Hosty/Bookhout Testimony Exposes Bogus "Bookhout" "FBI" Report
dcwi...@yahoo.com
> DVP SAID (EARLIER):
> >>> "It [Bookhout's 11/22/63 FBI report] wasn't dictated and typed up into
> an "official" report until November 24, true. But the material in the
> report was certainly WRITTEN on November 22." <<<
According to Hosty & Bookhout, it couldn't have been:
Hosty: "Agent Bookhout & I took notes, & we dictated from the notes
the next day." (p468) The interview report, then, was dictated simply
from notes.
Bookhout: "[Notes] will normally be destroyed at the time you make
your, what we refer to as an interview report.
Stern: And in this case did you destroy your notes?
B: "That's correct."
S: "So you have no notes respecting this whole matter?"
B: "No, other than the reported interviewing report." (p313)
So Hosty and Bookhout's notes from 11/22 were dictated the next day, &
destroyed... 11/23.
Bookhout, then, had no notes from which to dictate 11/24. The only
legitimate report, then, was the one dictated 11/23 from Hosty's &
Bookhout's notes, which report Bookhout calls "the reported
interviewing report" [singular]. He shows no knowledge of a *second*,
solo report....
dw
David Von Pein
>>> "So Hosty and Bookhout's notes from 11/22 were dictated the next day, & destroyed...11/23. Bookhout, then, had no notes from which to dictate 11/24. The only legitimate report, then, was the one dictated 11/23 from Hosty's & Bookhout's notes, which report Bookhout calls "the reported interviewing report" [singular]. He shows no knowledge of a *second*, solo report." <<<
To think that the Bookhout (solo) report (which covers the initial
interview with Oswald on 11/22/63) is "bogus", as Don Willis claims,
is simply ridiculous and ludicrous.
The fact is: BOTH REPORTS EXIST AND ARE PART OF THE OFFICIAL WARREN
REPORT, as linked below:
THE "HOSTY/BOOKHOUT" REPORT (BEGINNING ON PAGE 612 OF WCR):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0318b.htm
THE "BOOKHOUT" REPORT (BEGINNING ON PAGE 619 OF WCR):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
Now, what possible reason would anybody have had to want to create a
fake FBI report that mirrors almost exactly the same words that appear
in a report that most conspiracy theorists think was NOT a fake or
"bogus" FBI report?
Does Don Willis REALLY believe that the FBI wanted so desperately to
get into the record a statement about Oswald saying something about
"Bill Shelley" that they were willing to create a fraudulent document
(the one on Page 619 of the Warren Report) and put Agent Bookhout's
name on it?
But...why? What for? Was it just to put one additional lie into the
mouth of Lee Oswald? Is that the reason?
Why didn't the FBI merely ADD IN a bogus reference to Bill Shelley
within the already-existing FBI report co-authored by both Hosty and
Bookhout? Why the need to create a totally-NEW fake FBI report?
Plus, there was ALREADY a reference to "Shelley" in Captain Will
Fritz' handwritten notes. But apparently, according to Don Willis,
Fritz' reference to "Shelley" wasn't good enough, so the FBI decided
to have Bookhout put some additional words in Oswald's mouth regarding
Shelley that certain CTers evidently believe were never uttered by Lee
Harvey at all.
Such speculation about faked documents is just plain silly.
HERE'S WHAT I THINK HAPPENED:
The reason there are two separate FBI reports which say almost the
exact same thing is because there were TWO different FBI agents
present for that particular Oswald interview on 11/22/63.
Both James Hosty and James Bookhout were present (mainly as
bystanders) during that interview, and EACH MAN had his own set of
notes that he took during the course of that (approx.) 50-minute
interview.
From the testimony that I have looked at (and I just now read every
word of both Jim Hosty's and Jim Bookhout's Warren Commission
testimony), it appears as though Hosty was the person who physically
wrote the joint report that has both Hosty's and Bookhout's names on
it, but both men signed-off on it and approved of its contents:
"I dictated it and he [Bookhout] read it and we both approved
it." -- James P. Hosty, Jr.; WC Testimony
My guess is that Bookhout decided to also write up his own "interview
report" (as the FBI agents call them), which would serve as a
supplemental report to the dual Hosty/Bookhout document.
Hence, Bookhout's "solo" report wasn't dictated until November 24th,
one day after the joint Hosty/Bookhout report (which was dictated, BY
HOSTY, on November 23rd).
Now, it's true that Bookhout does allude to just ONE "interviewing
report" in his Warren Commission testimony. But since the basic
contents of BOTH reports is virtually identical (except for the extra
details regarding Bill Shelley), it's quite likely that Bookhout felt
he did not need to refer to his "solo" report at all during his Warren
Commission session.
