Post by Rob Caprio on Apr 25, 2022 20:34:51 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/FrankChurch.jpg
i.pinimg.com/736x/75/68/c2/7568c2f8a1bac8ac4e402132e684c276.jpg
In 1975 the U.S. Congress set up a committee to investigate the role of the intelligence community in a number of issues pertaining to the country's history. One of these issues was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) which occurred on November 22, 1963. The committee would take the name of the man in charge of it, Senator Frank Church (D-ID), and became known as the Church Committee (CC).
This post will look at the issue of Lee Harvey Oswald's (LHO) arrest in New Orleans, Louisiana, in August 1963. Here is what the CC wrote about this in their report.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/book5/pages/ChurchVol5_0049a.gif
Oswald was arrested on August 9, 1963, in New Orleans in connection with his FPCC [Fairplay For Cuba Committee] activities and charged with "disturbing the peace by creating a scene." On the morning of August 10, Oswald asked to see a Bureau agent, and he was interviewed at length by SA John L. Quigley. Oswald also repeatedly lied to this FBI agent. For example, he told Quigley that he had met and married his wife in Fort Worth, Texas. (Church Committee, Book V, p. 91)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=97
Quote off
This is interesting as I have read, and written, about this interview before on numerous occasions, but I have never read about him telling this very obvious lie regarding Marina. Why would he tell such an obvious lie? Why did LHO continually tell such obvious lies to the FBI every time he spoke with them? Common sense should have told him that they would know the truth, so why did he do it? Was it some kind of code to let the FBI agent know who he really was and what he was really up to? Just a thought.
The CC further mentions that the report the New Orleans FBI office finally furnished to the FBI Headquarters on October 31, 1963, contained no new information that was not already in the Headquarters file. The New Orleans report showed that they only interviewed two local informants and neither one knew him. (Ibid.) Who were these informants? That would be interesting to know. By the time of the report the Oswalds were back in Dallas, Texas, as well.
The CC Report erroneously states that the "evidence indicates that.." LHO went to Mexico City from September 27-October 2, 1963, when there is no such evidence that I have ever seen. (Ibid, p. 92) All the evidence used to try and show this trip leads to one conclusion -- that LHO never went to Mexico City in the manner that the Warren Commission (WC) claimed or he did not go at all. If he went in another manner I have never seen evidence for this, but I certainly know that he did not go in the manner the WC described. Based on their assumption that he went to Mexico City, the CC wrote the following about the FBI's action (or inaction).
Quote on
…Thus, despite the fact that both the Dallas and the New Orleans field offices were aware that Oswald had been in contact with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, there is no evidence that either of these field offices intensified their "efforts" to locate and interview Oswald. Most surprising, however, is that the "Soviet Experts" at FBI Headquarters did not did not intensify their efforts in the Oswald case after being informed that Oswald had met with Vice Consul Kostikov at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. Not only were these experts familiar with Soviet activities in general, but they knew that Kostikov was a member of the KGB. Further, the Bureau's Soviet experts had reason to believe he was an agent within the KGB's Department which carries out assassination and sabotage. They were aslo aware that American citizen contacts with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City were extremely rare. Ironically [or not], the teletype which informed the Bureau of Oswald's Mexico City activities was sitting on a pile of documents on a Headquarters supervisor's desk awaiting initial action on November 22, 1963. (Ibid., p. 92)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=98
Quote off
All of this seems like dereliction of duty on the part of the FBI IF you believe that LHO actually went to Mexico City and met with Valery Kostikov. I don't. There is no evidence for this at all. This all smells like the alleged note incident. Remember, the FBI claimed that LHO left a threatening note for SA James Hosty? That note, if it ever existed, was destroyed by Hosty on orders. If it threatened to blow the FBI Dallas Office up or some other violent act of terror, why would they destroy it? Wouldn't that be proof of the WC's claims later on that he was a violent person? Furthermore, if this note was a violent one, why did Hosty not view LHO to be a violent person as his WC testimony shows?
Wouldn't it seem more likely that the FBI took no action on this information because they knew the CIA was feeding them incorrect data? Perhaps, they even knew where LHO really was at this time since it was their job to keep track of him (i.e. Sylvia Odio's apartment and places we do not know about). To me that makes more sense as these lower level agents couldn't know about the impending assassination so their actions cannot be a reflection of that in my mind.
Why did the CC fall for this alleged Mexico City trip when there is no proof that it ever occurred. LHO being a supposed former defector to the Soviet Union should have been watched very carefully as well. Any departure to a foreign country and a supposed visit to the Soviet Embassy should have raised all kinds of flags and alarms, but as usual we are asked to believe no one knew or decided to take no action about it. Does this sound realistic to you?
The only other explanation is somehow all of this did happen (with no viable evidence being left to show that it did) and they knew that this would point to a conspiracy so they buried it. What do you think?
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/FrankChurch.jpg
i.pinimg.com/736x/75/68/c2/7568c2f8a1bac8ac4e402132e684c276.jpg
In 1975 the U.S. Congress set up a committee to investigate the role of the intelligence community in a number of issues pertaining to the country's history. One of these issues was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) which occurred on November 22, 1963. The committee would take the name of the man in charge of it, Senator Frank Church (D-ID), and became known as the Church Committee (CC).
This post will look at the issue of Lee Harvey Oswald's (LHO) arrest in New Orleans, Louisiana, in August 1963. Here is what the CC wrote about this in their report.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/book5/pages/ChurchVol5_0049a.gif
Oswald was arrested on August 9, 1963, in New Orleans in connection with his FPCC [Fairplay For Cuba Committee] activities and charged with "disturbing the peace by creating a scene." On the morning of August 10, Oswald asked to see a Bureau agent, and he was interviewed at length by SA John L. Quigley. Oswald also repeatedly lied to this FBI agent. For example, he told Quigley that he had met and married his wife in Fort Worth, Texas. (Church Committee, Book V, p. 91)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=97
Quote off
This is interesting as I have read, and written, about this interview before on numerous occasions, but I have never read about him telling this very obvious lie regarding Marina. Why would he tell such an obvious lie? Why did LHO continually tell such obvious lies to the FBI every time he spoke with them? Common sense should have told him that they would know the truth, so why did he do it? Was it some kind of code to let the FBI agent know who he really was and what he was really up to? Just a thought.
The CC further mentions that the report the New Orleans FBI office finally furnished to the FBI Headquarters on October 31, 1963, contained no new information that was not already in the Headquarters file. The New Orleans report showed that they only interviewed two local informants and neither one knew him. (Ibid.) Who were these informants? That would be interesting to know. By the time of the report the Oswalds were back in Dallas, Texas, as well.
The CC Report erroneously states that the "evidence indicates that.." LHO went to Mexico City from September 27-October 2, 1963, when there is no such evidence that I have ever seen. (Ibid, p. 92) All the evidence used to try and show this trip leads to one conclusion -- that LHO never went to Mexico City in the manner that the Warren Commission (WC) claimed or he did not go at all. If he went in another manner I have never seen evidence for this, but I certainly know that he did not go in the manner the WC described. Based on their assumption that he went to Mexico City, the CC wrote the following about the FBI's action (or inaction).
Quote on
…Thus, despite the fact that both the Dallas and the New Orleans field offices were aware that Oswald had been in contact with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, there is no evidence that either of these field offices intensified their "efforts" to locate and interview Oswald. Most surprising, however, is that the "Soviet Experts" at FBI Headquarters did not did not intensify their efforts in the Oswald case after being informed that Oswald had met with Vice Consul Kostikov at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. Not only were these experts familiar with Soviet activities in general, but they knew that Kostikov was a member of the KGB. Further, the Bureau's Soviet experts had reason to believe he was an agent within the KGB's Department which carries out assassination and sabotage. They were aslo aware that American citizen contacts with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City were extremely rare. Ironically [or not], the teletype which informed the Bureau of Oswald's Mexico City activities was sitting on a pile of documents on a Headquarters supervisor's desk awaiting initial action on November 22, 1963. (Ibid., p. 92)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=98
Quote off
All of this seems like dereliction of duty on the part of the FBI IF you believe that LHO actually went to Mexico City and met with Valery Kostikov. I don't. There is no evidence for this at all. This all smells like the alleged note incident. Remember, the FBI claimed that LHO left a threatening note for SA James Hosty? That note, if it ever existed, was destroyed by Hosty on orders. If it threatened to blow the FBI Dallas Office up or some other violent act of terror, why would they destroy it? Wouldn't that be proof of the WC's claims later on that he was a violent person? Furthermore, if this note was a violent one, why did Hosty not view LHO to be a violent person as his WC testimony shows?
Wouldn't it seem more likely that the FBI took no action on this information because they knew the CIA was feeding them incorrect data? Perhaps, they even knew where LHO really was at this time since it was their job to keep track of him (i.e. Sylvia Odio's apartment and places we do not know about). To me that makes more sense as these lower level agents couldn't know about the impending assassination so their actions cannot be a reflection of that in my mind.
Why did the CC fall for this alleged Mexico City trip when there is no proof that it ever occurred. LHO being a supposed former defector to the Soviet Union should have been watched very carefully as well. Any departure to a foreign country and a supposed visit to the Soviet Embassy should have raised all kinds of flags and alarms, but as usual we are asked to believe no one knew or decided to take no action about it. Does this sound realistic to you?
The only other explanation is somehow all of this did happen (with no viable evidence being left to show that it did) and they knew that this would point to a conspiracy so they buried it. What do you think?