Bookhout Rejects the Idea of a Second, Solo Report (revised)

donald willis

unread,

Nov 5, 2015, 4:33:48 PM11/5/15

to

Bookhout Rejects the Idea of a Second, Solo Report (revised)

From James Bookhout's WC testimony:

Mr. STERN - According to this report, you and Agent Hosty entered the
interviewing around about 3:15 p.m., and it ended at 4:05.
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That would be correct.
Mr. STERN - Were these times that you or Hosty would have recorded at that
moment in the ordinary course of your participation?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That's correct. There was no log made of it, as such, but
those were the times recorded for that particular interview.
Mr. STERN - Your normal practice is to get times down pretty accurately
in matter of this----
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Try to.
Mr. STERN - And did you make the record of these times, or did Agent Hosty?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I Can say that I did. Whether he did or not, I don't know.
Mr. STERN - Incidentally, normally, do you preserve those notes or destroy
them when you make a formal report?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - They will be, normally, destroyed at the time you make
our--what we refer to as an interview report.
Mr. STERN - And in this case, did you destroy your notes?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That's correct.
Mr. STERN - So, you have no notes respecting this whole matter?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No, other than the reported interviewing report.

In sum, FBI Agent James Bookhout seems to know nothing about the solo
report submitted in his name and reprinted in the Warren Report
(pp619-620)). In his last response, he equates "notes" with "reports",
and testifies that only the "reported interviewing report" (cited above)
re the first Oswald interview exists--no other notes/reports. Nothing re
some report he was supposed to have done on his own....

dcw

Bud

unread,

Nov 5, 2015, 11:24:30 PM11/5/15

to

Is that what you figure?

> In his last response, he equates "notes" with "reports",

You figure an FBI agent doesn`t know the difference between notes and a
report?

> and testifies that only the "reported interviewing report" (cited above)
> re the first Oswald interview exists--no other notes/reports.

Is that what you figure he is saying?

> Nothing re
> some report he was supposed to have done on his own....

No, he doesn`t mention the report he did on his own.

> dcw

donald willis

unread,

Nov 6, 2015, 6:05:59 PM11/6/15

to

Okay, Genius, 'splain Bookhout's words there....
dcw

tims...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 6, 2015, 6:09:06 PM11/6/15

to

You mean, the one he dictated on 11/24/63 and then initialed after it was
typed up on 11/25/63?:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

How could he know NOTHING about that report when he dicated and initailed
it?! The fact of the matter is he was asked NOTHING about that report by
Stern. That is no shortcoming of Bookhout's. That is down to Stern.

> (pp619-620)). In his last response, he equates "notes" with "reports",
> and testifies that only the "reported interviewing report" (cited above)
> re the first Oswald interview exists--no other notes/reports. Nothing re
> some report he was supposed to have done on his own....
>

LOL! Donald, that is RIDICULOUS reasoning. As early as 30 November his
report was incorporated as part of FBI Gemberling's summation report.
There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that the report is FAKE or any
different to any of the OTHER many FBI reports included in that Gemberling
report. You just want it to be FAKE is all.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

Bud

unread,

Nov 7, 2015, 5:17:08 PM11/7/15

to

That the information that was in his notes was reflected in the report.

donald willis

unread,

Nov 7, 2015, 5:24:26 PM11/7/15

to

Then why did he testify that there was nothing (from him) re the "whole
matter" other than the "reported interviewing report", i.e., the
Hosty/Bookhout? Try again, Mr. Tim....