And it's also true that Agent Hosty said this to the Warren Commission
(regarding official FBI reports):
"The procedure is that when there are two agents involved, they
both must approve it, so there can be no discrepancies."
But the FACT remains, via Pages 619 and 620 of the WCR, James Bookhout
positively did fill out an additional (solo) "interview report"
concerning the very same Oswald interview that is referred to in the
joint Hosty/Bookhout document.
I guess it's possible that in the case of Bookhout's solo report,
official FBI "procedure" might not have been followed to the letter
(if Hosty is correct about the FBI procedure for such documents). But
the solo Bookhout report DOES EXIST nevertheless, like it or not.
BTW, as a side note here, I'm not entirely sure that it is mandatory
that the "dictated" date also be the exact same date when a particular
report was initially written.
Why couldn't Bookhout have written his solo report a little bit
earlier (from his notes), and then have it "officially" written up (or
"dictated") one or two days later? Is that not entirely possible in
some instances? If CTers think that scenario is NOT at all possible,
I'd like to know why not?
Also -- An FBI agent, per both Hosty's and Bookhout's testimony,
didn't customarily destroy his handwritten notes until AFTER he wrote
up his formal (longer) report. This is only common sense, of course.
The agent would retain his original notes until he completed writing
his formal report. And only after writing the report would he destroy
them, which was common practice at the Dallas FBI offices in 1963 (per
both Hosty and Bookhout).
Therefore, since we know that Agent Bookhout did, indeed, write up an
additional "solo" report that he dictated on 11/24/63, it stands to
reason that Bookhout probably did not destroy his handwritten notes
until sometime AFTER he completed dictating that report on November
24th.
In short -- BOTH REPORTS EXIST and are available to read in the Warren
Commission Final Report (in Appendix XI):
APPENDIX XI OF WCR:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0311b.htm
====================================================
RELATED LINKS (HOSTY'S AND BOOKHOUT'S WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hosty.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bookhout.htm
====================================================
Bud
> On Feb 20, 9:37 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > DVP SAID (EARLIER):
> > >>> "It [Bookhout's 11/22/63 FBI report] wasn't dictated and typed up into
> > an "official" report until November 24, true. But the material in the
> > report was certainly WRITTEN on November 22." <<<
>
> According to Hosty & Bookhout, it couldn't have been:
>
> Hosty: "Agent Bookhout & I took notes, & we dictated from the notes
> the next day." (p468) The interview report, then, was dictated simply
> from notes.
>
> Bookhout: "[Notes] will normally be destroyed at the time you make
> your, what we refer to as an interview report.
> Stern: And in this case did you destroy your notes?
> B: "That's correct."
Don, since you are so good at nitpicking testimony, you must realize
that Bookout said he destroyed his notes, but doesn`t say when. He
said they "normally" (i.e "usually) would be destroyed when the
interview report was written, but he doesn`t say they were in this
case.
And there is no reason to believe that notes were immediately
destroyed as soon as a report was written. I wonder how they destroyed
them, Take them to the restroom and burn them like Hosty did? Likely
they were tossed in a trash can, not "destroyed".
Walt
You are correct Don,.....And the notes that Hosty took ( he was only
in Captain Fritz's office for the initial interrogation session ) were
NOT destroyed. Hosty published some of them in his book "Assignment:
Oswald"
dcwi...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 22, 2:44 am, dcwill...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 9:37 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > DVP SAID (EARLIER):
> > > >>> "It [Bookhout's 11/22/63 FBI report] wasn't dictated and typed up into
> > > an "official" report until November 24, true. But the material in the
> > > report was certainly WRITTEN on November 22." <<<
>
> > According to Hosty & Bookhout, it couldn't have been:
>
> > Hosty: "Agent Bookhout & I took notes, & we dictated from the notes
> > the next day." (p468) The interview report, then, was dictated simply
> > from notes.
>
> > Bookhout: "[Notes] will normally be destroyed at the time you make
> > your, what we refer to as an interview report.
> > Stern: And in this case did you destroy your notes?
> > B: "That's correct."
>
> Don, since you are so good at nitpicking testimony, you must realize
> that Bookout said he destroyed his notes, but doesn`t say when. He
> said they "normally" (i.e "usually) would be destroyed when the
> interview report was written, but he doesn`t say they were in this
> case.
>
> And there is no reason to believe that notes were immediately
> destroyed as soon as a report was written.
Yes, he says they were, as usual, destroyed when the interviewing
report was made, & it was made 11/23.
