Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 30, 2018 9:44:15 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
i0.heartyhosting.com/www.nationalenquirer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/j-edgar-hoover-fbi-jfk-murder-2.jpg
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had NO jurisdiction for the murder of John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963. NONE. The ONLY time they did in 1963 was when a threat was made against the President or another high elected official of the FEDERAL government. This is key to remember as the FBI, and Secret Service (SS), would secure ALL OF THE EVIDENCE in this case on 11/22/63 (SS) and 11/23/63 (FBI) with NO jurisdiction. To say this is a no-no is to understate the ILLEGAL act they took in doing this. The group with the LEGAL right to the evidence was the Dallas Police Department (DPD), the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department (DSD) and the state of Texas. I have gone into this in other posts in this series so I won’t go into it in detail here, but I want you to remember this key FACT.
I will be looking at a FBI agent who got involved in this case early on—James W. Bookhout—to see what he saw and heard on 11/22/63 and 11/23/63 as this is an insider’s view. Again, he had NO legal jurisdiction, but he could still witness what was said and done by the those that had the legal jurisdiction.
**********************************
He will state he has been assigned to the Dallas office for a long time and this invaluable to us in this case as he had to know many of the people involved from both the DPD and the DSD simply from working with them on some cases over the years.
Mr. STERN - What is your occupation, Mr. Bookhout?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. STERN - How long have you been with the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Little over 22 years.
Mr. STERN - How long have you been assigned to the Dallas office?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Since about 1945.
We see he has been assigned to the Dallas office since 1945—that means he was working in the same area as the DPD and the DSD for 18 years. That is quite a bit of time. He next told how he got involved in this matter on 11/22/63.
Mr. STERN - Were you on duty on November 22?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Actually, I was on leave on that particular date. However, I had been requested to come to the office to handle some expedited dictation in a particular case. Having completed that, I left the office and proceeded to the Mercantile National Bank, where I transacted some personal business…While waiting for the crowd to thin, in order to cross the street, several separate sirens on the police squad cars were heard proceeding in the direction of the county courthouse. While crossing the street, some citizen with a transistor radio stated that it had just been announced that shots had been fired at the President's motorcade.
I immediately proceeded toward the office and observed two agents coming from the direction of the office, who advised that the office was trying to contact me and I was to proceed to the homicide and robbery bureau of the Dallas Police Department.
I immediately proceeded to the homicide and robbery bureau and contacted my office and was advised that I was to maintain liaison with the homicide and robbery bureau.
Mr. STERN - Did you then go to the police headquarters?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; as I said, I went to the homicide and robbery bureau after contacting the Dallas office.
Mr. STERN - What then occurred at the police headquarters? Let me ask you this: How soon after you arrived there was Oswald brought in?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, it was some little time, as I recall, the next pertinent instance was a report that the Dallas Police officer had been shot, and that was in the Oak Cliff area. Captain Fritz had not returned to the office at that time. When he did return, and subsequently Oswald was apprehended in the Texas Theatre, information was passed to Captain Fritz as to the name of the suspect that they had apprehended on the Tippit shooting, and at that time he stated that that was the suspect that they were looking for on the killing of the President.
Why was Capt. Fritz NOT there at this time? Because he was having an “off the record talk” with Sheriff Decker at this time. How lucky for him Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was apprehended so fast, huh? I mean NO All Points Bulletin (APB) was put out for him by the DPD! Why not? The WC and its defenders claim it was noticed quite quickly LHO was NOT at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) anymore, so why was NO APB put out for him like one was sent out for Charles Givins?
Also note, in this statement by Bookhout he says that LHO was apprehended for the “Tippit shooting”, NOT the JFK shooting. So why did they use the description of the JFK shooter to make the arrest of LHO for the J.D. Tippit (JDT) shooting then? How could they think the two crimes were linked so rapidly when they were a good distance apart? Also, the descriptions sent out for the shooter of JDT did NOT match LHO very closely.
Finally, look at his last comment in this paragraph. He says Capt. Fritz stated that that was the “suspect that they were looking for on the killing of the President.” How in the world could Fritz know this so fast? What made him a “suspect?” Leaving the TSBD area? IF so, then many others should have been suspects too. Look at the next comment by Bookhout.
Mr. STERN - Did the name Lee Harvey Oswald mean anything to you at that time?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No. Captain Fritz went on to explain that Oswald was an employee of the Texas Book Depository, who they had ascertained left his employment there subsequent to the shooting incident.
Again, it seems LHO’s only “crime” was to leave the vicinity of the shooting. IF this caused such a red flag for them why did they NOT put out an APB on LHO? Does this make any sense to you?
Mr. STERN - And sometime after this he was brought to the police headquarters?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes.
Mr. STERN - Were you present when he was brought in?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes.
Mr. STERN - Can you describe his physical condition?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I can recall one of the officers that brought him in was Paul Bentley. He is a polygraph operator in the identification division of the Dallas Police Department, and Bentley was limping, and Oswald had one eye that was swollen and a scratch mark on his forehead.
Mr. STERN - Did you observe any other bruises?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - None.
Mr. STERN - Was he handcuffed?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes.
First of all, Bookhout should have qualified LHO had NO other bruises that HE COULD SEE! It was stated LHO was hit in the back with a rifle butt and I’m sure that would leave a bruise. A swollen eye also indicates he was punched and given LHO’s statements of NOT resisting arrests this seems unwarranted unless you believe the CLAIM he tried to pull a gun. This claim has NEVER been proven.
Secondly, we see LHO was in handcuffs, thus, he was arrested by the DPD, and yet, he NEVER was given legal representation for the nearly 48 hours he was in custody. Why not?
Notice the speed in which Bookhout gets into the room where LHO is going to be interviewed, when again the FBI had NO jurisdiction.
Mr. STERN - Then what occurred, that you observed?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I believe he was taken directly into Captain Fritz' office and the interview started at that time with Captain Fritz, and two homicide officers.
Mr. STERN - Were you present?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I was not in the office at that time. I called our office, advised them he had been brought in, and that the interview was starting and shortly thereafter Mr. Shanklin, our SAC called back and said the Bureau wanted the agents present in the interview and that Hosty, James P. Hosty, I believe was ,to sit in on the interview, and I was to also be present with Hosty. So, at that time, we asked Captain Fritz to sit in on the interview, and that was approximately 3:15 p.m.
Mr. STERN - How long had the interview gone on before you were present?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Very shortly. I would give a rough estimate of not more than 5 to 10 minutes at the most.
So within five to ten minutes he was in the room and included in this process. All the FBI could do was REQUEST they be involved, but they had NO legal right to demand it. Why did the DPD grant this so fast if it was ONLY a request? Wouldn’t they want time alone with THEIR suspect?
Capt. Fritz would have to leave from time to time and it seems he let the FBI, again with NO jurisdiction, lead the questioning!
Mr. STERN - Was it interrupted at any point, if you remember?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, what I am thinking, we have got several interviews here. I know from time to time I can't recall whether it was this interview, or subsequent interviews Captain Fritz would have to leave the office for a second or two. By "office," I mean the immediate office that the interview was being conducted in, but still within the homicide and robbery office.
Mr. STERN - Did the interviewing continue when he was out of the room, or did you wait for his return?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; it would continue.
Mr. STERN - By whom was the interview conducted?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Primarily it was conducted by Captain Fritz and then before he would leave from one point to another he would ask if there was anything we wanted to ask him particularly on that point.
Mr. STERN - By "we," you mean Agent Hosty and yourself?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Right.
Why on earth would Capt. Fritz do this? Wasn’t there other people on his staff that could have done this? This was a LOCAL crime, NOT a federal one, so why did he turn his suspect over to the FBI so quickly? Why didn’t the WC ask this logical question? Instead, they just moved along.
Mr. STERN - What was Oswald's demeanor in the course of this interview? Did he seem in control of himself, excited, or calm? Can you describe his conduct?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He was very arrogant and argumentative. That is about the extent of the comment on that.
Well, if he was innocent as he claimed, and the subsequent evidence shows, of course he was argumentative as he was being accused of killing a cop (and eventually the President). In terms of being arrogant that is in the eyes of the beholder like beauty and attitude.
This part is interesting and note the LAWYER for the WC never asks why LHO has NO lawyer.
Mr. STERN - Is this as to you and Hosty, or also Captain Fritz? Did he differentiate in his conduct between Captain Fritz and the two of you?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Now--no; that would apply to everyone present.
Mr. STERN - Did he answer all questions put to him or did he refuse to answer the questions?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; there would be certain questions that he refused to comment about.
Mr. STERN - When this happened was the question pressed, or another question asked?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Anyone asking the another question would be asked.
Mr. STERN - What sort of question would he refuse to answer? Was there any pattern to his refusing?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, now, I am not certain whether this would apply then to this particular interview, the first interview or not, in answering this, but I recall specifically one of the interviews asking him about the Selective Service card which he had in the name of Hidell, and he admitted that he was carrying the card, but that he would not admit that he wrote the signature of Hidell on the card, and at that point stated that he refused to discuss the matter further. I think generally you might say anytime that you asked a question that would be pertinent to the investigation, that would be the type of question he would refuse to discuss.
Notice how his “refusing to answer any question pertinent to the investigation” is looked at as a NEGATIVE. Aren’t these folks aware of the fact that the suspect has the RIGHT TO NOT SAY ANYTHING? I love how Stern asks “was there a pattern to his refusing” when he didn’t have to answer any question as he had the RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT! Why is the WC lawyer acting like this did NOT exist?
As for the Selective Service card with the name “Hidell” on it this was probably fake. Either LHO faked it on instructions or someone faked it for him as the cards did NOT INCLUDE A PHOTO in 1963, and yet, LHO’s has a photo of him on it. Can you say “too much of a coincidence?”
Look at this.
Mr. STERN - When you first joined the interview, did you advise him that you were an agent of the FBI, and did you say anything about warning him that evidence--that anything he said might be used?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was done by Agent Hosty.
Why was he NOT told that he had a RIGHT to a lawyer? Also, since they told him this, why where they so surprised that he did NOT want to answer many questions then?
I have done a post in this series about the DPD lineups. Here is what LHO had to say about them according to Bookhout.
Mr. STERN - Any other aspect of his treatment that he complained of?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I recall one of the interviews that he complained about the lineup that he was in, that he wasn't allowed to wear a jacket similar to jackets worn by others in the lineup.
While the others had jackets, he did not. That seems very UNFAIR and would sure make him stand out. LHO would deny ever going to Mexico City as the CIA and WC claimed he did.
Mr. STERN - During the first interview was he asked whether he had ever been in Mexico, and if so, by whom?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; I recall Hosty asking him if He had ever been in Mexico.
Mr. STERN - What did he say?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He said he had not. I believe he mentioned he had been in Tijuana, Mexico, I believe, but I believe the question was whether he had ever been in Mexico City.
The evidence in this case SUPPORTS LHO’S CONTENTION, NOT the CIA’S and WC’S claims. For those WC defenders that want to claim he was lying (they say this about everything he said pretty much), then explain why he did NOT lie about the FPCC?
Mr. STERN - Was he asked about an organization called the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and if so, by whom?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes, he was asked if he belonged to that. I don't recall specifically who raised the question.
Mr. STERN - What did he say?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He said he was a member of it, and was secretary of the New Orleans branch. I believe he said the headquarters was in New York City.
Seems accurate and fair to me. Why did he not lie as the WC defenders claim he lied about everything?
The following is pretty straightforward to me as well.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked his residence address in Dallas and did he give it?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; he furnished the address of 1026 North Beckley.
Mr. STERN - Did he say that he was living there under another name, or was another name and particularly the name O. H. Lee mentioned at all in this connection?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He was asked why he was using the name Lee at this address, and he attempted to pass it off by stating that the landlord was an old lady, and his first name was Lee and she just had gotten it in her head that he was Mr. Lee. He never did explain about the initials O. H.
I’m just guessing, but the I think the “O” stood for Oswald and the “H” stood for Harvey! IT was a play on his name or the older landlady was totally confused and wrote that down. Either way, this was the ONLY alias the DPD listed and discussed all through 11/22/63. They NEVER mentioned “A. Hidell”. Why?
Now we get into the interesting stuff.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he had shot the President, or Officer Tippit?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; he was asked that, and denied shooting either one of them, or knowing anything about it.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested. He claimed that he had bought this some time ago in Fort Worth.
Mr. STERN - He said he had gotten it in Fort Worth?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That is my recollection, and there again, in trying to follow through on that line of thought, he refused to answer any further questions as to whereabouts in Fort Worth he had bought it.
Ft. Worth? I thought the WC said he ordered it from a place in Los Angeles? Why did the WC show NO interest in discussing this more? Stern quickly moved onto the arrest in Texas Theater (TT). This is a key statement as IF he really did purchase it in Ft. Worth then the whole tale of him mail-ordering it (which has very little basis in fact as it is) is out the window! NO wonder the WC wanted to MOVE on.
Mr. STERN - Did he talk about his arrest and his resistance of arrest at the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He admitted fighting with the officer at the time of the arrest, but I don't recall any explanation as to why he was doing it.
Mr. STERN - Did he admit that he might have been wrong in doing that, or say anything to that effect?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Seemed to me like he made the comment that the only thing he was guilty of, or the only thing he could be charged with would be the carrying of a concealed weapon, and of resisting the arrest.
How do we reconcile this with the WC’s star witness for the TT arrest saying they heard LHO saying he was NOT resisting arrest?
Mr. BELIN - Did you hear Oswald say anything?
Mr. BREWER - As they were taking him out, he stopped and turned around and hollered, "I am not resisting arrest," about twice. "I am not resisting arrest." And they took him on outside.
Just wondering. Why was the WC trying to put words into Bookhout’s mouth when they said they weren’t?
Mr. STERN - When he was asked about involvement in the assassination of President Kennedy, or the shooting of Officer Tippit, how would you describe his denials?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, I don't know exactly how to describe it, but as I recall, he spoke very loudly. In other words, he was--he gave an emphatic denial, that is about all I can recall on it.
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 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 - Do you think "emphatically," is perhaps the more descriptive word now?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, that would be the way I would describe it. As I said, he spoke----
Mr. STERN - I am not trying to put words into your mouth.
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He spoke loudly.
Seems clear to me –he is saying LHO EMPHATICALLY denied the charges against him. Of course there is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between “frantically” (i.e. desperately) and “emphatically” (i.e. darn sure what you are saying is true), and the WC lawyer would waste NO time in deploying this card.
Mr. STERN - I am most interested in getting the tone of this interrogation and his state, the way he conducted himself, and that is why I ask this question, and there is something of a difference between saying a man is acting frantically as opposed to his acting emphatically.
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, I suppose the word, "frantically," would probably describe it. In other words, I said that he spoke loudly. There just wasn't a normal type of denial. He was--it was more than that. That is the reason I say that probably "frantically," might be a descriptive word.
Houston, we have LIFT OFF! After Stern made the reason clear to Bookhout he quickly did a 180 degree turn on his thinking. Amazing. He just said “emphatically” is the way he would describe it, but a few questions later he is concurring that “frantically” is much better. What?
Look at this.
Mr. STERN - Yes; when the first interview was concluded, it was, as I understand it, to take Oswald before a lineup?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That's correct.
Mr. STERN - Did you go with the police taking Oswald?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; I didn't go with them. In other words, it was strictly, as far as we were concerned, a police operation. I did proceed to the lineup room and observed it for the purpose of maintaining our liaison and keeping up with what was going on.
So now all of a sudden something is a “police matter” when the other things are NOT? What did he see and think about he lineups?
Mr. STERN - Do you recall now their physical characteristics, as related to Oswald's physical characteristics? Were they same size as he, or noticeably larger or smaller?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I observed that the lineup consisted of four men who were numbered from left to right, one through four. Oswald was No. 2 in the lineup. All the individuals appeared to be of the same general age, height, and weight, and they were white American males.
Mr. STERN - What about the dress of all the people in the lineup?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I cannot recall specifically what the dress was, but there was nothing obviously different between their dress.
Mr. STERN - From your experience as an FBI agent, from your experience in policework, I take it you observed nothing about this lineup that was out of the ordinary?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That's correct.
This is simply NOT true. As I showed in #53 of this series (Lineup issues) the others were NOT dressed like LHO at all.
Mr. BALL - How were you dressed when you went in the showup room?
Mr. ABLES - I was wearing a white shirt and this sweater here [indicating].
Mr. BALL - You have a gray-knit sweater on?
Mr. ABLES - Yes.
-----------------
Mr. BALL. And before you went down to the showup, how did you dress?
Mr. PERRY. I pulled my coat off and took my tie off and unbuttoned my shirt and put another sports coat on.
Mr. BALL. What color?
Mr. PERRY. I believe it was a brown sports coat.
-----------------
Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. CLARK. We took off our coats, ties. I put on a little--I believe it was a red vest, went on down to the jail office.
Mr. BALL. Where did you get the vest?
Mr. CLARK. At homicide.
Mr. BALL. You didn't own a----
Mr. CLARK. No, sir; just hanging loose in there.
Mr. BALL. Did you have a white shirt on?
Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir.
Does this sound like the way LHO was dressed to you? It was NOT. In fact, earlier in his testimony he said LHO complained about NOT having a jacket like the others had.
The focus then turned to LHO’s interrogation on the morning of 11/23/63.
Mr. STERN - Did Oswald say anything in the course of this interview with regard to obtaining a lawyer?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes, it was in this interview that he mentioned he wanted to contact Attorney Abt [spelling] A-b-t, New York City. I recall Captain Fritz asked him if he knew Abt personally and he said he did not, but he explained that he knew that Abt had defended the Smith Act cases in 1949, or 1950, and Captain Fritz asked him if he knew how to get ahold of Mr. Abt, and he stated that he did not know what his address was, but he was in New York.
I recall that Captain Fritz explained to him that he would allow him to place a long distance call for Abt, and he explained to Oswald how to ask the long distance operator to trace him down and locate him, even though Oswald didn't even know his address or telephone number.
Mr. STERN - Did he actually make the call in your presence?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; he didn't make the call in my presence. The next interview that we had with him, I recall that Captain Fritz asked him if he had been able to contact Mr. Abt. Oswald stated that he had made the telephone call and thanked Captain Fritz for allowing him to make the call, but actually he had not been able to talk to Abt. He wasn't available. Wasn't in his office or something----
Something doesn’t add up here. According to Bookhout LHO thanked Capt. Fritz for allowing him to make a call to John Abt, but according to John Abt LHO or anyone representing him NEVER CALLED him. I covered this in #51 of this series (John Abt).
Mr. ABT - On Friday evening, the 22d, my wife and I left the city to spend the weekend at a little cabin we have up in the Connecticut woods. Sometime on Saturday, several people phoned me to say that they had heard on the radio that Oswald had asked that I represent him, and then shortly after that the press--both the press, radio, and TV reporters began to call me up there. I may say we have a radio but we have no TV there. And in the interim I turned on the radio and heard the same report.
I informed them--and these calls kept on all day and night Saturday and again Sunday morning--I informed all of the reporters with whom I spoke that I had received no request either from Oswald or from anyone on his behalf to represent him, and hence I was in no position to give any definitive answer to any such proposal if, as and when it came. I told them, however, that if I were requested to represent him, I felt that it would probably be difficult, if not impossible, for me to do so because of my commitments to other clients. I never had any communication, either directly from Oswald or from anyone on his behalf, and all of my information about the whole matter to this day came from what the press told me in those telephone conversations and what I subsequently read in the newspapers.
He clearly says NO one representing LHO or LHO himself called. So how do we jive this with what Bookhout claimed? The nonsense about a lawyer would continue.
Mr. STERN - Was he complaining about not having counsel furnished, or did he seem satisfied with the effort to reach Abt?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; he made no complaint about not being furnished an attorney. Actually, there was a good deal of conversation on that point, and he stated that he did not want any Dallas attorney representing him, and said that if he couldn't get in touch with Mr. Abt, that he would probably contact someone with the Civil Liberties Union, and have them furnish an attorney. I recall sometime during November 22 or 23, I believe it was, the head of the Dallas Bar Association appeared at the homicide and robbery bureau and requested permission to talk to Oswald. Captain Fritz gave him that permission, and when he got through talking to Oswald and came back in and told Captain Fritz that he had seen him, and that Oswald did not want anybody from Dallas to represent him.
Mr. STERN - You heard this?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was in my presence. I don't recall the name of the attorney, but I was there at the time or during that conversation.
This is where the WC defenders get their claim that LHO wanted no lawyer from. This is called HEARSAY and is inadmissible in a court of law. The main point here is this—if the DPD, and the DA’s office—expected this case to go to court they NEEDED to get LHO legal representation to use what he may have said to them admitted into the court record. Getting LHO a lawyer was as BENEFICIAL TO THEM as it was to LHO. And yet, no one from the DPD seemed to care about this. Ditto the FBI. Instead, all we get is “LHO did not want this lawyer or a lawyer from Dallas to represent” him.
This is all nonsense and they violated the law by doing this. In a case this major don’t you think you would want to get your ducks in a row? I sure do, but it seems from their actions the DPD had some inkling none of this would matter in regards to a court of law anyway.
Numerous times Bookhout said LHO flatly refused to discuss the Selective Service card “found” on him. Why? What was the big deal?
Mr. STERN - How about the way he handled himself? Was he any calmer, any more communicative Saturday morning than he had been Friday afternoon?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, I think that he might not have been quite as belligerent on the 23d as he was on the 22d. But he still refused to discuss certain points indicated above, selective service card being one point that I recall. I remember he was asked if he would take a polygraph, and he said he would not, that it had always been his practice not to agree to take a polygraph.
Mr. STERN - Did he suggest that he had been asked before to take a polygraph?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He made some comment along the line that it had never been his policy--before, to take a polygraph.
Mr. STERN - But he didn't elaborate on it?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He didn't elaborate on it.
What was so special about his Selective Service card? Was it that it was fake and given to him as part of a mission he was working? Who knows, but we do know it was NOT real as NONE carried a photo in 1963. Also, the comment about him having a “policy about NOT taking a polygraph” is very interesting. Why would a LONE NUT have a policy about this? When did he expect he would have to take one? Just a thought, but I think at some point talking one was a requirement for federal employment. I can’t say it was so in the late 50s or early 60s for sure, but it is now.
This part I have covered before and could indicate to a person with an OPEN mind he did NOT shoot JFK.
Mr. STERN - In your report before this interview you mentioned that he again denied shooting President Kennedy, and apparently said that he didn't know until then that Governor Connally had been shot?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That's correct. That was his statement, that he denied shooting President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, and commented that he did not know that Governor John Connally had been shot.
Mr. STERN - Did you form any impression about whether he was genuinely surprised? Did he look genuinely surprised to you, or how did you feel about that? I am just asking for your impression. If you don't have one, say so.
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; I have no impression on that. I arrived at no conclusion.
Why was Bookhout sitting in on these interrogations with observation skills like this? How could he have formed “no impression” about whether LHO seemed surprised or not upon hearing John Connally (JBC) was shot? Isn’t that part of your job when interrogating a suspect? I would think so, but he claimed not to notice.
Again, the WC defenders will simply say LHO was lying, but you can’t show he was.
Mr. STERN - What did he say at this interview with respect to the purchase of a rifle, or possession of a rifle?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Generally, he stated that he didn't own a rifle, hadn't ever made any mail order purchase of one.
Again, we see NO follow-up question by Stern. Bookhout drops a bomb and everyone wants to move along. The evidence in this case again SUPPORTS LHO’S statement, NOT the WC claim.
Mr. STERN - Now, approximately when did the next interview occur?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - The interview at about 6:30 p.m., on November 23, 1963.
Mr. STERN - It was at this interview, was it not, that Oswald was shown photographs of himself holding a rifle and wearing a pistol in a holster?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That's correct.
Mr. STERN - What was his comment about the photograph?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - His comment, as I recall, he was asked if this was his Photograph, and his comment was that the head of the photograph was his, but that it could have been superimposed over the body of someone else. He Pointed out that he had been apparently photographed by news media numerous times in proceeding from the homicide and robbery bureau to the lineup and back, and that is how they probably got the photograph of his face, and he went into a long discussion of how much he knew about photography, and knew that this--his face could be superimposed over somebody else's body holding the gun and pistol and so forth.
Another bombshell and again Stern asked about LHO’s demeanor INSTEAD of following up on this comment. Why? Oh that is right, because the WC was the PROSECUTION and they did NOT give a darn about LHO and finding the truth.
It seems according to Bookhout that Fritz kept telling LHO his rights, but of course his right to an attorney was NEVER acted on.
Mr. STERN - What sort of warning would Captain Fritz give him, generally?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He gave a warning consisting of the fact that he did not have to make any statement, that any statement he made could be used against him in court, and he had the right to consult with an attorney, generally, that was the rights that were explained to him, as I recall.
Mr. STERN - This was said at each session at which you were present?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - This was given at once each time, and the question would come up later on, I mean, he would repeat himself, that, you don't have to make any statement--and so forth.
Notice he does NOT say LHO DENIED his right to an attorney. The testimony of Bookhout is enlightening in many regards, but none so much as his comments about the rifle and the Backyard photographs (BYP’s). Both times the WC changed the subject quickly. Also, many of the things LHO was attributed to saying are SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE the WC gave us. So why do WC defenders call him a liar?
Again, we see many claims of the WC are incorrect, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.
i0.heartyhosting.com/www.nationalenquirer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/j-edgar-hoover-fbi-jfk-murder-2.jpg
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had NO jurisdiction for the murder of John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963. NONE. The ONLY time they did in 1963 was when a threat was made against the President or another high elected official of the FEDERAL government. This is key to remember as the FBI, and Secret Service (SS), would secure ALL OF THE EVIDENCE in this case on 11/22/63 (SS) and 11/23/63 (FBI) with NO jurisdiction. To say this is a no-no is to understate the ILLEGAL act they took in doing this. The group with the LEGAL right to the evidence was the Dallas Police Department (DPD), the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department (DSD) and the state of Texas. I have gone into this in other posts in this series so I won’t go into it in detail here, but I want you to remember this key FACT.
I will be looking at a FBI agent who got involved in this case early on—James W. Bookhout—to see what he saw and heard on 11/22/63 and 11/23/63 as this is an insider’s view. Again, he had NO legal jurisdiction, but he could still witness what was said and done by the those that had the legal jurisdiction.
**********************************
He will state he has been assigned to the Dallas office for a long time and this invaluable to us in this case as he had to know many of the people involved from both the DPD and the DSD simply from working with them on some cases over the years.
Mr. STERN - What is your occupation, Mr. Bookhout?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. STERN - How long have you been with the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Little over 22 years.
Mr. STERN - How long have you been assigned to the Dallas office?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Since about 1945.
We see he has been assigned to the Dallas office since 1945—that means he was working in the same area as the DPD and the DSD for 18 years. That is quite a bit of time. He next told how he got involved in this matter on 11/22/63.
Mr. STERN - Were you on duty on November 22?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Actually, I was on leave on that particular date. However, I had been requested to come to the office to handle some expedited dictation in a particular case. Having completed that, I left the office and proceeded to the Mercantile National Bank, where I transacted some personal business…While waiting for the crowd to thin, in order to cross the street, several separate sirens on the police squad cars were heard proceeding in the direction of the county courthouse. While crossing the street, some citizen with a transistor radio stated that it had just been announced that shots had been fired at the President's motorcade.
I immediately proceeded toward the office and observed two agents coming from the direction of the office, who advised that the office was trying to contact me and I was to proceed to the homicide and robbery bureau of the Dallas Police Department.
I immediately proceeded to the homicide and robbery bureau and contacted my office and was advised that I was to maintain liaison with the homicide and robbery bureau.
Mr. STERN - Did you then go to the police headquarters?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; as I said, I went to the homicide and robbery bureau after contacting the Dallas office.
Mr. STERN - What then occurred at the police headquarters? Let me ask you this: How soon after you arrived there was Oswald brought in?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, it was some little time, as I recall, the next pertinent instance was a report that the Dallas Police officer had been shot, and that was in the Oak Cliff area. Captain Fritz had not returned to the office at that time. When he did return, and subsequently Oswald was apprehended in the Texas Theatre, information was passed to Captain Fritz as to the name of the suspect that they had apprehended on the Tippit shooting, and at that time he stated that that was the suspect that they were looking for on the killing of the President.
Why was Capt. Fritz NOT there at this time? Because he was having an “off the record talk” with Sheriff Decker at this time. How lucky for him Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was apprehended so fast, huh? I mean NO All Points Bulletin (APB) was put out for him by the DPD! Why not? The WC and its defenders claim it was noticed quite quickly LHO was NOT at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) anymore, so why was NO APB put out for him like one was sent out for Charles Givins?
Also note, in this statement by Bookhout he says that LHO was apprehended for the “Tippit shooting”, NOT the JFK shooting. So why did they use the description of the JFK shooter to make the arrest of LHO for the J.D. Tippit (JDT) shooting then? How could they think the two crimes were linked so rapidly when they were a good distance apart? Also, the descriptions sent out for the shooter of JDT did NOT match LHO very closely.
Finally, look at his last comment in this paragraph. He says Capt. Fritz stated that that was the “suspect that they were looking for on the killing of the President.” How in the world could Fritz know this so fast? What made him a “suspect?” Leaving the TSBD area? IF so, then many others should have been suspects too. Look at the next comment by Bookhout.
Mr. STERN - Did the name Lee Harvey Oswald mean anything to you at that time?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No. Captain Fritz went on to explain that Oswald was an employee of the Texas Book Depository, who they had ascertained left his employment there subsequent to the shooting incident.
Again, it seems LHO’s only “crime” was to leave the vicinity of the shooting. IF this caused such a red flag for them why did they NOT put out an APB on LHO? Does this make any sense to you?
Mr. STERN - And sometime after this he was brought to the police headquarters?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes.
Mr. STERN - Were you present when he was brought in?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes.
Mr. STERN - Can you describe his physical condition?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I can recall one of the officers that brought him in was Paul Bentley. He is a polygraph operator in the identification division of the Dallas Police Department, and Bentley was limping, and Oswald had one eye that was swollen and a scratch mark on his forehead.
Mr. STERN - Did you observe any other bruises?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - None.
Mr. STERN - Was he handcuffed?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes.
First of all, Bookhout should have qualified LHO had NO other bruises that HE COULD SEE! It was stated LHO was hit in the back with a rifle butt and I’m sure that would leave a bruise. A swollen eye also indicates he was punched and given LHO’s statements of NOT resisting arrests this seems unwarranted unless you believe the CLAIM he tried to pull a gun. This claim has NEVER been proven.
Secondly, we see LHO was in handcuffs, thus, he was arrested by the DPD, and yet, he NEVER was given legal representation for the nearly 48 hours he was in custody. Why not?
Notice the speed in which Bookhout gets into the room where LHO is going to be interviewed, when again the FBI had NO jurisdiction.
Mr. STERN - Then what occurred, that you observed?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I believe he was taken directly into Captain Fritz' office and the interview started at that time with Captain Fritz, and two homicide officers.
Mr. STERN - Were you present?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I was not in the office at that time. I called our office, advised them he had been brought in, and that the interview was starting and shortly thereafter Mr. Shanklin, our SAC called back and said the Bureau wanted the agents present in the interview and that Hosty, James P. Hosty, I believe was ,to sit in on the interview, and I was to also be present with Hosty. So, at that time, we asked Captain Fritz to sit in on the interview, and that was approximately 3:15 p.m.
Mr. STERN - How long had the interview gone on before you were present?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Very shortly. I would give a rough estimate of not more than 5 to 10 minutes at the most.
So within five to ten minutes he was in the room and included in this process. All the FBI could do was REQUEST they be involved, but they had NO legal right to demand it. Why did the DPD grant this so fast if it was ONLY a request? Wouldn’t they want time alone with THEIR suspect?
Capt. Fritz would have to leave from time to time and it seems he let the FBI, again with NO jurisdiction, lead the questioning!
Mr. STERN - Was it interrupted at any point, if you remember?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, what I am thinking, we have got several interviews here. I know from time to time I can't recall whether it was this interview, or subsequent interviews Captain Fritz would have to leave the office for a second or two. By "office," I mean the immediate office that the interview was being conducted in, but still within the homicide and robbery office.
Mr. STERN - Did the interviewing continue when he was out of the room, or did you wait for his return?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; it would continue.
Mr. STERN - By whom was the interview conducted?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Primarily it was conducted by Captain Fritz and then before he would leave from one point to another he would ask if there was anything we wanted to ask him particularly on that point.
Mr. STERN - By "we," you mean Agent Hosty and yourself?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Right.
Why on earth would Capt. Fritz do this? Wasn’t there other people on his staff that could have done this? This was a LOCAL crime, NOT a federal one, so why did he turn his suspect over to the FBI so quickly? Why didn’t the WC ask this logical question? Instead, they just moved along.
Mr. STERN - What was Oswald's demeanor in the course of this interview? Did he seem in control of himself, excited, or calm? Can you describe his conduct?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He was very arrogant and argumentative. That is about the extent of the comment on that.
Well, if he was innocent as he claimed, and the subsequent evidence shows, of course he was argumentative as he was being accused of killing a cop (and eventually the President). In terms of being arrogant that is in the eyes of the beholder like beauty and attitude.
This part is interesting and note the LAWYER for the WC never asks why LHO has NO lawyer.
Mr. STERN - Is this as to you and Hosty, or also Captain Fritz? Did he differentiate in his conduct between Captain Fritz and the two of you?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Now--no; that would apply to everyone present.
Mr. STERN - Did he answer all questions put to him or did he refuse to answer the questions?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; there would be certain questions that he refused to comment about.
Mr. STERN - When this happened was the question pressed, or another question asked?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Anyone asking the another question would be asked.
Mr. STERN - What sort of question would he refuse to answer? Was there any pattern to his refusing?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, now, I am not certain whether this would apply then to this particular interview, the first interview or not, in answering this, but I recall specifically one of the interviews asking him about the Selective Service card which he had in the name of Hidell, and he admitted that he was carrying the card, but that he would not admit that he wrote the signature of Hidell on the card, and at that point stated that he refused to discuss the matter further. I think generally you might say anytime that you asked a question that would be pertinent to the investigation, that would be the type of question he would refuse to discuss.
Notice how his “refusing to answer any question pertinent to the investigation” is looked at as a NEGATIVE. Aren’t these folks aware of the fact that the suspect has the RIGHT TO NOT SAY ANYTHING? I love how Stern asks “was there a pattern to his refusing” when he didn’t have to answer any question as he had the RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT! Why is the WC lawyer acting like this did NOT exist?
As for the Selective Service card with the name “Hidell” on it this was probably fake. Either LHO faked it on instructions or someone faked it for him as the cards did NOT INCLUDE A PHOTO in 1963, and yet, LHO’s has a photo of him on it. Can you say “too much of a coincidence?”
Look at this.
Mr. STERN - When you first joined the interview, did you advise him that you were an agent of the FBI, and did you say anything about warning him that evidence--that anything he said might be used?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was done by Agent Hosty.
Why was he NOT told that he had a RIGHT to a lawyer? Also, since they told him this, why where they so surprised that he did NOT want to answer many questions then?
I have done a post in this series about the DPD lineups. Here is what LHO had to say about them according to Bookhout.
Mr. STERN - Any other aspect of his treatment that he complained of?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I recall one of the interviews that he complained about the lineup that he was in, that he wasn't allowed to wear a jacket similar to jackets worn by others in the lineup.
While the others had jackets, he did not. That seems very UNFAIR and would sure make him stand out. LHO would deny ever going to Mexico City as the CIA and WC claimed he did.
Mr. STERN - During the first interview was he asked whether he had ever been in Mexico, and if so, by whom?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; I recall Hosty asking him if He had ever been in Mexico.
Mr. STERN - What did he say?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He said he had not. I believe he mentioned he had been in Tijuana, Mexico, I believe, but I believe the question was whether he had ever been in Mexico City.
The evidence in this case SUPPORTS LHO’S CONTENTION, NOT the CIA’S and WC’S claims. For those WC defenders that want to claim he was lying (they say this about everything he said pretty much), then explain why he did NOT lie about the FPCC?
Mr. STERN - Was he asked about an organization called the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and if so, by whom?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes, he was asked if he belonged to that. I don't recall specifically who raised the question.
Mr. STERN - What did he say?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He said he was a member of it, and was secretary of the New Orleans branch. I believe he said the headquarters was in New York City.
Seems accurate and fair to me. Why did he not lie as the WC defenders claim he lied about everything?
The following is pretty straightforward to me as well.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked his residence address in Dallas and did he give it?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; he furnished the address of 1026 North Beckley.
Mr. STERN - Did he say that he was living there under another name, or was another name and particularly the name O. H. Lee mentioned at all in this connection?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He was asked why he was using the name Lee at this address, and he attempted to pass it off by stating that the landlord was an old lady, and his first name was Lee and she just had gotten it in her head that he was Mr. Lee. He never did explain about the initials O. H.
I’m just guessing, but the I think the “O” stood for Oswald and the “H” stood for Harvey! IT was a play on his name or the older landlady was totally confused and wrote that down. Either way, this was the ONLY alias the DPD listed and discussed all through 11/22/63. They NEVER mentioned “A. Hidell”. Why?
Now we get into the interesting stuff.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he had shot the President, or Officer Tippit?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; he was asked that, and denied shooting either one of them, or knowing anything about it.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested. He claimed that he had bought this some time ago in Fort Worth.
Mr. STERN - He said he had gotten it in Fort Worth?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That is my recollection, and there again, in trying to follow through on that line of thought, he refused to answer any further questions as to whereabouts in Fort Worth he had bought it.
Ft. Worth? I thought the WC said he ordered it from a place in Los Angeles? Why did the WC show NO interest in discussing this more? Stern quickly moved onto the arrest in Texas Theater (TT). This is a key statement as IF he really did purchase it in Ft. Worth then the whole tale of him mail-ordering it (which has very little basis in fact as it is) is out the window! NO wonder the WC wanted to MOVE on.
Mr. STERN - Did he talk about his arrest and his resistance of arrest at the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He admitted fighting with the officer at the time of the arrest, but I don't recall any explanation as to why he was doing it.
Mr. STERN - Did he admit that he might have been wrong in doing that, or say anything to that effect?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Seemed to me like he made the comment that the only thing he was guilty of, or the only thing he could be charged with would be the carrying of a concealed weapon, and of resisting the arrest.
How do we reconcile this with the WC’s star witness for the TT arrest saying they heard LHO saying he was NOT resisting arrest?
Mr. BELIN - Did you hear Oswald say anything?
Mr. BREWER - As they were taking him out, he stopped and turned around and hollered, "I am not resisting arrest," about twice. "I am not resisting arrest." And they took him on outside.
Just wondering. Why was the WC trying to put words into Bookhout’s mouth when they said they weren’t?
Mr. STERN - When he was asked about involvement in the assassination of President Kennedy, or the shooting of Officer Tippit, how would you describe his denials?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, I don't know exactly how to describe it, but as I recall, he spoke very loudly. In other words, he was--he gave an emphatic denial, that is about all I can recall on it.
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 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 - Do you think "emphatically," is perhaps the more descriptive word now?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, that would be the way I would describe it. As I said, he spoke----
Mr. STERN - I am not trying to put words into your mouth.
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He spoke loudly.
Seems clear to me –he is saying LHO EMPHATICALLY denied the charges against him. Of course there is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between “frantically” (i.e. desperately) and “emphatically” (i.e. darn sure what you are saying is true), and the WC lawyer would waste NO time in deploying this card.
Mr. STERN - I am most interested in getting the tone of this interrogation and his state, the way he conducted himself, and that is why I ask this question, and there is something of a difference between saying a man is acting frantically as opposed to his acting emphatically.
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, I suppose the word, "frantically," would probably describe it. In other words, I said that he spoke loudly. There just wasn't a normal type of denial. He was--it was more than that. That is the reason I say that probably "frantically," might be a descriptive word.
Houston, we have LIFT OFF! After Stern made the reason clear to Bookhout he quickly did a 180 degree turn on his thinking. Amazing. He just said “emphatically” is the way he would describe it, but a few questions later he is concurring that “frantically” is much better. What?
Look at this.
Mr. STERN - Yes; when the first interview was concluded, it was, as I understand it, to take Oswald before a lineup?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That's correct.
Mr. STERN - Did you go with the police taking Oswald?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; I didn't go with them. In other words, it was strictly, as far as we were concerned, a police operation. I did proceed to the lineup room and observed it for the purpose of maintaining our liaison and keeping up with what was going on.
So now all of a sudden something is a “police matter” when the other things are NOT? What did he see and think about he lineups?
Mr. STERN - Do you recall now their physical characteristics, as related to Oswald's physical characteristics? Were they same size as he, or noticeably larger or smaller?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I observed that the lineup consisted of four men who were numbered from left to right, one through four. Oswald was No. 2 in the lineup. All the individuals appeared to be of the same general age, height, and weight, and they were white American males.
Mr. STERN - What about the dress of all the people in the lineup?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - I cannot recall specifically what the dress was, but there was nothing obviously different between their dress.
Mr. STERN - From your experience as an FBI agent, from your experience in policework, I take it you observed nothing about this lineup that was out of the ordinary?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That's correct.
This is simply NOT true. As I showed in #53 of this series (Lineup issues) the others were NOT dressed like LHO at all.
Mr. BALL - How were you dressed when you went in the showup room?
Mr. ABLES - I was wearing a white shirt and this sweater here [indicating].
Mr. BALL - You have a gray-knit sweater on?
Mr. ABLES - Yes.
-----------------
Mr. BALL. And before you went down to the showup, how did you dress?
Mr. PERRY. I pulled my coat off and took my tie off and unbuttoned my shirt and put another sports coat on.
Mr. BALL. What color?
Mr. PERRY. I believe it was a brown sports coat.
-----------------
Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. CLARK. We took off our coats, ties. I put on a little--I believe it was a red vest, went on down to the jail office.
Mr. BALL. Where did you get the vest?
Mr. CLARK. At homicide.
Mr. BALL. You didn't own a----
Mr. CLARK. No, sir; just hanging loose in there.
Mr. BALL. Did you have a white shirt on?
Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir.
Does this sound like the way LHO was dressed to you? It was NOT. In fact, earlier in his testimony he said LHO complained about NOT having a jacket like the others had.
The focus then turned to LHO’s interrogation on the morning of 11/23/63.
Mr. STERN - Did Oswald say anything in the course of this interview with regard to obtaining a lawyer?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes, it was in this interview that he mentioned he wanted to contact Attorney Abt [spelling] A-b-t, New York City. I recall Captain Fritz asked him if he knew Abt personally and he said he did not, but he explained that he knew that Abt had defended the Smith Act cases in 1949, or 1950, and Captain Fritz asked him if he knew how to get ahold of Mr. Abt, and he stated that he did not know what his address was, but he was in New York.
I recall that Captain Fritz explained to him that he would allow him to place a long distance call for Abt, and he explained to Oswald how to ask the long distance operator to trace him down and locate him, even though Oswald didn't even know his address or telephone number.
Mr. STERN - Did he actually make the call in your presence?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; he didn't make the call in my presence. The next interview that we had with him, I recall that Captain Fritz asked him if he had been able to contact Mr. Abt. Oswald stated that he had made the telephone call and thanked Captain Fritz for allowing him to make the call, but actually he had not been able to talk to Abt. He wasn't available. Wasn't in his office or something----
Something doesn’t add up here. According to Bookhout LHO thanked Capt. Fritz for allowing him to make a call to John Abt, but according to John Abt LHO or anyone representing him NEVER CALLED him. I covered this in #51 of this series (John Abt).
Mr. ABT - On Friday evening, the 22d, my wife and I left the city to spend the weekend at a little cabin we have up in the Connecticut woods. Sometime on Saturday, several people phoned me to say that they had heard on the radio that Oswald had asked that I represent him, and then shortly after that the press--both the press, radio, and TV reporters began to call me up there. I may say we have a radio but we have no TV there. And in the interim I turned on the radio and heard the same report.
I informed them--and these calls kept on all day and night Saturday and again Sunday morning--I informed all of the reporters with whom I spoke that I had received no request either from Oswald or from anyone on his behalf to represent him, and hence I was in no position to give any definitive answer to any such proposal if, as and when it came. I told them, however, that if I were requested to represent him, I felt that it would probably be difficult, if not impossible, for me to do so because of my commitments to other clients. I never had any communication, either directly from Oswald or from anyone on his behalf, and all of my information about the whole matter to this day came from what the press told me in those telephone conversations and what I subsequently read in the newspapers.
He clearly says NO one representing LHO or LHO himself called. So how do we jive this with what Bookhout claimed? The nonsense about a lawyer would continue.
Mr. STERN - Was he complaining about not having counsel furnished, or did he seem satisfied with the effort to reach Abt?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; he made no complaint about not being furnished an attorney. Actually, there was a good deal of conversation on that point, and he stated that he did not want any Dallas attorney representing him, and said that if he couldn't get in touch with Mr. Abt, that he would probably contact someone with the Civil Liberties Union, and have them furnish an attorney. I recall sometime during November 22 or 23, I believe it was, the head of the Dallas Bar Association appeared at the homicide and robbery bureau and requested permission to talk to Oswald. Captain Fritz gave him that permission, and when he got through talking to Oswald and came back in and told Captain Fritz that he had seen him, and that Oswald did not want anybody from Dallas to represent him.
Mr. STERN - You heard this?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was in my presence. I don't recall the name of the attorney, but I was there at the time or during that conversation.
This is where the WC defenders get their claim that LHO wanted no lawyer from. This is called HEARSAY and is inadmissible in a court of law. The main point here is this—if the DPD, and the DA’s office—expected this case to go to court they NEEDED to get LHO legal representation to use what he may have said to them admitted into the court record. Getting LHO a lawyer was as BENEFICIAL TO THEM as it was to LHO. And yet, no one from the DPD seemed to care about this. Ditto the FBI. Instead, all we get is “LHO did not want this lawyer or a lawyer from Dallas to represent” him.
This is all nonsense and they violated the law by doing this. In a case this major don’t you think you would want to get your ducks in a row? I sure do, but it seems from their actions the DPD had some inkling none of this would matter in regards to a court of law anyway.
Numerous times Bookhout said LHO flatly refused to discuss the Selective Service card “found” on him. Why? What was the big deal?
Mr. STERN - How about the way he handled himself? Was he any calmer, any more communicative Saturday morning than he had been Friday afternoon?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Well, I think that he might not have been quite as belligerent on the 23d as he was on the 22d. But he still refused to discuss certain points indicated above, selective service card being one point that I recall. I remember he was asked if he would take a polygraph, and he said he would not, that it had always been his practice not to agree to take a polygraph.
Mr. STERN - Did he suggest that he had been asked before to take a polygraph?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He made some comment along the line that it had never been his policy--before, to take a polygraph.
Mr. STERN - But he didn't elaborate on it?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He didn't elaborate on it.
What was so special about his Selective Service card? Was it that it was fake and given to him as part of a mission he was working? Who knows, but we do know it was NOT real as NONE carried a photo in 1963. Also, the comment about him having a “policy about NOT taking a polygraph” is very interesting. Why would a LONE NUT have a policy about this? When did he expect he would have to take one? Just a thought, but I think at some point talking one was a requirement for federal employment. I can’t say it was so in the late 50s or early 60s for sure, but it is now.
This part I have covered before and could indicate to a person with an OPEN mind he did NOT shoot JFK.
Mr. STERN - In your report before this interview you mentioned that he again denied shooting President Kennedy, and apparently said that he didn't know until then that Governor Connally had been shot?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That's correct. That was his statement, that he denied shooting President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, and commented that he did not know that Governor John Connally had been shot.
Mr. STERN - Did you form any impression about whether he was genuinely surprised? Did he look genuinely surprised to you, or how did you feel about that? I am just asking for your impression. If you don't have one, say so.
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; I have no impression on that. I arrived at no conclusion.
Why was Bookhout sitting in on these interrogations with observation skills like this? How could he have formed “no impression” about whether LHO seemed surprised or not upon hearing John Connally (JBC) was shot? Isn’t that part of your job when interrogating a suspect? I would think so, but he claimed not to notice.
Again, the WC defenders will simply say LHO was lying, but you can’t show he was.
Mr. STERN - What did he say at this interview with respect to the purchase of a rifle, or possession of a rifle?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Generally, he stated that he didn't own a rifle, hadn't ever made any mail order purchase of one.
Again, we see NO follow-up question by Stern. Bookhout drops a bomb and everyone wants to move along. The evidence in this case again SUPPORTS LHO’S statement, NOT the WC claim.
Mr. STERN - Now, approximately when did the next interview occur?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - The interview at about 6:30 p.m., on November 23, 1963.
Mr. STERN - It was at this interview, was it not, that Oswald was shown photographs of himself holding a rifle and wearing a pistol in a holster?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - That's correct.
Mr. STERN - What was his comment about the photograph?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - His comment, as I recall, he was asked if this was his Photograph, and his comment was that the head of the photograph was his, but that it could have been superimposed over the body of someone else. He Pointed out that he had been apparently photographed by news media numerous times in proceeding from the homicide and robbery bureau to the lineup and back, and that is how they probably got the photograph of his face, and he went into a long discussion of how much he knew about photography, and knew that this--his face could be superimposed over somebody else's body holding the gun and pistol and so forth.
Another bombshell and again Stern asked about LHO’s demeanor INSTEAD of following up on this comment. Why? Oh that is right, because the WC was the PROSECUTION and they did NOT give a darn about LHO and finding the truth.
It seems according to Bookhout that Fritz kept telling LHO his rights, but of course his right to an attorney was NEVER acted on.
Mr. STERN - What sort of warning would Captain Fritz give him, generally?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - He gave a warning consisting of the fact that he did not have to make any statement, that any statement he made could be used against him in court, and he had the right to consult with an attorney, generally, that was the rights that were explained to him, as I recall.
Mr. STERN - This was said at each session at which you were present?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - This was given at once each time, and the question would come up later on, I mean, he would repeat himself, that, you don't have to make any statement--and so forth.
Notice he does NOT say LHO DENIED his right to an attorney. The testimony of Bookhout is enlightening in many regards, but none so much as his comments about the rifle and the Backyard photographs (BYP’s). Both times the WC changed the subject quickly. Also, many of the things LHO was attributed to saying are SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE the WC gave us. So why do WC defenders call him a liar?
Again, we see many claims of the WC are incorrect, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.