document below (again dealing with the submission of items into evidence) we see Day's penchant for using different types of "2" and we also see more examples of the number "7", without the "tail":
(https://i.postimg.cc/s2L9M4TF/Screenshot-88.png) (https://postimages.org/)
This document is an example of the logging of evidence, as is the document in the OP.
I would be interested to see another example of a letter of transmittal.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
Apparently so. Blunt says the original testimony which was to be deleted had the word "delete" written on it. Blunt says he is familiar with Allen Dulles handwriting and that the word "delete" is in Allen Dulles handwriting.
This way it looks like the FBI were eager to get the evidence on Nov 22nd 1963 so they could remove any evidence that connected LHO to the FBI (ie most likely LHOs contact with DeBrueys earlier that summer in New Orleans). The DPD then wanted the evidence back for their records and so the FBI gave back the evidence on Nov 24th. Then the FBI took the evidence again when Johnson said the FBI were to take control of the investigation.
That is my reading of the situation.
-
Apparently so. Blunt says the original testimony which was to be deleted had the word "delete" written on it. Blunt says he is familiar with Allen Dulles handwriting and that the word "delete" is in Allen Dulles handwriting.
This way it looks like the FBI were eager to get the evidence on Nov 22nd 1963 so they could remove any evidence that connected LHO to the FBI (ie most likely LHOs contact with DeBrueys earlier that summer in New Orleans). The DPD then wanted the evidence back for their records and so the FBI gave back the evidence on Nov 24th. Then the FBI took the evidence again when Johnson said the FBI were to take control of the investigation.
That is my reading of the situation.
Where is this so called “original testimony” with the word delete written on it? Does Blunt provide a copy for us?
-
Where is this so called “original testimony” with the word delete written on it? Does Blunt provide a copy for us?
Not that I know of. But Blunt is considered trustworthy. So if he says something its pretty much true.
-
Not that I know of. But Blunt is considered trustworthy. So if he says something its pretty much true.
I am not familiar with Blunt and had to look him up to find out who he is. I also found that Cadigan died in 1977 if I remember correctly. Did Blunt find this “original testimony” after Cadigan died? If so, how does Blunt determine that it was Cadigan who put the “original testimony” in the archives? Or is Blunt just speculating on some of his ideas?
-
I am not familiar with Blunt and had to look him up to find out who he is. I also found that Cadigan died in 1977 if I remember correctly. Did Blunt find this “original testimony” after Cadigan died? If so, how does Blunt determine that it was Cadigan who put the “original testimony” in the archives? Or is Blunt just speculating on some of his ideas?
That i don't know. But he first started going to the National Archives in the mid-1990's and has been studying the documents ever since. He was friends with Pete Bagley (of the CIA Soviet Russia division around the time of Oswald) and got his insights on the whole assassination.
-
That i don't know. But he first started going to the National Archives in the mid-1990's and has been studying the documents ever since. He was friends with Pete Bagley (of the CIA Soviet Russia division around the time of Oswald) and got his insights on the whole assassination.
Here is what Vincent Drain, the FBI agent that the DPD trusted to take and return the items, had to say to Larry Sneed in an interview:
Earlier in the evening, about 8:00 o’clock, the division chief had talked to me on the telephone and informed me that the FBI in Washington demanded that we bring to them for examination the rifle, the revolver that was used to kill Tippit, as well as the different paraphernalia such as identification cards and other small items that Oswald had on him. I discussed it with the police chief and told him that we’d keep the chain of evidence intact and that I would pick them up there myself and wait for them until they were examined in Washington then bring them back. So it was turned over to us. By the time we got it all boxed up, it was near midnight. Meanwhile Washington was calling down about every fifteen minutes wanting to know where the material was. All of a sudden I learned that neither American nor Braniff had any flights to Washington out of Dallas after midnight. We were told that the FBI in Washington wanted the material by morning if we had to walk it up there. That’s being facetious, but . . .