Bud
> On Feb 22, 4:05 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 2:44 am, dcwill...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 20, 9:37 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > DVP SAID (EARLIER):
> > > > >>> "It [Bookhout's 11/22/63 FBI report] wasn't dictated and typed up into
> > > > an "official" report until November 24, true. But the material in the
> > > > report was certainly WRITTEN on November 22." <<<
>
> > > According to Hosty & Bookhout, it couldn't have been:
>
> > > Hosty: "Agent Bookhout & I took notes, & we dictated from the notes
> > > the next day." (p468) The interview report, then, was dictated simply
> > > from notes.
>
> > > Bookhout: "[Notes] will normally be destroyed at the time you make
> > > your, what we refer to as an interview report.
> > > Stern: And in this case did you destroy your notes?
> > > B: "That's correct."
>
> > Don, since you are so good at nitpicking testimony, you must realize
> > that Bookout said he destroyed his notes, but doesn`t say when. He
> > said they "normally" (i.e "usually) would be destroyed when the
> > interview report was written, but he doesn`t say they were in this
> > case.
>
But he doesn`t say when they were destroyed in this case. Only that
they were.
> > And there is no reason to believe that notes were immediately
> > destroyed as soon as a report was written.
>
> Yes, he says they were, as usual, destroyed when the interviewing
> report was made, & it was made 11/23.
No, that isn`t what he says. He says two separate things...
One, that notes were usually destroyed when the report was written.
"usually" usually means not always.
Secondly, he was asked directly whether he destroyed his notes in
this case (not when), to which he answered in the affirmative.
David Von Pein
>>> "He [Bookhout] says [his notes] were, as usual, destroyed when the interviewing report was made, & it was made 11/23." <<<
So what?
Even if that were true and Bookhout did destroy his notes on 11/23, he
still had the just-completed Hosty/Bookhout formal report to rely on
for any report he dictated the next day (November 24).
The only substantial difference between the two reports is the stuff
about Bill Shelley. Bookhout could have simply remembered the
"Shelley" stuff (vs. having to rely exclusively on notes).
dcwi...@yahoo.com
That's right--counsel does not ask Hosty nor does Hosty say if he
destroyed his notes. Only Bookhout offers that he destroyed his notes
when the joint report was made....
dcwi...@yahoo.com
years later. But he didn't
> > > And there is no reason to believe that notes were immediately
> > > destroyed as soon as a report was written.
>
> > Yes, he says they were, as usual, destroyed when the interviewing
> > report was made, & it was made 11/23.
>
> No, that isn`t what he says. He says two separate things...
>
> One, that notes were usually destroyed when the report was written.
> "usually" usually means not always.
>
> Secondly, he was asked directly whether he destroyed his notes in
> this case (not when), to which he answered in the affirmative.
>
No, he says yet another *separate thing*: When counsel asks him, "So
you have no notes respecting this whole matter?", B replies, "No,
other than the reported interviewing REPORT."
Singular--not "reports", just "report". He knew nothing of the
supposed solo "Bookhout" report. There were no other notes or reports
by Hosty and/or Bookhout which existed when Bookhout testified.
"Report"....
dcwi...@yahoo.com
> >>> "He [Bookhout] says [his notes] were, as usual, destroyed when the interviewing report was made, & it was made 11/23." <<<
>
> So what?
>
> Even if that were true and Bookhout did destroy his notes on 11/23, he
> still had the just-completed Hosty/Bookhout formal report to rely on
> for any report he dictated the next day (November 24).
A report which he signed off on as complete & accurate. Yet, he goes
back to it again, & does not acknowledge Hosty's presence, or why he
is following up....?? No, "I left this out"....
>
> The only substantial difference between the two reports is the stuff
> about Bill Shelley.
Oh, do look again at the 2 reports. There is a very substantial
difference on another matter. The Shelley thing is relatively
unimportant, to me at least.
David Von Pein
>>> "A report which he signed off on as complete & accurate. Yet, he goes back to it again, & does not acknowledge Hosty's presence, or why he is following up....??" <<<
Like it or not, Mr. Willis, Bookhout did that very thing. And Page 619
of the WCR proves that Bookhout did that very thing.
David Von Pein
Don, do you REALLY and TRULY believe that the FBI created a "bogus"
report and attached Bookhout's name (and initials!) to it?:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
Bud
My point exactly, he doesn`t say when they were destroyed, only that
they were. So the notes could still have been around on the 24th, or
later.
dcwi...@yahoo.com
whenever they were destroyed, they yielded only *one* report--the
joint Hosty/Bookhout report. Thank you.
> > > > > > dw
dcwi...@yahoo.com
> Don, do you REALLY and TRULY believe that the FBI created a "bogus"
> report and attached Bookhout's name (and initials!) to it?:
>
*one* report, though your speculations as to why are amusing.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm