A Question on the Wallace issue
Robert Harris
between Wallace's prints and a print found on a box in the depository was
confirmed in writing by handwriting expert, Harold Hoffmeister, although
he retracted his opinion after learning that it was connected to the JFK
assassination.
In his book, Bugliosi attacked the argument by pointing out that an FBI
report stated that the only unidentified print was of the palm, and
suggested that the finger print was not the one found in the Depository.
However, looking at this article, we see what certainly appears to be a
fingerprint, which was claimed to have been acquired from the National
Archives.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/23rd_Issue/breakthru.html
It would seem that it would be quite easy to confirm or deny that the
print in the article was the same as the one that resides in the archives.
Have any of Bugliosi's fans attempted to make that confirmation (or
refutation)? And if so, what was discovered?
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
What I want to see is some kind of PROOF that the alleged FINGERPRINT
of Mac Wallace was lifted off a box in the TSBD's Sniper's Nest.
To date, there has been no such proof that the fingerprint of Wallace
in question was actually taken from a SN box.
And CE3131 is very clear -- as of September 18, 1964, there was just
ONE unidentified print on any of the TSBD boxes--and that was a
PALMprint, not a fingerprint.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0423a.htm
Anthony Marsh
That's fine, but you don't take the same tough guy stance about Oswald's
fingerprints. You don't demand proof there.
Robert Harris
<59ef6ae5-da47-4d7b...@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
According to people at my forum, the picture of the print is in the WCR.
It was described as follows, referencing the book "Blood, Money & Power"
by Barr McClellan.
"Check out Exhibit C of the Appendices. It shows a picture of the
subject latent fingerprint on Box A. The picture is identified as
Warren Commission print # 29. The FBI notes that accompany the picture
indicate that the print is unidentified due to insufficient
characteristics, but could belong to Detective Studebaker. Darby could
not make a match to Studebaker, but was able to conclusively match it to
Wallace's inked fingerprint..
It shows a picture of the subject latent fingerprint on Box A."
If that is correct, then it would certainly seem that the photo is the
real thing and Bugliosi was waaaay off base.
Comments?
Robert Harris
pjsp...@aol.com
Dave, I'd assumed you'd read all of DiEugenio's reviews of Vinnie's
baby. In one of his reviews, he AGREED with Bugliosi that the point
you raise is a valid point. I sent him an email correcting him on
this, and he ended up adding a correction to his review.
There were a number of unidentified prints on the boxes. These were
entered into evidence as unidentified prints. Later, in September,
when the FBI finally decided to do its job and look at some
elimination prints, they realized that all the prints but one palm
print came from the DPD's Robert Studebaker, and the FBI's Forrest
Lucy. This information came to the WC via Hoover, in a letter, that
DID NOT INCLUDE photos of the individual prints and comparisons with
the prints of Studebaker and Lucy.
Jump ahead 30 years. Some wiseguys decide to check if the print could
be Wallace's print. Instead of giving Darby a photo of the
unidentified palm print, however, and asking him to compare it to
Wallace's print, however, they give him photos of ALL the prints
initially unidentified, and he identifies a finger print apparently
later claimed to have been Studebaker's as a print belonging to
Wallace. (This is all in McClellan's book, by the way, which makes it
hard to understand how Bugliosi could have missed this.)
Now, I am perfectly willing to believe Darby was mistaken in his
identification. But, until someone does the leg work and gets access
to Studebaker's prints, and shows how the print Darby identified as
Wallace's REALLY was one of Studebaker's, there is room for doubt.
curtjester1
Nathan Darby in TMWKK 9th and banned episode.
The Guilty Men (5 segments below)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaWUcyjAeIk&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05AsvqWfzts&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJPWhn6P5fE&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut-4QXzNBno&mode=related&search=
Starting at 7:45 ^
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mzZGK9tNyM&mode=related&search=
And At the Beginning of the final episode
CJ
Robert Harris
<59ef6ae5-da47-4d7b...@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
David, I have been told that the fingerprint in question can be seen in
WC exhibit ce656c. You can see a photo of it at the forum at:
http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=24.15
Scroll down to see the photo posted by "Mitz".
Unless you believe the WC fabricated the fingerprint, it would seem that
it was definitely legit.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "David, I have been told that the fingerprint in question can be seen
That doesn't mean anything, Robert. The prints marked "unidentified" in
CE656 were very likely identified as prints of policemen AFTER those CE656
photos were taken.
The FBI didn't even start to clear this matter up re the prints until
September of '64. And CE656 was officially introduced into evidence by the
WC months earlier than that--on April 2, 1964, when fingerprint expert
Arthur Mandella testified:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0005a.htm
ShutterBun
Assuming everything mentioned here is true, "then what"? Where do we
go from here? Are fingerprints on boxes (even if legitimate) enough to
convict Wallace in your minds? Of what? What else do you suppose
happened?
Is this yet another in a long line of "anyone but Oswald" theories, or
does this particular scenario actually have a plottable trajectory?
It's been nearly 50 years. Let's assume the prints are legit. Where
does the trail lead? (there's been ample time to follow this
scenario, I assume?)
Robert Harris
<ecdf780e-ba79-4e31...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "David, I have been told that the fingerprint in question can be seen
> in WC exhibit ce656c. .... Unless you believe the WC fabricated the
> fingerprint, it would seem that it was definitely legit." <<<
>
>
> That doesn't mean anything, Robert. The prints marked "unidentified" in
> CE656 were very likely identified as prints of policemen AFTER those CE656
> photos were taken.
This is not about "very likely". The print that was claimed to match
Wallace's came from CE656c.
It was definitely legitimate.
>
> The FBI didn't even start to clear this matter up re the prints until
> September of '64. And CE656 was officially introduced into evidence by the
> WC months earlier than that--on April 2, 1964, when fingerprint expert
> Arthur Mandella testified:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0005a.htm
I have no idea what your point is. If the fingerprint experts were
correct, then the print found on that box was Wallace's.
What are you trying to say?