> > (pp619-620)). In his last response, he equates "notes" with "reports",
> > and testifies that only the "reported interviewing report" (cited above)
> > re the first Oswald interview exists--no other notes/reports. Nothing re
> > some report he was supposed to have done on his own....
> >
>
> LOL! Donald, that is RIDICULOUS reasoning. As early as 30 November his
> report was incorporated as part of FBI Gemberling's summation report.
>

As I recall, the FBI initially had said the rifle was found on the *fifth*
floor.

dcw

Bud

unread,

Nov 8, 2015, 12:24:30 AM11/8/15

to

He was saying there were no notes.

donald willis

unread,

Nov 8, 2015, 2:22:39 PM11/8/15

to

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 5:09:06 PM UTC-6, tims...@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, the report he "dictated" from no notes! In his testimony (see
initial post), he says agents destroy their notes when they finish the
report, and he says he did,

>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
>
> How could he know NOTHING about that report when he dicated and initailed
> it?! The fact of the matter is he was asked NOTHING about that report by
> Stern. That is no shortcoming of Bookhout's. That is down to Stern.

And he asked if anything survived re the "whole matter"--Bookhout says,
No--just the one report, the Hosty/Bookhout which they'd been discussing.
No other report even suggested!

>
> > (pp619-620)). In his last response, he equates "notes" with "reports",
> > and testifies that only the "reported interviewing report" (cited above)
> > re the first Oswald interview exists--no other notes/reports. Nothing re
> > some report he was supposed to have done on his own....
> >
>
> LOL! Donald, that is RIDICULOUS reasoning. As early as 30 November his
> report was incorporated as part of FBI Gemberling's summation report.
> There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that the report is FAKE or any
> different to any of the OTHER many FBI reports included in that Gemberling
> report. You just want it to be FAKE is all.

Compare those initials on that report with the initials on the
Hosty/Bookhout and the other Bookhout report on a later interview.
Bookhout had already done the report, with Hosty--there was no need for
Bookhout to do another one, in which he actually contradicted the report
he signed with Hosty. WHich is the real Bookhout, the one he talks about
in his testimony or the one he doesn't mention?

dcw

Bud

unread,

Nov 8, 2015, 9:01:45 PM11/8/15

to

Actually he gives no specific time for the destruction of the notes.
Since the information in his report jives so closely with Fritz`s notes
the inescapable conclusion is that he was working from notes he took
during the interrogation of Oswald.

> >
> > http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
> >
> > How could he know NOTHING about that report when he dicated and initailed
> > it?! The fact of the matter is he was asked NOTHING about that report by
> > Stern. That is no shortcoming of Bookhout's. That is down to Stern.
>
> And he asked if anything survived re the "whole matter"--Bookhout says,
> No--just the one report,

Quote Bookout saying that the joint report with Hosty was the only
report he wrote. You inferences don`t count as positions specifically
taken by Bookout.

> the Hosty/Bookhout which they'd been discussing.

Yes, they were focusing on that one report in the questioning.

> No other report even suggested!

Which is a different thing than Bookout saying there was no other report
written by him.

> >
> > > (pp619-620)). In his last response, he equates "notes" with "reports",
> > > and testifies that only the "reported interviewing report" (cited above)
> > > re the first Oswald interview exists--no other notes/reports. Nothing re
> > > some report he was supposed to have done on his own....
> > >
> >
> > LOL! Donald, that is RIDICULOUS reasoning. As early as 30 November his
> > report was incorporated as part of FBI Gemberling's summation report.
> > There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that the report is FAKE or any
> > different to any of the OTHER many FBI reports included in that Gemberling
> > report. You just want it to be FAKE is all.
>
> Compare those initials on that report with the initials on the
> Hosty/Bookhout and the other Bookhout report on a later interview.
> Bookhout had already done the report, with Hosty--there was no need for
> Bookhout to do another one, in which he actually contradicted the report
> he signed with Hosty. WHich is the real Bookhout, the one he talks about
> in his testimony or the one he doesn't mention?

Both.

> dcw

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 11:36:19 AM11/9/15

to

BUD SAID:

Quote Bookout [sic] saying that the joint report with Hosty was the only
report he wrote.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

FBI agent James W. Bookhout actually wrote THREE different SOLO reports on
November 22nd and 23rd. Do conspiracy theorists think ALL THREE of these
reports are fakes?....