Now, I really don’t try to tell others who they should believe. But I do encourage others to ask themselves if they have a bias against the authorities. And in this case I encourage others to ask some simple questions about conspiracy theory authors like Blunt, similar to the ones that I asked and received zip for answers. It appears to me that none of Blunt’s allegations make any sense. You appear to have jumped to some conclusions regarding the FBI trying to hide some things.
If folks would just allow themselves to consider that it is possible that the authorities connected to this case were honestly doing their jobs as best as they knew how. And that it is possible that the conclusions that they came to are correct. Then approach the case with an open mind. Then the evidence speaks for itself.
-
Here is what Vincent Drain, the FBI agent that the DPD trusted to take and return the items, had to say to Larry Sneed in an interview:
Earlier in the evening, about 8:00 o’clock, the division chief had talked to me on the telephone and informed me that the FBI in Washington demanded that we bring to them for examination the rifle, the revolver that was used to kill Tippit, as well as the different paraphernalia such as identification cards and other small items that Oswald had on him. I discussed it with the police chief and told him that we’d keep the chain of evidence intact and that I would pick them up there myself and wait for them until they were examined in Washington then bring them back. So it was turned over to us. By the time we got it all boxed up, it was near midnight. Meanwhile Washington was calling down about every fifteen minutes wanting to know where the material was. All of a sudden I learned that neither American nor Braniff had any flights to Washington out of Dallas after midnight. We were told that the FBI in Washington wanted the material by morning if we had to walk it up there. That’s being facetious, but . . .
Now, I really don’t try to tell others who they should believe. But I do encourage others to ask themselves if they have a bias against the authorities. And in this case I encourage others to ask some simple questions about conspiracy theory authors like Blunt, similar to the ones that I asked and received zip for answers. It appears to me that none of Blunt’s allegations make any sense. You appear to have jumped to some conclusions regarding the FBI trying to hide some things.
If folks would just allow themselves to consider that it is possible that the authorities connected to this case were honestly doing their jobs as best as they knew how. And that it is possible that the conclusions that they came to are correct. Then approach the case with an open mind. Then the evidence speaks for itself.
What you've said here doesn't negate what I or Malcolm blunt have said. The fbi were in an awful hurry to get the evidence on the evening of the assassination, then lies were told about just how much evidence they took.
The fbi had no jurisdiction in this case. They didn't behave this way for other murders that took place in Dallas.
-
The sequence is bizarre. The fbi took the evidence and then gave it back to the dpd. That's not normal. I think there was stuff in that evidence the fbi did not want the dpd cataloging.
-
What you've said here doesn't negate what I or Malcolm blunt have said. The fbi were in an awful hurry to get the evidence on the evening of the assassination, then lies were told about just how much evidence they took.
The fbi had no jurisdiction in this case. They didn't behave this way for other murders that took place in Dallas.
LBJ was instructing JEH to stay close to the case and assist as much as possible to help solve it. And JEH instructed his agents accordingly. There is no doubt that the FBI’s resources helped speed up the process. DPD did not have to turn anything over to the FBI. But they decided to let the FBI process some of the first day evidence with the understanding that it would be returned in one day. I am not convinced that there were lies regarding what specific evidence was taken.
This was not an ordinary case by any stretch of the imagination. The FBI was behaving according to how LBJ and JEH instructed them to. These were extraordinary circumstances.
-
The sequence is bizarre. The fbi took the evidence and then gave it back to the dpd. That's not normal. I think there was stuff in that evidence the fbi did not want the dpd cataloging.
The FBI laboratories routinely processed all kinds of evidence for most any local police department who might need their services. Their top notch equipment and expertise was and is some of the best in the world. It is perfectly understandable why LBJ and JEH would be anxious to get some of the JFK assassination evidence to one of the best facilities that existed at that time. It would be normal for them to return the evidence to the local police departments after processing it. Especially when the local police departments had jurisdiction and needed the evidence back to present in court.
You can believe whatever you wish. But I haven’t seen any credible evidence of what you are suggesting.