Robert Harris
pjsp...@aol.com
What? Am I reading this right? You insinuated that the print Darby
matched to Wallace's could not be seen in a WC exhibit, and that for
all we knew some CT had pulled a fast one. Robert then corrected you
on this, and showed you where the print can be seen in the WC's
exhibits. You then said that DIDN'T MEAN anything! Sorry, David, but
YES, it does. It means that your earlier concern was not based on
anything. It means that Darby's ID of Wallace's print was either
incorrect, or correct, and that your HERO Bugliosi was blowing a bunch
of SMOKE when he dismissed the ID by insinuating Darby had been snowed
by some CTs. You've admitted his mistakes in the past, David. Face it.
This is another one. A BIG one.
As far as the FBI's later ID of the print in question as Studebaker's,
well, all we have on this is a statement by Hoover. No one testified
to it. No exhibit demonstrating this was ever entered into the WC's
records. So, legally-speaking, Darby's sworn statements re the ID
trumps Hoover's second hand info re this print.
So my challenge stands. Some LN needs to have an expert perform a
blind comparison between the questioned print and Studebaker's. Maybe
such a comparison can be found in Scalice's files. Go at it.
Robert Harris
<d27fcd88-0637-4621...@f20g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
ShutterBun <shutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, I'd like to ask the Conspiracy Theorists this:
>
> Assuming everything mentioned here is true, "then what"? Where do we
> go from here?
If the claim is true, we would all need to make the story known to the
media and try to put pressure on the government to properly investigate
the crime and arrest any surviving perps - just as they would do in any
other crime.
> Are fingerprints on boxes (even if legitimate) enough to
> convict Wallace in your minds?
Yes, just as they would be in any other crime.
> Of what?
Murder in the first degree. Duh...
> What else do you suppose
> happened?
I dunno. I think the murder part should be enough to get our attention
though.
>
> Is this yet another in a long line of "anyone but Oswald" theories, or
> does this particular scenario actually have a plottable trajectory?
Those are secondary issues. Oswald may or may not have been a shooter as
well. But hopefully, a proper investigation would answer answer some of
that.
>
> It's been nearly 50 years. Let's assume the prints are legit. Where
> does the trail lead? (there's been ample time to follow this
> scenario, I assume?)
The "trail"leads where the evidence takes the investigation. Perhaps, it
is too late to learn most of the details, but the truth is a valid end
in itself. That's why historians spend their lives researching events
that are infinitely less important than this one.
And why wouldn't YOU want to know what happened? If you are not here to
figure this thing out, then why ARE you here?
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "David, I have been told that the fingerprint in question can be seen
> in WC exhibit ce656c. .... Unless you believe the WC fabricated the
> fingerprint, it would seem that it was definitely legit."<<<
>
>
> That doesn't mean anything, Robert. The prints marked "unidentified" in
> CE656 were very likely identified as prints of policemen AFTER those CE656
> photos were taken.
>
Ok, it's fun to guess. Especially by a WC defender when he has no
evidence. So tell us whose prints those were.
Jason Burke
> In article
> <d27fcd88-0637-4621...@f20g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> ShutterBun<shutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just out of curiosity, I'd like to ask the Conspiracy Theorists this:
>>
>> Assuming everything mentioned here is true, "then what"? Where do we
>> go from here?
>
> If the claim is true, we would all need to make the story known to the
> media and try to put pressure on the government to properly investigate
> the crime and arrest any surviving perps - just as they would do in any
> other crime.
Riiightt, Bob. I believe the crime has been investigated - many times.
By people with actual knowledge of what they're talking about. Not that
that has any effect on you.
Or are you now writing a book also?
claviger
> Ok, according to conspiracy advocates, Nathan Darby's alleged match
> between Wallace's prints and a print found on a box in the depository was
> confirmed in writing by handwriting expert, Harold Hoffmeister, although
> he retracted his opinion after learning that it was connected to the JFK
> assassination.
>
> In his book, Bugliosi attacked the argument by pointing out that an FBI
> report stated that the only unidentified print was of the palm, and
> suggested that the finger print was not the one found in the Depository.
>
> However, looking at this article, we see what certainly appears to be a
> fingerprint, which was claimed to have been acquired from the National
> Archives.
>
>
> It would seem that it would be quite easy to confirm or deny that the
> print in the article was the same as the one that resides in the archives.
>
> Have any of Bugliosi's fans attempted to make that confirmation (or
> refutation)? And if so, what was discovered?
>
> Robert Harris
IIRC, didn't Wallace have an airtight alibi, in that he was known to be at
his place of work where several employees saw him and confirmed he was not
absent from work that day?
David Von Pein
>>> "So, legally-speaking, Darby's sworn statements re the ID trumps
Hoover's second hand info re this print." <<<
No, it doesn't. Not even close. Because as of 9/18/64 (via CE3131), we
have it writing by Hoover's FBI that all prints had been identified on the
TSBD boxes except for one single PALMprint.
And why in the world would you claim that Hoover's info concerning the
September '64 print investigation is "second hand"? I think it's YOU who
are "blowing smoke", Pat.
Sorry, Pat & Bob, but you'll just have to live with CE3131. Because it
trumps Darby.
Robert Harris
Jason Burke <jason...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 8/4/2010 8:49 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > In article
> > <d27fcd88-0637-4621...@f20g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> > ShutterBun<shutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Just out of curiosity, I'd like to ask the Conspiracy Theorists this:
> >>
> >> Assuming everything mentioned here is true, "then what"? Where do we
> >> go from here?
> >
> > If the claim is true, we would all need to make the story known to the
> > media and try to put pressure on the government to properly investigate
> > the crime and arrest any surviving perps - just as they would do in any
> > other crime.
>
> Riiightt, Bob. I believe the crime has been investigated - many times.
> By people with actual knowledge of what they're talking about. Not that
> that has any effect on you.
>
> Or are you now writing a book also?
Jason, the only hands-on investigation of the crime was carried out by an
FBI whose documented intention from the outset was that the public must be
convinced that there was no conspiracy.
Even members of the WC complained about the FBI's closed mindedness and
refusal to explore conspiracy leads.
I think, or at least hope that today's FBI is far more capable of carrying
out an honest investigation.
Robert Harris
tomnln
"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bobharris77-FCF2...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
NAME THE GUILTY ONES WHO WERE IMPRISONED?
if THEY'RE STILL THERE, NO HONEST INVESTIGATIONS ! !
claviger
> Jason, the only hands-on investigation of the crime was carried out by an
> FBI whose documented intention from the outset was that the public must be
> convinced that there was no conspiracy.
>
> Even members of the WC complained about the FBI's closed mindedness and
> refusal to explore conspiracy leads.
>
> I think, or at least hope that today's FBI is far more capable of carrying
> out an honest investigation.
>
> Robert Harris
So write a letter to the President and demand the transparency he promised
in the election. Ask him to have the modern FBI reinvestigate this case
and furthermore, to immediately release all remaining documents that are
still being withheld from the public until 2017.
Anthony Marsh
> In article<4C59DCC9...@comcast.net>,
> Jason Burke<jason...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/4/2010 8:49 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <d27fcd88-0637-4621...@f20g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>>> ShutterBun<shutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just out of curiosity, I'd like to ask the Conspiracy Theorists this:
>>>>
>>>> Assuming everything mentioned here is true, "then what"? Where do we
>>>> go from here?
>>>
>>> If the claim is true, we would all need to make the story known to the
>>> media and try to put pressure on the government to properly investigate
>>> the crime and arrest any surviving perps - just as they would do in any
>>> other crime.
>>
>> Riiightt, Bob. I believe the crime has been investigated - many times.
>> By people with actual knowledge of what they're talking about. Not that
>> that has any effect on you.
>>
>> Or are you now writing a book also?
>
> Jason, the only hands-on investigation of the crime was carried out by an
> FBI whose documented intention from the outset was that the public must be
> convinced that there was no conspiracy.
>
Yes, because they KNEW it was a conspiracy.
> Even members of the WC complained about the FBI's closed mindedness and
> refusal to explore conspiracy leads.
>
Even members of the WC complained about the CIA's cover-up of information.
> I think, or at least hope that today's FBI is far more capable of carrying
> out an honest investigation.
>
>
Hoover complained that the FBI did not have the resources to investigate
in other countries.
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<7c241a6f-d81a-41a3...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:
That would be good but we won't need to if a solid, provable case is
made to the media.
Robert Harris
claviger
> In article
> <7c241a6f-d81a-41a3-8aed-d482cf026...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
write one too.
pjsp...@aol.com
LOL. How can a letter written by one man claiming an expert said such
and such TRUMP a sworn statement by an acknowledged expert? GET REAL.
David Von Pein
>>> "How can a letter written by one man claiming an expert said such and such TRUMP a sworn statement by an acknowledged expert?" <<<
Easy. And it's incredible that you can't see that fact, Pat. Amazing.
pjsp...@aol.com
> >>> "How can a letter written by one man claiming an expert said such and such TRUMP a sworn statement by an acknowledged expert?" <<<
>
> Easy. And it's incredible that you can't see that fact, Pat. Amazing.
David, are you really trying to claim Hoover was an unimpeachable
source? Are you really unaware of how he twisted the truth in his
testimony?
The Hoover Truth
On 5-14-64, a week after President Johnson waived his impending
mandatory retirement, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover testifies before
the Commission. (5H96-120) Despite his taking an oath to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he offers up the
Hoover truth.
* Hoover Truth: “I have read many of the reports that our agents
have made and I have been unable to find any scintilla of evidence
showing any foreign conspiracy or any domestic conspiracy that
culminated in the assassination of President Kennedy.” (Note: Hoover
had known for three years or more that organized crime and the anti-
Castro elements likely to set up Oswald were linked and were
conspiring to murder Fidel Castro, Oswald’s supposed hero. Even
though this information could lead one to suspect that Oswald killed
Kennedy in retaliation, or that Oswald was indeed set up, Hoover
failed to mention anything about this to the Commission.)
* Hoover Truth: “There have been publications and books written,
the contents of which have been absurd and without a scintilla of
foundation of fact. “I, personally, feel that any finding of the
Commission will not be accepted by everybody, because there are bound
to be some extremists who have very pronounced views, without any
foundation for them, who will disagree violently with whatever
findings the Commission makes.” (Note: two of the loudest voices to
argue against the Commission’s findings were not extremists at all,
but former FBI agents William Turner and Jim Garrison. More
pointedly, the President for whom the report was written, Lyndon
Johnson, never believed its findings. )
* Hoover Truth: “I don’t think you can get absolute security
without almost establishing a police state, and we don’t want
that.” (Note: by 1964 Hoover had long been using the FBI to
infiltrate and discredit organizations he found personally
despicable. These FBI-trained infiltrators would frequently encourage
the targeted organizations to engage in violent activity, in order to
help discredit them in the public eye. Curiously, one of the
organizations targeted by Hoover under this program (COINTELPRO) was
the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, an organization publicly discredited
in New Orleans by the actions of Lee Harvey Oswald.)
* Hoover Truth: (When asked if he still agreed that Oswald acted
alone.) “I subscribe to it even more strongly today than I did at the
time the report was written. You see the original idea was that there
would be an investigation by the FBI and a report would be prepared in
such a form that it could be released to the public…Then a few days
later, after further consideration, the President decided to form a
commission, which I think was very wise, because I feel that the
report of any agency of Government investigating what might be some
shortcomings on the part of other agencies of Government ought to be
reviewed by an impartial group such as this Commission.” (Note:
Hoover failed to state that he originally told Johnson that a
Presidential Commission would be a “three-ring circus.’ Hoover also
failed to acknowledge that with the FBI’s report, it was not only
investigating the shortcomings of other agencies, i.e. the State
department, CIA, Secret Service, and Dallas Police Department, but the
potential shortcomings of the FBI itself, as the FBI had failed to add
Oswald’s name to the Security Index used by the Secret Service to
track possible threats to the President.)
* Hoover Truth: (When asked by Congressman Hale Boggs if he had
any ideas about Oswald’s motivation.) “My speculation, Mr. Boggs, is
that this man was no doubt a dedicated Communist…He stayed in Moscow
awhile and he went to Minsk where he worked. There was no indication
of any difficulty, personally on his part there, but I haven’t the
slightest doubt he was a dedicated Communist.” (Note: Hoover was
obsessed with Communism, and saw Communists as evil and everywhere.
His domestic intelligence chief William Sullivan wrote a book
admitting that by the early 1960s a substantial percentage of the
members of American communist organizations were in fact FBI
informants.)
* Hoover Truth: “Now some people have raised the question, why
didn’t he shoot the President as the car came toward the storehouse
where he was working? The reason for that is, I think, the fact there
were some trees between his window on the sixth floor and the cars as
they turned and went through the park. So he waited until the car got
out from under the trees, and the limbs, and then he had a perfectly
clear view of the of the occupants of the car, and I think he took
aim, either on the President or Connally, and I personally believe it
was the President in view of the twisted mentality the man
had.” (Note, as demonstrated by the photos of the assassination scene
taken by the Secret Service, and published by the Warren commission as
Exhibit 875, there was a clear shot down Houston, should a sniper have
been so inclined. The only trees were to the right of the sniper’s
nest, blocking its view down Elm.)
* Hoover Truth: (When discussing the attitude of the Soviet
Government, and the KGB in particular, towards Oswald) “I think they
probably looked upon him more as a kind of a queer sort of individual
and they didn’t trust him too strongly. But just the day before
yesterday information came to me indicating that there is an espionage
training school outside of Minsk—I don’t know whether it was true—and
that he was trained in that school to come back to this country to
become what they call a “sleeper,” that is a man who will remain
dormant for 3 or 4 years and in case of international hostilities rise
up and be used.” (Note: this from the man who just swore there was
not one “scintilla” of evidence indicating a foreign conspiracy. It
seems Hoover couldn’t help but kick a little sand in the direction of
Russia when given the opportunity.)
* Hoover Truth: “Now, we interviewed Oswald a few days after he
arrived…There was nothing up to the time of the assassination that
gave any indication that this man was a dangerous character who might
do harm to the President or to the Vice-President, so his name was not
furnished at the time to the Secret Service. Under the new criteria
which we have now put into force and effect, it would have been
furnished because we now include all defectors.” (Note: here, Hoover
almost certainly commits perjury. Hoover concealed from the commission
that on December 10, 1963, he’d censured or placed on probation 17
employees (5 field investigators, 1 field supervisor, 3 special agents
in charge, 4 headquarters supervisors, 2 headquarters section chiefs,
1inspector, and 1 assistant director) for what the inspector of the
internal investigation, James Gale, termed “shortcomings in connection
with the investigation of Oswald prior to the assassination.” When
Assistant director Alan Belmont complained about this action, stating
that since “all of the supervisors and officials who came into contact
with this case…are unanimous in the opinion that Oswald did not meet
the criteria for the Security Index…it would appear that the criteria
are not sufficiently specific,” Hoover blasted him. On Belmont’s
addendum to Gale’s December 10, 1963 memo, Hoover wrote “They were
worse than mistaken. Certainly no one in full possession of all his
faculties can claim Oswald didn’t fall within this criteria.” On
September 24, 1964, the day the Warren Report, which included
criticisms of the FBI’s investigation of Oswald prior to the
assassination, was released, Hoover pounced again, writing that the
employees who failed to properly investigate Oswald “could not have
been more stupid.” He then punished these employees a second time. On
September 30, 1964, Inspector Gale wrote “It is felt that it is
appropriate at this time to consider further administrative action
against those primarily culpable for the derelictions in this case
which have now had the effect of publicly embarrassing the Bureau.”
When a number of top FBI officials reacted angrily to the Warren
Report’s criticism of the Bureau, and began planning ways to defend
the FBI in the press, Hoover reiterated his position that the FBI was
in fact to blame. On a 10-1-64 memo from Alan Belmont to Clyde
Tolson: he wrote “We were wrong. The administrative actions approved
by me will stand. I do not intend to palliate actions which have
resulted in forever destroying the Bureau as the top level
investigative organization.” )
* Hoover Truth: “There was very aggressive press coverage at
Dallas. I was so concerned that I asked my agent in charge at Dallas,
Mr. Shanklin, to personally go to Chief Curry and tell him that I
insisted that he not go on the air any more until this case was
resolved. Until all the evidence had been examined, I did not want any
statements made concerning the progress of the investigation. Because
of the fact the President had asked me to take charge of the case I
insisted that he and all members of his department refrain from public
statements.” (Note: immediately following Oswald’s death, Hoover’s
man in Dallas, Mr. Shanklin, listed all the evidence against Oswald
for the New York Times. Moreover, the Times’ 11-25 description of the
evidence indicates that Shanklin misrepresented the results of the
paraffin tests, stating that they showed “particles of gunpowder from
a weapon, probably a rifle, on Oswald’s cheek and hands.” While the
tests results were consistent with Oswald firing a pistol, the test
results were negative for his cheek. Therefore, there was nothing
whatsoever about the tests that suggested Oswald had fired a rifle.)
* Hoover Truth: “Well, I can tell you so far as the FBI is
concerned the case will be continued in an open classification for all
time. That is, any information coming to us or any report coming to
us from any source will be thoroughly investigated, so that we will be
able to either prove or disprove the allegation.” (Note: in February
1967, Edward Morgan, a lawyer representing CIA front-man Robert Maheu
and mafia strategist Johnny Rosselli, contacted columnist Drew Pearson
and told him about the joint CIA/Mafia attempts to kill Castro, and
the possibility they’d backfired on Kennedy. Pearson then told Chief
Justice Earl Warren, who in turn told Secret Service Chief James
Rowley. When Rowley told Hoover about the incident, Alex Rosen
drafted the FBI response. Rosen would later testify that he was sick
and that an unidentified subordinate wrote this under his name. His
response: “no investigation will be conducted regarding the
allegations…to Chief Justice Warren.” The letter, which was sent to
Chief Rowley under Hoover’s name on 2-15-67, went on to state “The
Bureau is not conducting any investigation regarding this matter.
However, should Mr. Pearson, (Morgan), or (his) source of information
care to volunteer any information to the Bureau, it would be
accepted.” The internal memo from Rosen to White House/FBI liaison
Cartha Deloach added: “Consideration was given to furnishing this
information to the White House, but since this matter does not
concern, nor is it pertinent to the present Administration, no letter
was being sent.”)
Robert Harris
<ecdf780e-ba79-4e31...@u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "David, I have been told that the fingerprint in question can be seen
> in WC exhibit ce656c. .... Unless you believe the WC fabricated the
> fingerprint, it would seem that it was definitely legit." <<<
>
>
> That doesn't mean anything, Robert. The prints marked "unidentified" in
> CE656 were very likely identified as prints of policemen AFTER those CE656
> photos were taken.
But they weren't.