BOOKHOUT'S NOVEMBER 22 SOLO REPORT (WCR, PAGE 619):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

BOOKHOUT'S FIRST NOVEMBER 23 SOLO REPORT (WCR, PAGE 621):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0323a.htm

BOOKHOUT'S SECOND NOVEMBER 23 SOLO REPORT (WCR, PAGE 625):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325a.htm

So, as we can see, there's nothing strange or unusual about an FBI agent
writing up separate reports on the same day. There's different information
being imparted in each report. There is some overlap of info when
comparing the Bookhout/Hosty report with Bookhout's solo report, but new
information is revealed as well.

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 11:38:44 AM11/9/15

to

BOOKHOUT/HOSTY ADDENDUM.....

I also think it's quite likely that the primary author of the joint
Bookhout/Hosty report was James P. Hosty, whose name is listed first at
the bottom of the report. I'm not sure if that's important or not, but
there's some testimony from both Hosty [at 4 H 468] and Bookhout [at 7 H
312] to indicate that I'm probably right about Hosty doing most of the
writing in that joint report....

MR. STERN -- "I believe that in the report you filed on this first
interview, you or Agent Hosty, who joined in the report with you, used the
adverb "frantically" to describe his [Oswald's] denial of an involvement.
Does that refresh your recollection as to that? Would you use that word
now, or was that your word?"

MR. BOOKHOUT -- "No; that was written by Hosty, and that would be his
expression of describing it."

==================

MR. STERN -- "Is this your memorandum?"

MR. HOSTY -- "Yes, sir."

MR. STERN -- "It is signed or initialed both by you and by Mr. Bookhout."

MR. HOSTY -- "Right. The procedure is that when there are two agents
involved, they both must approve it, so there can be no discrepancies."

MR. STERN -- "But you dictated it."

MR. HOSTY -- "I dictated it and he read it and we both approved it."

[...]

REP. FORD -- "There was no recording made of this interrogation?"

MR. HOSTY -- "No, sir; it was notes I took. Agent Bookhout and I took
notes, and we dictated from the notes the next day."

~~~~~~~~

Now, the CTers can gripe about Bookhout not following this procedure in
his solo report, which is a procedure mentioned by Hosty in his testimony:

"The procedure is that when there are two agents involved, they both must
approve it, so there can be no discrepancies."

I'm thinking it's possible, however, that Bookhout's solo report just
might be referring to an interrogation session of Oswald in which Agent
Hosty was not present at all. That would explain the need for a second
(solo) Bookhout report for 11/22/63.

But if that was the case, then the subject of Oswald claiming he never
owned a rifle and the subject of Oswald seeing Roy Truly with a rifle in
the Depository on November 20th must have come up during two separate
interrogation sessions, because those things are mentioned in both the
Bookhout/Hosty joint report and the Bookhout solo report.

Could those very same topics have surfaced in two different sessions with
Oswald? I suppose that's possible. But I don't know for sure.

Bud

unread,

Nov 9, 2015, 9:21:02 PM11/9/15

to

On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 11:36:19 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> BUD SAID:
>
> Quote Bookout [sic] saying that the joint report with Hosty was the only
> report he wrote.

Thanks for the correction, thats the first time I noticed I was dropping
the "h" out of Bookhout`s name.

unread,

Nov 10, 2015, 7:39:58 PM11/10/15

to

Desperate, aren't we? And by that it stands to reason that by *we* I mean
*you*....

> > >
> > > MR. STERN -- "But you dictated it."
> > >
> > > MR. HOSTY -- "I dictated it and he read it and we both approved it."
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > REP. FORD -- "There was no recording made of this interrogation?"
> > >
> > > MR. HOSTY -- "No, sir; it was notes I took. Agent Bookhout and I took
> > > notes, and we dictated from the notes the next day."
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Now, the CTers can gripe about Bookhout not following this procedure in
> > > his solo report, which is a procedure mentioned by Hosty in his testimony:
> > >
> > > "The procedure is that when there are two agents involved, they both must
> > > approve it, so there can be no discrepancies."
> > >
> > > I'm thinking it's possible, however, that Bookhout's solo report just
> > > might be referring to an interrogation session of Oswald in which Agent
> > > Hosty was not present at all.
> >
> > Too bad Bookhout didn't note the TIME of this hypothetical other
> > session....
>
> Where is it said that the times are a requirement?

They're not. Just customary procedure, apparently. But if as suggested
above it was somehow a different interview at a different time (which the
text says it was not), it would have been nice to have had that time....

dcw

Bud

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 2:54:44 PM11/11/15

to

So you say. But it isn`t specified that both agents who attend an
interview must sign all reports pertaining to that interview, that is only
your interpretation of what was said.

Here is the exchange...

> MR. STERN -- "Is this your memorandum?"
MR. HOSTY -- "Yes, sir."

MR. STERN -- "It is signed or initialed both by you and by Mr. Bookhout."

MR. HOSTY -- "Right. The procedure is that when there are two agents
involved, they both must approve it, so there can be no discrepancies."

You read "two agents involved" as meaning two agents involved in
conducting an interview. It can also be read as "two agents involved in
writing a report". The discussion at this point of the testimony was about
the writing of reports, not the conducting of interviews.

> > >
> > > There's different information
> > > > being imparted in each report. There is some overlap of info when
> > > > comparing the Bookhout/Hosty report with Bookhout's solo report, but new
> > > > information is revealed as well.
> > >
> > > Yeah--how did both Hosty and Bookhout miss mentioning the policeman and
> > > Shelley in their first, joint report? Then, in the dark of night, Friday
> > > night, it strikes Bookhout: Oh, we forgot to mention Shelley and the cop!
> > > Scribble scribble scribble....
> >
> > Much less fantastic than your silly ideas.
>
> Projecting again, eh?
> dcw

I`m not playing the silly game of ridiculing mundane explanations in
order to entertain ideas that are much more ridiculous.

Bud

unread,

Nov 11, 2015, 2:55:22 PM11/11/15

to

I suppose this means you can`t support your assumption that "two agents
involved" must mean "involved in conducting an interview".

> > > >
> > > > MR. STERN -- "But you dictated it."
> > > >
> > > > MR. HOSTY -- "I dictated it and he read it and we both approved it."
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > REP. FORD -- "There was no recording made of this interrogation?"
> > > >
> > > > MR. HOSTY -- "No, sir; it was notes I took. Agent Bookhout and I took
> > > > notes, and we dictated from the notes the next day."
> > > >
> > > > ~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > Now, the CTers can gripe about Bookhout not following this procedure in
> > > > his solo report, which is a procedure mentioned by Hosty in his testimony:
> > > >
> > > > "The procedure is that when there are two agents involved, they both must
> > > > approve it, so there can be no discrepancies."
> > > >
> > > > I'm thinking it's possible, however, that Bookhout's solo report just
> > > > might be referring to an interrogation session of Oswald in which Agent