-
The FBI laboratories routinely processed all kinds of evidence for most any local police department who might need their services. Their top notch equipment and expertise was and is some of the best in the world. It is perfectly understandable why LBJ and JEH would be anxious to get some of the JFK assassination evidence to one of the best facilities that existed at that time. It would be normal for them to return the evidence to the local police departments after processing it. Especially when the local police departments had jurisdiction and needed the evidence back to present in court.
You can believe whatever you wish. But I haven’t seen any credible evidence of what you are suggesting.
But the fbi didn't process it properly. They didn't desilver some of the evidence which is why some of lhos cards have red blotches all over them.
Also I have never seen any evidence that lbj was ordering hoover as early as the evening of Nov 22nd to take the evidence. But they surely did talk while lbj was flying back to Washington. What they talked about I'm not sure.
Also, hosty was told not to cooperate with the dpd anymore after that first and only interview he had with lho at about 3pm on Nov 22nd. That to me says rather than trying to help the dpd, the fbi were impeding them.
-
But the fbi didn't process it properly. They didn't desilver some of the evidence which is why some of lhos cards have red blotches all over them.
Also I have never seen any evidence that lbj was ordering hoover as early as the evening of Nov 22nd to take the evidence. But they surely did talk while lbj was flying back to Washington. What they talked about I'm not sure.
Also, hosty was told not to cooperate with the dpd anymore after that first and only interview he had with lho at about 3pm on Nov 22nd. That to me says rather than trying to help the dpd, the fbi were impeding them.
Also I have never seen any evidence that lbj was ordering hoover as early as the evening of Nov 22nd to take the evidence.
Here’s the next paragraph of Vincent Drain’s interview by Larry Sneed in his book “No More Silence” that I partially quoted in an earlier post in this thread:
Fortunately the commanding general over at Carswell in Fort Worth happened to be a good friend of mine and was head of SAC (Strategic Air Command) at that time. So I called him and was told that the President had asked him to give us all the help that we needed. Another agent took me to Fort Worth where they had a C-135 tanker plane and crew ready.
This should give you an idea of how involved LBJ was regarding getting the evidence to the FBI laboratories.
Who supposedly instructed Hosty not to cooperate with the DPD? What is the evidence of this?
-
Who supposedly instructed Hosty not to cooperate with the DPD? What is the evidence of this?
Hosty has said this in numerous interviews. In one he suggests it was someone high in Washington who gave the order for hosty to stop cooperating. He was never told why.
Trying to figure out the why in all this is tricky. But I think it's important to keep an open mind and keep all possibilities on the table.
-
Hosty has said this in numerous interviews. In one he suggests it was someone high in Washington who gave the order for hosty to stop cooperating. He was never told why.
Trying to figure out the why in all this is tricky. But I think it's important to keep an open mind and keep all possibilities on the table.
I have found that first hand accounts from the actual people who were at the scenes where events were happening interest me the most. I don’t know why I had failed to read James Hosty’s accounts until now. But, now that I have read it, I think that his book “Assignment Oswald” is terrific! And if you are trying to figure out why, this book offers some explanations that make a lot of sense to me. So, if you have the opportunity to read it, I do recommend it. Hosty explains things well and sheds a lot of light on some of the behind the scenes maneuvering by the opposing factions in the various organizations involved. I will show a few excerpts from the book in response to the issues you have brought up in this thread. And I suggest reading the book yourself for a more complete assessment.
This is what happened at the FBI office just shortly after LHO was arrested and identified:
Shanklin was quiet for a few minutes, listening to the person on the other end. Then Shanklin put his hand over the phone and said, “I got Belmont on the phone. He wants you, Hosty, to get down to the police department and take part in the interrogation of Oswald. Also, Belmont wants you to cooperate fully with the police and give them any information we have on Oswald. Get going. Now.” Since Alan Belmont was the third in command of the Bureau, this was a significant order. I left Shanklin’s office, and as I headed for the door to leave I heard Howe on another phone with Agent Dick Harrison, who was at the police station: “Harrison, tell Assistant Police Chief Stevenson that Hosty is on his way, that he’s our agent on the Oswald file. He’s going to help in the interrogation of Oswald.”