They were identified as Wallace's prints.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 7, 9:27 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "How can a letter written by one man claiming an expert said such and such TRUMP a sworn statement by an acknowledged expert?"<<<
>>
>> Easy. And it's incredible that you can't see that fact, Pat. Amazing.
>
> David, are you really trying to claim Hoover was an unimpeachable
> source? Are you really unaware of how he twisted the truth in his
> testimony?
>
> The Hoover Truth
>
> On 5-14-64, a week after President Johnson waived his impending
> mandatory retirement, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover testifies before
> the Commission. (5H96-120) Despite his taking an oath to tell the
> truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he offers up the
> Hoover truth.
>
> have made and I have been unable to find any scintilla of evidence
> showing any foreign conspiracy or any domestic conspiracy that
On December 12, 1963 Hoover wrote a memo to his closest aides indicating
that he believed Oswald was part of a conspiracy hatched in Havana.
> culminated in the assassination of President Kennedy.? (Note: Hoover
> had known for three years or more that organized crime and the anti-
> Castro elements likely to set up Oswald were linked and were
> conspiring to murder Fidel Castro, Oswald?s supposed hero. Even
> though this information could lead one to suspect that Oswald killed
> Kennedy in retaliation, or that Oswald was indeed set up, Hoover
> failed to mention anything about this to the Commission.)
> * Hoover Truth: ?There have been publications and books written,
> the contents of which have been absurd and without a scintilla of
> foundation of fact. ?I, personally, feel that any finding of the
> Commission will not be accepted by everybody, because there are bound
> to be some extremists who have very pronounced views, without any
> foundation for them, who will disagree violently with whatever
> findings the Commission makes.? (Note: two of the loudest voices to
> argue against the Commission?s findings were not extremists at all,
> but former FBI agents William Turner and Jim Garrison. More
> pointedly, the President for whom the report was written, Lyndon
> Johnson, never believed its findings. )
> * Hoover Truth: ?I don?t think you can get absolute security
> without almost establishing a police state, and we don?t want
> that.? (Note: by 1964 Hoover had long been using the FBI to
> infiltrate and discredit organizations he found personally
> despicable. These FBI-trained infiltrators would frequently encourage
> the targeted organizations to engage in violent activity, in order to
> help discredit them in the public eye. Curiously, one of the
> organizations targeted by Hoover under this program (COINTELPRO) was
> the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, an organization publicly discredited
> in New Orleans by the actions of Lee Harvey Oswald.)
> * Hoover Truth: (When asked if he still agreed that Oswald acted
> alone.) ?I subscribe to it even more strongly today than I did at the
> time the report was written. You see the original idea was that there
> would be an investigation by the FBI and a report would be prepared in
> such a form that it could be released to the public?Then a few days
> later, after further consideration, the President decided to form a
> commission, which I think was very wise, because I feel that the
> report of any agency of Government investigating what might be some
> shortcomings on the part of other agencies of Government ought to be
> reviewed by an impartial group such as this Commission.? (Note:
> Hoover failed to state that he originally told Johnson that a
> Presidential Commission would be a ?three-ring circus.? Hoover also
> failed to acknowledge that with the FBI?s report, it was not only
> investigating the shortcomings of other agencies, i.e. the State
> department, CIA, Secret Service, and Dallas Police Department, but the
> potential shortcomings of the FBI itself, as the FBI had failed to add
> Oswald?s name to the Security Index used by the Secret Service to
> track possible threats to the President.)
> * Hoover Truth: (When asked by Congressman Hale Boggs if he had
> any ideas about Oswald?s motivation.) ?My speculation, Mr. Boggs, is
> that this man was no doubt a dedicated Communist?He stayed in Moscow
> awhile and he went to Minsk where he worked. There was no indication
> of any difficulty, personally on his part there, but I haven?t the
> slightest doubt he was a dedicated Communist.? (Note: Hoover was
> obsessed with Communism, and saw Communists as evil and everywhere.
> His domestic intelligence chief William Sullivan wrote a book
> admitting that by the early 1960s a substantial percentage of the
> members of American communist organizations were in fact FBI
> informants.)
> * Hoover Truth: ?Now some people have raised the question, why
> didn?t he shoot the President as the car came toward the storehouse
> where he was working? The reason for that is, I think, the fact there
> were some trees between his window on the sixth floor and the cars as
> they turned and went through the park. So he waited until the car got
> out from under the trees, and the limbs, and then he had a perfectly
> clear view of the of the occupants of the car, and I think he took
> aim, either on the President or Connally, and I personally believe it
> was the President in view of the twisted mentality the man
> had.? (Note, as demonstrated by the photos of the assassination scene
> taken by the Secret Service, and published by the Warren commission as
> Exhibit 875, there was a clear shot down Houston, should a sniper have
> been so inclined. The only trees were to the right of the sniper?s
> nest, blocking its view down Elm.)
> * Hoover Truth: (When discussing the attitude of the Soviet
> Government, and the KGB in particular, towards Oswald) ?I think they
> probably looked upon him more as a kind of a queer sort of individual
> and they didn?t trust him too strongly. But just the day before
> yesterday information came to me indicating that there is an espionage
> training school outside of Minsk?I don?t know whether it was true?and
> that he was trained in that school to come back to this country to
> become what they call a ?sleeper,? that is a man who will remain
> dormant for 3 or 4 years and in case of international hostilities rise
> up and be used.? (Note: this from the man who just swore there was
> not one ?scintilla? of evidence indicating a foreign conspiracy. It
> seems Hoover couldn?t help but kick a little sand in the direction of
> Russia when given the opportunity.)
> * Hoover Truth: ?Now, we interviewed Oswald a few days after he
> arrived?There was nothing up to the time of the assassination that
> gave any indication that this man was a dangerous character who might
> do harm to the President or to the Vice-President, so his name was not
> furnished at the time to the Secret Service. Under the new criteria
> which we have now put into force and effect, it would have been
> furnished because we now include all defectors.? (Note: here, Hoover
> almost certainly commits perjury. Hoover concealed from the commission
> that on December 10, 1963, he?d censured or placed on probation 17
> employees (5 field investigators, 1 field supervisor, 3 special agents
> in charge, 4 headquarters supervisors, 2 headquarters section chiefs,
> 1inspector, and 1 assistant director) for what the inspector of the
> internal investigation, James Gale, termed ?shortcomings in connection
> with the investigation of Oswald prior to the assassination.? When
> Assistant director Alan Belmont complained about this action, stating
> that since ?all of the supervisors and officials who came into contact
> with this case?are unanimous in the opinion that Oswald did not meet
> the criteria for the Security Index?it would appear that the criteria
> are not sufficiently specific,? Hoover blasted him. On Belmont?s
> addendum to Gale?s December 10, 1963 memo, Hoover wrote ?They were
> worse than mistaken. Certainly no one in full possession of all his
> faculties can claim Oswald didn?t fall within this criteria.? On
> September 24, 1964, the day the Warren Report, which included
> criticisms of the FBI?s investigation of Oswald prior to the
> assassination, was released, Hoover pounced again, writing that the
> employees who failed to properly investigate Oswald ?could not have
> been more stupid.? He then punished these employees a second time. On
> September 30, 1964, Inspector Gale wrote ?It is felt that it is
> appropriate at this time to consider further administrative action
> against those primarily culpable for the derelictions in this case
> which have now had the effect of publicly embarrassing the Bureau.?
> When a number of top FBI officials reacted angrily to the Warren
> Report?s criticism of the Bureau, and began planning ways to defend
> the FBI in the press, Hoover reiterated his position that the FBI was
> in fact to blame. On a 10-1-64 memo from Alan Belmont to Clyde
> Tolson: he wrote ?We were wrong. The administrative actions approved
> by me will stand. I do not intend to palliate actions which have
> resulted in forever destroying the Bureau as the top level
> investigative organization.? )
> * Hoover Truth: ?There was very aggressive press coverage at
> Dallas. I was so concerned that I asked my agent in charge at Dallas,
> Mr. Shanklin, to personally go to Chief Curry and tell him that I
> insisted that he not go on the air any more until this case was
> resolved. Until all the evidence had been examined, I did not want any
> statements made concerning the progress of the investigation. Because
> of the fact the President had asked me to take charge of the case I
> insisted that he and all members of his department refrain from public
> statements.? (Note: immediately following Oswald?s death, Hoover?s
> man in Dallas, Mr. Shanklin, listed all the evidence against Oswald
> for the New York Times. Moreover, the Times? 11-25 description of the
> evidence indicates that Shanklin misrepresented the results of the
> paraffin tests, stating that they showed ?particles of gunpowder from
> a weapon, probably a rifle, on Oswald?s cheek and hands.? While the
> tests results were consistent with Oswald firing a pistol, the test
> results were negative for his cheek. Therefore, there was nothing
> whatsoever about the tests that suggested Oswald had fired a rifle.)
> * Hoover Truth: ?Well, I can tell you so far as the FBI is
> concerned the case will be continued in an open classification for all
> time. That is, any information coming to us or any report coming to
> us from any source will be thoroughly investigated, so that we will be
> able to either prove or disprove the allegation.? (Note: in February
> 1967, Edward Morgan, a lawyer representing CIA front-man Robert Maheu
> and mafia strategist Johnny Rosselli, contacted columnist Drew Pearson
> and told him about the joint CIA/Mafia attempts to kill Castro, and
> the possibility they?d backfired on Kennedy. Pearson then told Chief
> Justice Earl Warren, who in turn told Secret Service Chief James
> Rowley. When Rowley told Hoover about the incident, Alex Rosen
> drafted the FBI response. Rosen would later testify that he was sick
> and that an unidentified subordinate wrote this under his name. His
> response: ?no investigation will be conducted regarding the
> allegations?to Chief Justice Warren.? The letter, which was sent to
> Chief Rowley under Hoover?s name on 2-15-67, went on to state ?The
> Bureau is not conducting any investigation regarding this matter.
> However, should Mr. Pearson, (Morgan), or (his) source of information
> care to volunteer any information to the Bureau, it would be
> accepted.? The internal memo from Rosen to White House/FBI liaison
> Cartha Deloach added: ?Consideration was given to furnishing this
> information to the White House, but since this matter does not
> concern, nor is it pertinent to the present Administration, no letter
> was being sent.?)
>
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/8/2010 3:43 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 9:27 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>On December 12, 1963 Hoover wrote a memo to his closest aides indicating
>that he believed Oswald was part of a conspiracy hatched in Havana.
>
How about a citation.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 9 Aug 2010 20:51:50 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/8/2010 3:43 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>> On Aug 7, 9:27 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> On December 12, 1963 Hoover wrote a memo to his closest aides indicating
>> that he believed Oswald was part of a conspiracy hatched in Havana.
>>
>
> How about a citation.
>
I like how you ask me for a citation to the same memo 500 times and I
comply 500 times and then you politely wait a year and ask me another
500 times for a citation to the same memo.
http://www.jfklancer.com/Hoover.html
The following is the text of a memo written by FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover to his associate, Clyde Tolson concerning his control of the
Warren Commission investigation and the treatment of Lee Harvey Oswald
as the "lone assassin."
11:35 a.m. December 12, 1963
MEMORANDUM FOR: MR. TOLSON
MR. BELMONT
MR. MOHR
MR. CONRAD
MR. DELOACH
MR. EVANS
MR. ROSEN
MR. SULLIVAN
Mr. Lee Rankin called from New York to check in with me on the matter of
the Commission. He wanted to work out an arrangement with me which he
thought might be satisfactory. He said he understood Mr. Belmont handled
the investigation.
I told Mr. Rankin that Mr. Belmont, Mr. Rosen and I handled the
preparation of the report and will handle additional leads as they come in.
Mr. Rankin asked how he should handle anything that comes up, things the
Commission will want developed further, in regard to the FBI - whether
they should be handled directly with me or somebody I would designate.
I replied that I will designate someone. I explained that I sent Mr.
Malley down to Dallas to handle all of our angles down there; that he
was on the ground there; and that I think he probably would be the man
who would be more familiar with things Mr. Rankin should further
explore. I stated Mr. Malley is in Dallas at the present time but will
be ordered back tomorrow; that he will be available; and that we will be
glad to run out any additional men as he may want.
Mr. Rankin of the difficulty about the Department's desire to issue
certain conclusions; that they wanted to issue a statement before the
report went to the Commission with the conclusion Oswald was the
assassin, no foreign or subversive elements involved, and Rubenstein and
Oswald had no connection; that I flatly disagreed; they took
RETYPE by Carrolton Press due to deterioration of original -1-
Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr,
December 12, 1963
page 2
Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan
it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we
should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two
conclusions in substance.
I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second
aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we
have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to
prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to
do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be
brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if
the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no
intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report
because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation
in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not
reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.
As to Rubenstein, I said I did not want a statement about Rubenstein and
Oswald; that we have no proof they were ever together. I stated
Rubenstein is a shady character from the hoodlum element of Chicago, has
a poor background, runs a nightclub in Dallas, and is what would be
called a police buff; that the police officers in the precinct have been
able to get food and liquor from him at any time they drop in; that
while I think there was no connection between him and Oswald, I did not
want the report to be 100% sure on that.
Fourth, I stated I did not believe any conclusions concerning Rubenstein
should be reached at this time because he has not been tried; that was
why I suggested to the Attorney General of Texas - and understand the
Chief Justice did too- that his court of special inquiry be held in
abeyance until after the Commission makes its findings. I said I thought
they would go ahead with the Rubenstein trial in February; that was why
I felt our report should name merely the facts we have established.
I further stated there may be some aspects Mr. Rankin will want to have
run out farther; that there may be letters written to members of the
Commission; that we have letters from people who claim to have seen
Oswald; that up to the time we submitted the report we had cleared up
all these angles except the Cuban thing which I discussed generally and
explained that the informer recanted and blew that angle out of the
window; that sort of thing may be popping up all the time. I advised Mr.
Rankin if he wanted any leads followed out or any implementation of what
we have already done we will give him 100% cooperation.
Mr. Rankin stated he knew we would; that he just wanted to
retype -2-
Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December
12, 1963
page 3
Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan
establishing it as a matter I should know. I told him not to hesitate to
call me; that I will designate Mr. Malley and he will advise me at once
of anything. Mr. Rankin then said he would get in touch with me if he
thinks there is anything which should be taken up on that level.
I mentioned to him the actions of the Soviet Embassy, the Communist
Party in New York, and John Abt is making available to us their
information on Oswald.
I also discussed the operations of the Dallas Police Department in the
case which led to the murder of Oswald.
I told Mr. Rankin the Department held the report about five days and
then began to leak items from the Department on it, items such as the
shooting of General Walker, things not known in Dallas; that I kept
pressing them to get the report to the Commission; that a debate was
going on between the Department and me; that I did not want any
conclusion drawn but I thought a conclusion had been made in the letter
of transmission to the Commission; that there would have been no purpose
in appointing a Presidential Commission except to evaluate the facts;
that it was the duty of the FBI to get the facts
and let the Commission reach a conclusion.
I told Mr. Rankin we would want to do anything we can here to make his
job easier. He said he has always had complete confidence in that and in me.
Mr. Rankin inquired if anything had been done about seeing that the
films would be preserved and available for the Commission. I answered
that we have them ourselves; that we have films taken by private
individuals; that the President was not being covered by a car with
television people as they do here in Washington; that there was not a
professional photographer where this took place; that the Secret Service
car immediately in back had already passed the building, which was at an
angle, with the result they couldn't tell where the shots were coming
from. I mentioned the comment by former Chief of Secret Service Baughman
that he could not understand why the Secret Service men did not open
fire with machine guns at the window. I said the Secret Service men did
not see where the shots came from and would have killed a lot of
innocent people if they had done so.
In connection with stories indicating that Oswald could not have done
this alone, I stated he was a marksman and it wasn't anything he
-3-
retype
Memorandum for Messrs. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr December 12, 1963
page 4
Conrad, DeLoach, Evans Rosenm Sullivan
could not do; that we have tested it on our rifle range and were able to
get shots off even faster than he did; that there is no question in my
mind about it; that we also found the fingerprints and the bullets so
conclusively fired from the gun; that we have all this and we have all
the photographs.
Mr. Rankin inquired if we also have the television film run off of the
shooting of Oswald, and I told him we have this.
Mr. Rankin said Mr. Malone delivered to him a copy of the report and
also offered to help in any way possible; this was very kind of Malone;
but he will not deal with Malone in anything unless it is some
emergency and he has to handle it locally. I told Mr. Rankin this was
all right and, if he should need to call upon Malone, Malone would be
available.
I also told Mr. Rankin there is a direct wire between the New York
Office and here; that he can always place any calls to here over our
wire; and that I will arrange for this.
I told Mr. Rankin to let us know if there is anything we can do.
Very truly yours,
J.E.H.
d-hooverJohn Edgar Hoover
Director
-4-
PS. NB the time of the memo. I can't prove it, but I believe he wrote
this memo before he got the lab report that the Pedro Charles letters
were a hoax.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 8/9/2010 8:53 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 9 Aug 2010 20:51:50 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/8/2010 3:43 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>>> On Aug 7, 9:27 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On December 12, 1963 Hoover wrote a memo to his closest aides indicating
>>> that he believed Oswald was part of a conspiracy hatched in Havana.
>>>
Interesting, since the memo below doesn't show that.
But Hoover is *questioning* the business about Cuba. He calls it
"speculation."
And note the statement: " urged strongly that we not reach conclusion
Oswald was the only man."
I thought you buffs believed that Hoover was intent on convicting
Oswald as the lone assassin?
This memo shows him to be quite prudent and restrained.
>As to Rubenstein, I said I did not want a statement about Rubenstein and
>Oswald; that we have no proof they were ever together. I stated
>Rubenstein is a shady character from the hoodlum element of Chicago, has
>a poor background, runs a nightclub in Dallas, and is what would be
>called a police buff; that the police officers in the precinct have been
>able to get food and liquor from him at any time they drop in; that
>while I think there was no connection between him and Oswald, I did not
>want the report to be 100% sure on that.
>
Sounds like, again, Hoover is being prudent and careful.
>Fourth, I stated I did not believe any conclusions concerning Rubenstein
>should be reached at this time because he has not been tried; that was
>why I suggested to the Attorney General of Texas - and understand the
>Chief Justice did too- that his court of special inquiry be held in
>abeyance until after the Commission makes its findings. I said I thought
>they would go ahead with the Rubenstein trial in February; that was why
>I felt our report should name merely the facts we have established.