> > > > Hosty was not present at all.
> > >
> > > Too bad Bookhout didn't note the TIME of this hypothetical other
> > > session....
> >
> > Where is it said that the times are a requirement?
>
> They're not.

So them not appearing in Bookhout`s solo report isn`t significant.

donald willis

unread,

Nov 12, 2015, 12:20:47 AM11/12/15

to

Desperate speculation!
dcw

donald willis

unread,

Nov 12, 2015, 12:22:37 AM11/12/15

to

Here: Otherwise you get gigantic discrepancies like one report re the same session saying O said he started lunch about noon, and the other saying he said he started lunch after 12:30! That's why both agents must initial any report....

> > > > >
> > > > > MR. STERN -- "But you dictated it."
> > > > >
> > > > > MR. HOSTY -- "I dictated it and he read it and we both approved it."
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > REP. FORD -- "There was no recording made of this interrogation?"
> > > > >
> > > > > MR. HOSTY -- "No, sir; it was notes I took. Agent Bookhout and I took
> > > > > notes, and we dictated from the notes the next day."
> > > > >
> > > > > ~~~~~~~~
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, the CTers can gripe about Bookhout not following this procedure in
> > > > > his solo report, which is a procedure mentioned by Hosty in his testimony:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The procedure is that when there are two agents involved, they both must
> > > > > approve it, so there can be no discrepancies."
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm thinking it's possible, however, that Bookhout's solo report just
> > > > > might be referring to an interrogation session of Oswald in which Agent
> > > > > Hosty was not present at all.
> > > >
> > > > Too bad Bookhout didn't note the TIME of this hypothetical other
> > > > session....
> > >
> > > Where is it said that the times are a requirement?
> >
> > They're not.
>
> So them not appearing in Bookhout`s solo report isn`t significant.

Check.
dcw

tims...@gmail.com

unread,

Nov 12, 2015, 5:44:22 PM11/12/15

to

What is "desperate speculation" is YOUR contention that the Bookhout solo
report is a fake, Donald.

ESPECIALLY as it was used to debunk Oswald's alibi for why he left work
and went home after the shooting.

It is a MATERIAL part of the evidence and was listed as an IMPORTANT
report in the WCR, where it was published in FULL:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

Case CLOSED on your ridiculous OIC supporting nonsense!

David Von Pein

unread,

Nov 12, 2015, 7:12:20 PM11/12/15

to

And, of course, the term "conducting an interview" doesn't even apply to
Hosty or Bookhout. They merely WATCHED Fritz conduct the interview with
Oswald. Neither Hosty nor Bookhout did any "conducting" at all. They were
just observers.

Bud

unread,

Nov 12, 2015, 7:13:02 PM11/12/15

to

Any report they both submit.

In the end it comes down to what Hosty meant by what he said, not your
figuring. If he meant "when two agent are involved in writing a report"
then it doesn`t help your fantastic ideas at all. And your ideas are so
absurd they need certain, solid evidence, not maybes.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 9:27:08 AM11/14/15

to

Maybe you could learn something if you studied the Sibert and O'Neill
report and read their ARRB testimonies about how they wrote it.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 9:27:40 AM11/14/15

to

That is simply not true.

They were also there to ask questions. In fact that is why Hoover pulled
Hosty out of the interrogations, because when he asked Oswald about his
visits to the Cuban and Russian embassies he was revealing TOP SECRET
information. Which is why Oswald angrily asked, "How did you know about
that."

"So, he (Hosty) goes over there to the Dallas Police building. And he and
a guy by the name of Bookhout [another FBI agent] are there for about an
hour and they participate in some of the interrogation. And this is an
interesting thing. Hosty asks him (Oswald) have you ever been to Mexico
City.

LHO in custody"Oswald says, 'How did you know about that?' And then he
(immediately) denies it. Kind of a contradictory thing.

"And then they have to, and then that's over they were going to go to
the line up, and then they take Hosty off, on instructions from
Washington, D.C. Hosty is removed. He is ordered off the interrogation.
And for the next day he is over in Irving, Texas, or somewhere looking
for the Paines or somebody like that. So, he's out of it.

"Okay, so remember the tapes sequence? The plane comes in, after this,
the plane comes in that night.

"So, whoever those Dallas agents are that were involved in tapes it
wasn't Jim Hosty. He's been pulled off the case.

"And here's what Kelly says about it, [p.293] 'from our vantage point we
can now probably determine why Jim Hosty was so instructed,' meaning
removed, 'from the Bureau. Specialists in the Espionage section of the FBI
headquarters in Washington were doubtlessly reviewing the Oswald file.
Hosty had received his instructions from Gordon Shanklin to cooperate
fully with the police, but, Shanklin had done so on orders from Belmont,
and Belmont did not know the full story yet, or what it all meant.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Nov 14, 2015, 9:28:59 AM11/14/15

to

I think calling it a fake is going too far.

> ESPECIALLY as it was used to debunk Oswald's alibi for why he left work
> and went home after the shooting.
>

Alibi? WTF are you babbling about? Since when did someone need an alibi
to go home after work? You misuse words to create your own little fictions.