And this is Hosty’s version of a part of his encounter with Revill at the police station:
Revill and I never really got along, and disagreed often. Now I just couldn’t contain myself, so, in a fit of utter frustration with Revill and everything in the world generally, I blurted, “Jack, the Lee you’re talking about is Lee Oswald. He killed Tippit. He’s a Communist and he probably killed Kennedy, too. He’s under arrest right now upstairs!” Revill jerked his head in my direction and shouted, “What the hell did you say? A Communist killed Kennedy! I can’t believe that!” Revill was an avid John Bircher-type conservative, and he absolutely detested Kennedy. So to tell him that a Communist had killed the man he regarded as a Communist sympathizer must have felt like a dull blow to the head. Revill also knew that I was a lifelong Democrat, and that I had voted for Kennedy. Revill and I had had many arguments over politics, which frequently ended in shouting matches. I was constantly having to argue that Kennedy was really pro-American. In fact, just the day before, Revill and I had discussed the president’s forthcoming trip to Dallas and the security detail. The Secret Service wanted to utilize numerous Dallas police officers to help with security, and Revill wanted no part of it. “I don’t want to guard that son of a As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'. I think I might call in sick,” he had said.
And here is part of the interrogation of LHO that Hosty was involved with:
“How long were you in Russia?” “About three years.” “What did you do there?” “Why don’t you ask Hosty? He can probably tell you everything you want to know about me,” Oswald said with a smart-aleck smile. Fritz was starting to get a little frustrated, and again he turned and looked at me. I stopped taking notes and looked up at him. “Captain, I can explain all of this later. Why don’t you just continue?” Fritz shook his head and, clearly agitated, said, “Do you have any questions I should ask Lee, Mr. Hosty?” I decided it was probably best to go ahead and ask some of my own questions. I thought for just a moment and decided to ask Oswald about the communique I had just received today relating that Oswald had been in contact with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. I started off with what I thought was a rather general and innocuous question. Out of deference to Fritz, I said, “Ask him if he has ever been in Mexico City.” Fritz turned toward Oswald and said, “Tell us about that, Lee.” Oswald hesitated for just a moment, then answered, “Sure. Sure, I’ve been to Mexico. When I was stationed in San Diego with the Marines, a couple of my buddies and I would occasionally drive down to Tijuana over a weekend.” “No, not Tijuana. Mexico City. Captain, ask have you ever been to Mexico City,” I persisted. Oswald was visibly upset. “What makes you think I’ve been to Mexico City? I’ve never been there. I deny that.” He was shaking his head, and he was starting to sweat now. I knew I had touched a nerve. The door next to me flung open, and another police detective poked his head in. “Captain Fritz, they’re ready for the lineup now.” Fritz jumped up and said, “Okay, let’s take a break and go do this lineup.”
And here is what happened before LHO returned from the lineup:
TIME: 4:25 P.M. Harlan Brown, a senior agent in my squad, hurried up to me in the hallway. “Hosty! Come here. You are not to go back in on the interrogation of Oswald, and you are not to provide any information we have about Oswald to the police. Do you understand?” I was dumbfounded, but I said yes, I understood. This was in direct contradiction to what Alan Belmont, Hoover’s senior assistant, had ordered. But Brown was dead serious and was clutching my elbow tightly. It became clear to me that Belmont’s order had been countermanded, and that probably meant that either the Old Man — Hoover—had taken over control of the investigation, or that the White House had. I shuddered at the thought of Hoover personally supervising my work here in Dallas.
-
And here is what happened before LHO returned from the lineup:
TIME: 4:25 P.M. Harlan Brown, a senior agent in my squad, hurried up to me in the hallway. “Hosty! Come here. You are not to go back in on the interrogation of Oswald, and you are not to provide any information we have about Oswald to the police. Do you understand?” I was dumbfounded, but I said yes, I understood. This was in direct contradiction to what Alan Belmont, Hoover’s senior assistant, had ordered. But Brown was dead serious and was clutching my elbow tightly. It became clear to me that Belmont’s order had been countermanded, and that probably meant that either the Old Man — Hoover—had taken over control of the investigation, or that the White House had. I shuddered at the thought of Hoover personally supervising my work here in Dallas.
I think this order was given when the FBI realized LHO had been working with DeBrueys in New Orleans that summer.
-
I think this order was given when the FBI realized LHO had been working with DeBrueys in New Orleans that summer.
Based on things that he learned later, Hosty makes a reasonable case that he believes that it had to do with the top FBI officials trying to keep a lid on the Mexico City aspects of the case. Here’s another excerpt from “Assignment Oswald”:
“Ken, how did Shanklin find out about the Oswald note so fast?” I asked. Howe explained that after Oswald was arrested and his picture was shown on all the TV stations, Fenner recognized him as the guy who had brought the note in ten days ago. She reminded Clark about the note, but Clark couldn’t recall it. Then Fenner told Howe and Shanklin.
In 1979 I learned from Clark that he had received a call the day of the assassination from Bill Sullivan, one of Hoover’s other top assistants, who told him to make sure I did not see the communique from the D.C. field office about Oswald writing to the Soviet Embassy in Washington. Clark then told Howe to keep the communique — which had just arrived the day of the assassination — and any others concerning Mexico City from me. Howe knew I had already seen the communique that afternoon, but he decided to remove it and other related memos from my file drawer so I couldn’t see it again. Going through my file drawer, Howe came across the Oswald note and took it to Shanklin. Howe said Shanklin instantly became livid. How was this going to appear to the public, and especially to Hoover, he wanted to know. I told Howe I still didn’t think the note was that big a deal, and what we had to do was put it in context. Howe shrugged. I went back to my desk and began reviewing my Oswald file again.
-
In 1979 I learned from Clark that he had received a call the day of the assassination from Bill Sullivan, one of Hoover’s other top assistants, who told him to make sure I did not see the communique from the D.C. field office about Oswald writing to the Soviet Embassy in Washington. Clark then told Howe to keep the communique — which had just arrived the day of the assassination — and any others concerning Mexico City from me. Howe knew I had already seen the communique that afternoon, but he decided to remove it and other related memos from my file drawer so I couldn’t see it again.
I wonder why the fbi didn't want hosty to know lho had written a letter to the ussr embassy in early Nov 1963. Looks like the fbi were trying to keep hosty in the dark for some reason. Perhaps they thought the less he knew, the less he could blab to the Dallas police.
-
I wonder why the fbi didn't want hosty to know lho had written a letter to the ussr embassy in early Nov 1963. Looks like the fbi were trying to keep hosty in the dark for some reason. Perhaps they thought the less he knew, the less he could blab to the Dallas police.
Hosty ties a lot together to support a theory that they felt it was necessary to keep some information secret in order to try to prevent a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. He explains all of it in his book and I believe that it is quite reasonable.
-
Hosty ties a lot together to support a theory that they felt it was necessary to keep some information secret in order to try to prevent a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. He explains all of it in his book and I believe that it is quite reasonable.
You might be right. What people were thinking can be hard to figure out.
-
You might be right. What people were thinking can be hard to figure out.
Movies often reflect a culture’s concerns. This movie (Dr. Strangelove) came out in 1964:
(https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=snTaSJk0n_Y)[/url]
-
This is a better, larger scan courtesy of the folks at UNT:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338676/m1/1/?q=crime%20scene%20section%20form (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338676/m1/1/?q=crime%20scene%20section%20form)
LOL, the scan itself may be better and larger, but the copy of the document being scanned is of far inferior quality to the one posted by Mr O'Meara