>
>I further stated there may be some aspects Mr. Rankin will want to have
>run out farther; that there may be letters written to members of the
>Commission; that we have letters from people who claim to have seen
>Oswald; that up to the time we submitted the report we had cleared up
>all these angles except the Cuban thing which I discussed generally and
>explained that the informer recanted and blew that angle out of the
>window; that sort of thing may be popping up all the time.
Do you really understand how *good* this makes Hoover look?
He's pretty sophisticated about false confessions and red-herring
evidence.
> advised Mr.
>Rankin if he wanted any leads followed out or any implementation of what
>we have already done we will give him 100% cooperation.
>
>
>
>Mr. Rankin stated he knew we would; that he just wanted to
>
>
>
>retype -2-
>
>
>
>Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December
>12, 1963
>
>page 3
>
>Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan
>
>
>
>establishing it as a matter I should know. I told him not to hesitate to
>call me; that I will designate Mr. Malley and he will advise me at once
>of anything. Mr. Rankin then said he would get in touch with me if he
>thinks there is anything which should be taken up on that level.
>
>I mentioned to him the actions of the Soviet Embassy, the Communist
>Party in New York, and John Abt is making available to us their
>information on Oswald.
>
>I also discussed the operations of the Dallas Police Department in the
>case which led to the murder of Oswald.
>
>I told Mr. Rankin the Department held the report about five days and
>then began to leak items from the Department on it, items such as the
>shooting of General Walker, things not known in Dallas; that I kept
>pressing them to get the report to the Commission; that a debate was
>going on between the Department and me;
I thought everybody was on the same page: frame Oswald.
>
>-4-
>
>PS. NB the time of the memo. I can't prove it, but I believe he wrote
>this memo before he got the lab report that the Pedro Charles letters
>were a hoax.
>
That's plausible.
But note that Hoover has not bought the Petro Charles letters. He's
reserving judgment.
Hoover, in fact, was a damn good lawman. His abuses are now
legendary, but in terms of solving a crime, he was very good.
The Bureau also did a fine job running down James Earl Ray.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 9 Aug 2010 22:44:55 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/9/2010 8:53 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 9 Aug 2010 20:51:50 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/8/2010 3:43 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 7, 9:27 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On December 12, 1963 Hoover wrote a memo to his closest aides indicating
>>>> that he believed Oswald was part of a conspiracy hatched in Havana.
>>>>
>
> Interesting, since the memo below doesn't show that.
>
Interesting because that's exactly what the memo shows:
Mr. Rankin of the difficulty about the Department's desire to issue
certain conclusions; that they wanted to issue a statement before the
report went to the Commission with the conclusion Oswald was the assassin,
no foreign or subversive elements involved, and Rubenstein and Oswald had
no connection; that I flatly disagreed; they took it up with the White
House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion;
nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance.
I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second
aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we
have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove
it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his
good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought
back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief
was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no
intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report
because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in
the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach
conclusion Oswald was the only man.
He is talking about the Pedro Charles letters which he did not yet know
were fake.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
He didn't put the Cuban stuff in the report because WE DID NOT HAVE
PROOF OF IT.
You can't read your own documents, Tony.
Hoover knew that faked documents turn up.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
http://www.jfklancer.com/Hoover.html
JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>>> "I thought you buffs believed that Hoover was intent on convicting Oswald as the lone assassin? This memo [linked above] shows him to be quite prudent and restrained." <<<
DVP SAYS:
Excellent observation, John.
According to many conspiracy theorists, J. Edgar Hoover is supposedly
at the top of the list amongst the "Let's Frame Oswald" cover-up
operatives. And yet the next minute (when a document like the above-
linked 12/12/63 letter surfaces), Hoover is supposedly CONVINCED that
a conspiracy did exist to kill JFK.
But then we have to ask: What happened to the "LET'S FRAME OSWALD AS
THE LONE PATSY" mindset that so many CTers possess regarding FBI
Director John Edgar Hoover?
So, once again, we're treated to the willy-nilly, scattershot world of
CT lore and CTer imagination.
Plus, I've said for years that it's my belief that J. Edgar Hoover
would have been THE LAST MAN ON EARTH who would have had any desire
whatsoever to want to frame an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald as a lone
patsy for the murder of President Kennedy. Here's why (in a nutshell):
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/hoover-and-oswald.html
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/Hoover.html
>
>
> JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>
>>>> "I thought you buffs believed that Hoover was intent on convicting
Oswald as the lone assassin? This memo [linked above] shows him to be
quite prudent and restrained."<<<
>
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> Excellent observation, John.
>
> According to many conspiracy theorists, J. Edgar Hoover is supposedly
> at the top of the list amongst the "Let's Frame Oswald" cover-up
> operatives. And yet the next minute (when a document like the above-
> linked 12/12/63 letter surfaces), Hoover is supposedly CONVINCED that
> a conspiracy did exist to kill JFK.
>
You are hopelessly confused. Both are true. Hoover thought that Oswald was
the lone shooter AND he believed that Oswald was working for the Cubans.
The two concepts are not incompatible.
> But then we have to ask: What happened to the "LET'S FRAME OSWALD AS
> THE LONE PATSY" mindset that so many CTers possess regarding FBI
> Director John Edgar Hoover?
>
Again you misunderstand. There is a vast difference between what they say
for public consumption and what they say in private. In public they say
that Oswald worked alone. In private they say it was a conspiracy. Just
like you and most WC defenders.
> So, once again, we're treated to the willy-nilly, scattershot world of
> CT lore and CTer imagination.
>
And as I pointed out in the case of General Lavelle, Nixon knew that
Lavelle was innocent but framed him to protect his own political ass.
> Plus, I've said for years that it's my belief that J. Edgar Hoover
> would have been THE LAST MAN ON EARTH who would have had any desire
> whatsoever to want to frame an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald as a lone
> patsy for the murder of President Kennedy. Here's why (in a nutshell):
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/hoover-and-oswald.html
>
You ignore the fact that Hoover framed 5 innocent men in Boston for
murder to protect one of his informants who was the real murderer.
Anthony Marsh
He was excusing his agency for not being able to pursue the leads.
> You can't read your own documents, Tony.
>
> Hoover knew that faked documents turn up.
>
Again, I can't prove it, but I suspect he wrote that memo BEFORE the lab
reported that the documents were fake. Up until that moment he believed
they were real and his memo reflects that.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm