Post by Rob Caprio on Feb 13, 2023 20:49:33 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/FrankChurch.jpg
lee-harvey-oswald.journal-of-life.com/files/images/1295391600/e324e1e3775.jpg
The Church Committee (CC) formed in 1975 to look into the activities of the American Intelligence Community. Their main focus would fall on the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during their time in session. This is a shame as there is much more to the intelligence apparatus than just these two organizations.
During their short time they also did a dive into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) in regards to how the FBI and CIA handled this major event. This post will focus on how the FBI handled accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald's security case.
On December 10, 1963, Assistant Director James H. Gale of the Inspection Division of the FBI wrote the following to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) in response to his request to investigate any deficiencies in the LHO case.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/book5/pages/ChurchVol5_0028b.gif
Oswald should have been on the Security Index; his wife should have been interviewed before the assassination, and investigation intensified--not held in abeyance--after Oswald contacted Soviet Embassy in Mexico. (Church Committee, Book V, p. 50)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=56
Quote off
Yes, there should have been a Security Index on LHO, so, why wasn't there? Why wasn't Marina Oswald ever interviewed by the FBI before November 22, 1963? The last part is totally false as LHO was never in Mexico City per the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and the evidence of the case. IF LHO did go to Mexico, he NEVER went in the manner that the Warren Commission (WC) claimed he did and he NEVER visited the Soviet Embassy or the Cuban Consulate.
The FBI would decide to take no action during the life of the WC because this might make the American people believe that the FBI was negligent in preventing the assassination.
This is the same thinking that the Secret Service (SS) employed when they did NOT dismiss one agent for their dismal performance on November 22, 1963. Here is what Assistant Director Cartha DeLoach wrote in response to Gale's report.
Quote on
I suggest that the suggested disciplinary action be held in abeyance until the findings of the Presidential Commission have been made public. This action is recommended inasmuch as any "leak" to the general public, or particularly to the communications media, concerning the FBI taking disciplinary action against its personnel with respect to captioned matter would be assumed as a direct admission that we are responsible for negligence which might have resulted in the assassination of the President. At the present time there are so many wild rumors, gossip, and speculation that even the slightest hint to outsiders concerning disciplinary action of this nature would result in considerable adverse reaction against the FBI. (Ibid.)
Quote off
So they chose NOT to discipline anyone because this might make people think that they were negligent in protecting the president. Well, guess what? They were. This is the action of a guilty organization as if they had nothing to hide they should not have cared what anyone thought. Ditto the SS which were not examined by the CC.
I love the comment about all the "wild rumors, gossip, and speculation" as he must have been talking about the WC as that is all they had to work with. They certainly had NO firm evidence showing LHO acted and acted alone as they would claim. I wonder why the FBI didn't mind making the American people think LHO was guilty when they never presented any evidence that he was?
For once, credit needs to be given to JEH as he wrote in response to this comment by DeLoach, "I do not concur." (Ibid., p.51) JEH censured or placed on probation 17 Bureau employees (five field investigative agents, one field supervisor, three special agents in charge, four headquarters supervisors, two headquarters section chiefs, one inspector and one assistant director) for "shortcomings in connection with the investigation of Oswald prior to the assassination." (Ibid.)
Assistant to the Director Alan Belmont tried to come to the rescue of these 17 employees when he wrote the following in regard to Gale's report.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/book5/pages/ChurchVol5_0029a.gif
It is significant to note that all of the supervisors and officials who came into contact with this case at the seat of government, as well as agents in the field, are unanimous in the opinion that Oswald did not meet the criteria for the Security Index. If this is so, it would appear that the criteria are not sufficiently specific to include a case such as Oswald's and, rather than take the position that all of these employees were mistaken in their judgment, the criteria should be changed. This has now been recommended by Assistant Director Gale. (Ibid., p. 51)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=57
Quote off
Again, surprisingly, JEH wrote, "They were worse than mistaken. Certainly no one in full possession of his faculties can claim Oswald didn't fall within this criteria." Another comment by JEH shows us that he was NOT upset by this mistake because it lead to the death of JFK, but rather because it made his FBI look bad. He wrote on a memorandum by Assistant Director William Sullivan dated September 24, 1964, (the same day the WC Report came out) the following, "[the personnel who failed to include Oswald on the Security Index] could not have been more stupid...and now that the Bureau has been debunked publicly I intend to take additional administrative action." This says it all. JEH was NOT reprimanding these people because their actions and inactions may have contributed to the death of JFK, but rather because it made his FBI look bad.
On October 12, 1964, JEH sent a memorandum to senior FBI officials in which he wrote the following.
Quote on
There is no question in my mind but that we failed in carrying through some of the most salient aspects of the Oswald investigation. It ought to be a lesson to all, but I doubt if some even realize it now. (Ibid., p. 53)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=59
Quote off
JEH was comfortable reprimanding all of these people because he knew it would not reach the media or the American people and they didn't until October 1975 at the time of the CC.
This note by JEH alone proves that the official conclusion is false as he admits that there was an "Oswald investigation" and they failed in main aspects of it. If it was in reference to pre-assassination then this shows LHO was NOT a loner as the FBI was investigating him. If it refers to post-assassination then it proves that the FBI "failed to carry through on some of the most salient aspects of the Oswald investigation", thus, they could not have reached the correct conclusion.
This one issue shows that the official narrative is incorrect and that the various forms of our government have known this for a long time.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/FrankChurch.jpg
lee-harvey-oswald.journal-of-life.com/files/images/1295391600/e324e1e3775.jpg
The Church Committee (CC) formed in 1975 to look into the activities of the American Intelligence Community. Their main focus would fall on the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during their time in session. This is a shame as there is much more to the intelligence apparatus than just these two organizations.
During their short time they also did a dive into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) in regards to how the FBI and CIA handled this major event. This post will focus on how the FBI handled accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald's security case.
On December 10, 1963, Assistant Director James H. Gale of the Inspection Division of the FBI wrote the following to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) in response to his request to investigate any deficiencies in the LHO case.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/book5/pages/ChurchVol5_0028b.gif
Oswald should have been on the Security Index; his wife should have been interviewed before the assassination, and investigation intensified--not held in abeyance--after Oswald contacted Soviet Embassy in Mexico. (Church Committee, Book V, p. 50)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=56
Quote off
Yes, there should have been a Security Index on LHO, so, why wasn't there? Why wasn't Marina Oswald ever interviewed by the FBI before November 22, 1963? The last part is totally false as LHO was never in Mexico City per the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and the evidence of the case. IF LHO did go to Mexico, he NEVER went in the manner that the Warren Commission (WC) claimed he did and he NEVER visited the Soviet Embassy or the Cuban Consulate.
The FBI would decide to take no action during the life of the WC because this might make the American people believe that the FBI was negligent in preventing the assassination.
This is the same thinking that the Secret Service (SS) employed when they did NOT dismiss one agent for their dismal performance on November 22, 1963. Here is what Assistant Director Cartha DeLoach wrote in response to Gale's report.
Quote on
I suggest that the suggested disciplinary action be held in abeyance until the findings of the Presidential Commission have been made public. This action is recommended inasmuch as any "leak" to the general public, or particularly to the communications media, concerning the FBI taking disciplinary action against its personnel with respect to captioned matter would be assumed as a direct admission that we are responsible for negligence which might have resulted in the assassination of the President. At the present time there are so many wild rumors, gossip, and speculation that even the slightest hint to outsiders concerning disciplinary action of this nature would result in considerable adverse reaction against the FBI. (Ibid.)
Quote off
So they chose NOT to discipline anyone because this might make people think that they were negligent in protecting the president. Well, guess what? They were. This is the action of a guilty organization as if they had nothing to hide they should not have cared what anyone thought. Ditto the SS which were not examined by the CC.
I love the comment about all the "wild rumors, gossip, and speculation" as he must have been talking about the WC as that is all they had to work with. They certainly had NO firm evidence showing LHO acted and acted alone as they would claim. I wonder why the FBI didn't mind making the American people think LHO was guilty when they never presented any evidence that he was?
For once, credit needs to be given to JEH as he wrote in response to this comment by DeLoach, "I do not concur." (Ibid., p.51) JEH censured or placed on probation 17 Bureau employees (five field investigative agents, one field supervisor, three special agents in charge, four headquarters supervisors, two headquarters section chiefs, one inspector and one assistant director) for "shortcomings in connection with the investigation of Oswald prior to the assassination." (Ibid.)
Assistant to the Director Alan Belmont tried to come to the rescue of these 17 employees when he wrote the following in regard to Gale's report.
Quote on
history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/book5/pages/ChurchVol5_0029a.gif
It is significant to note that all of the supervisors and officials who came into contact with this case at the seat of government, as well as agents in the field, are unanimous in the opinion that Oswald did not meet the criteria for the Security Index. If this is so, it would appear that the criteria are not sufficiently specific to include a case such as Oswald's and, rather than take the position that all of these employees were mistaken in their judgment, the criteria should be changed. This has now been recommended by Assistant Director Gale. (Ibid., p. 51)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=57
Quote off
Again, surprisingly, JEH wrote, "They were worse than mistaken. Certainly no one in full possession of his faculties can claim Oswald didn't fall within this criteria." Another comment by JEH shows us that he was NOT upset by this mistake because it lead to the death of JFK, but rather because it made his FBI look bad. He wrote on a memorandum by Assistant Director William Sullivan dated September 24, 1964, (the same day the WC Report came out) the following, "[the personnel who failed to include Oswald on the Security Index] could not have been more stupid...and now that the Bureau has been debunked publicly I intend to take additional administrative action." This says it all. JEH was NOT reprimanding these people because their actions and inactions may have contributed to the death of JFK, but rather because it made his FBI look bad.
On October 12, 1964, JEH sent a memorandum to senior FBI officials in which he wrote the following.
Quote on
There is no question in my mind but that we failed in carrying through some of the most salient aspects of the Oswald investigation. It ought to be a lesson to all, but I doubt if some even realize it now. (Ibid., p. 53)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=59
Quote off
JEH was comfortable reprimanding all of these people because he knew it would not reach the media or the American people and they didn't until October 1975 at the time of the CC.
This note by JEH alone proves that the official conclusion is false as he admits that there was an "Oswald investigation" and they failed in main aspects of it. If it was in reference to pre-assassination then this shows LHO was NOT a loner as the FBI was investigating him. If it refers to post-assassination then it proves that the FBI "failed to carry through on some of the most salient aspects of the Oswald investigation", thus, they could not have reached the correct conclusion.
This one issue shows that the official narrative is incorrect and that the various forms of our government have known this for a long time.