Post by Rob Caprio on Aug 26, 2024 20:01:11 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2025
2.bp.blogspot.com/_d9kZfc4kK-Y/S0RGBUx-uKI/AAAAAAAANzc/l12blKgzotQ/s400/warrren-c[1].jpg
www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/j-edgar-hoover-3-768x981.jpg
The Church Committee (CC) was formed in 1975 to look into the activities of the United States' intelligence agencies in various areas. One of these areas was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) as the primary "investigator" in that murder was the FBI. The head of the FBI, Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH), didn't want to investigate at all since he claimed to have solved the case in seventeen days or less when he released the official conclusion of the FBI on December 9, 1963, in its report on the event.
You may be wondering how he could have "solved" the case in such a short period of time when usually the killing of a head of state involves many people and groups, and that would be a good question. The official answer is that it was all the fault of one lone deranged man by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO). While arriving at that conclusion the FBI totally ignored many viable leads; illegally seized evidence when they had no jurisdiction (the only way they did ironically was IF it was a conspiracy); tampered with evidence and bullied witnesses who saw and heard things that did NOT match JEH's conclusion that he arrived at in a few weeks (really a few days).
As we have seen previously in this series, and my other series, JEH did NOT like the WC as he did not feel like President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) should have set it up since he felt his report was the final answer and should have been all that was needed. Furthermore, one person associated with the WC actually tried to stick it to JEH instead of bending the knee and kissing his ring. That was the general counsel of the WC -- J. Lee Rankin. I have written about some of their confrontations before here.
jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/56/statements-sink-wcs-conclusions-40
In short, Rankin wanted to get JEH on the record of committing perjury, but he wasn't allowed to by the members who were all afraid of JEH (and they had good reason to be afraid save for Allen Dulles). Conversely, JEH did not trust the WC as he was paranoid that they would not fully, unequivocally endorse his report that was finished in a few weeks.
The CC would look into this dynamic in a number of ways. One way was in a section about the FBI's reaction to the WC Report (WCR) once it was published in September 1964. When JEH received it, he wrote this short message to his underlings.
Quote on
I want this [the WCR] carefully reviewed as it pertains to FBI's shortcomings by [James] Gale. Chapter 8 tears us to pieces. (CC Report, Book V, p. 53)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=59
Quote off
This shows JEH's paranoia as anyone who has read the WCR can see that they fully supported JEH's ridiculous conclusion except in one main area -- the target of the shots. The FBI to this day says that three shots were fired and three shots hit their target as JEH NEVER accepted witness James Tague's claim of being hit by a ricochet from a missing shot. The WC did call him and accepted that a shot missed, and this led to their even more ridiculous Single Bullet Theory (SBT) that even the FBI said was an insane theory too far for them.
I have covered James Gale before as he was called by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and I did an article on this testimony in my "The HSCA Says..." series.
jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/883/hsca-says-james-gale
When the Washington Post heaped praise on eighty-four staff members of the WC, JEH directed that all of them be checked out. JEH was told on October 2, 1964, that "Bureau files contain derogatory information concerning the following individuals and their relatives." (Ibid.)
On September 30, 1964, Gale presented Clyde Tolson with a memorandum regarding the LHO matter. It was titled "Shortcomings in Lee Harvey Oswald matter by FBI personnel." Here is what the memorandum stated.
Quote on
The Commission has now set forth in a very damning manner some of the same glaring weaknesses for which we previously disciplined our personnel such as lack of vigorous investigation after we had established that Oswald had visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico. (Ibid., pp. 53-54)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=59
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=60
Quote off
First of all, the FBI should have been disciplined as a whole for a "lack of vigorous investigation" as they did NOT investigate anything IF it did NOT point to the patsy -- LHO.
Secondly, when was it "established" that LHO went to Mexico City and visited the Soviet Embassy? NEVER is the answer. What is Gale talking about? This whole trip, like the SBT, was a made-up story to help them convince the American people, and the world, that LHO was guilty. It didn't work.
Gale then turns his ire towards FBI agents as he writes how some of them gave "embarrassing testimony that tainted their public image" (as if reaching a conclusion in several weeks for the murder of the leader of the free world was NOT embarrassing and tainted their public image) before the WC.
Quote on
One agent testified that conditions in the Dallas Police station at the time of the detention and interrogation of Oswald were not "too much unlike Grand Central Station at rush hour, maybe like Yankee Stadium during the World Series." It is questionable whether the agent should have described conditions in such an editorializing and flamboyant manner but rather should have indicated that conditions were crowded. (Ibid., p. 54)
Quote off
Yes, saying the Dallas Police Department (DPD) station was as busy as Grand Central Station or Yankee Stadium during the World Series was so much worse than seizing evidence illegally; bullying witnesses; changing statements to reflect things the witness did NOT say; rushing to a conclusion when the evidence showed something else and, making things up like LHO went to Mexico City when your own director said the man was NOT LHO and the voice heard was NOT LHO's. These agents should have been jailed immediately for their careless statements about Grand Central Station and Yankee Stadium. Could Stephen King write better fiction than this?
Also, keep in mind, that while the FBI and WC were obsessed with LHO, there is NOT one piece of viable evidence that shows LHO shot anyone on November 22, 1963 (or April 10, 1963). LHO is one of the greatest sleights of hand in history as everyone who researches, studies, writes about or produces films/documentaries about this assassination are obliged to spend the vast majority of their time on LHO when he was NEVER shown to be the assassin.
Some researchers waste even more time studying his childhood, his time in the military and when he went to the Soviet Union (and there is some value in this for understanding the entire picture) when there is NOT one iota of evidence showing that he was anything but a patsy. Could he have been involved in some way? Sure, but it would have been at a low-level in all likelihood and not worthy of the "starring" role he had been given by history. LHO would have been a lowly character actor had this been a film and nothing more. This obsession with LHO keeps most from really trying to figure out who was really involved beyond the usual "CIA, CIA, CIA" and "Mafia, Mafia, Mafia" chants.
The CC report mentions how the FBI said publicly that LHO didn't warrant placing a "stop" to prevent him from getting a passport (as he did in June 1963) since their "investigation disclosed no evidence that Oswald was acting under the instructions or on behalf of any foreign Government." Well, if this "investigation" was anything like the one they supposedly conducted after the assassination, then this is a highly questionable statement. Was LHO working for a foreign government? IF LHO was the "Harvey" in this saga then it is highly likely in my opinion that he was since he would have been either eastern European or Russian.
Gale went on to write in the memorandum the following.
Quote on
We previously took administrative action against those responsible for the investigative shortcomings in this case some of which were brought out by the Commission. It is felt that it is appropriate at this time to consider further administrative action against those primarily culpable for the derelictions in this case which have now had the effect of publicly embarrassing the Bureau. (Ibid.)
Quote off
Wouldn't it have been great IF the FBI had worried about their derelictions in their lack of investigating the assassination as much as they worried about how they looked regarding the placing of a stop on LHO's passport? Again, when was LHO shown to be the assassin again? NEVER is the answer. They thought this one issue would embarrass the FBI when they totally did NOT investigate the murder of the American President! This shows what they really cared about, and it was NOT JFK.
The Gale memorandum was then sent to Alan Belmont and again his focus was on how the WC made the FBI look instead of the total lack of investigation that was done to find the real culprits in the assassination.
Quote on
...It [WCR] contains criticism of the FBI. We are currently taking aggressive steps to challenge the findings of the Warren Commission insofar as they pertain to the FBI. (Ibid., p. 55)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=61
Quote off
Belmont was worried about what people would think of the FBI. He was challenging the findings of the WCR in regard to how the FBI was portrayed in some areas. He could NOT have cared any less to challenge their ridiculous findings regarding the entire case of course.
Nothing should show that the FBI should NOT have been handling this case at all since they cared more about how they looked than what happened to JFK.
On September 30, 1964, the FBI sent a letter to the White House and the acting Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach saying that "the Commission's report is seriously inaccurate insofar as its treatment of the FBI is concerned." (Ibid.) Again, to hell with JFK, the WC wrote bad things about us. What a farce this all is.
IF only the FBI cared about the ridiculous conclusions the WC wrote about in their report half as much. What a different country we would be living in.
Belmont wrote to Tolson that "this letter is an indictment of the Commission in that we charge that in the Commission's approach, instead of adopting a realistic and objective attitude, the Commission was more interested in avoiding possible criticism." (Ibid.)
IF ONLY they had said this about their ridiculous conclusion, huh?
The FBI acknowledged the severe criticism the Bureau had received since the assassination and instead of blaming their total lack of integrity in the "investigation" they supposedly conducted, they would blame others for this criticism.
Quote on
The criticism concerning the FBI and its role in events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy raises three questions which merit consideration at this time.
(1) What is the public image of the FBI at the present time?
Certainly, it cannot be denied that the public image of the FBI has been affected in certain areas by the criticism made of the Bureau and its role in the events taking place prior to the assassination of the President. It is believed this situation reached one stage during the days immediately following this event and was climaxed by Dallas Chief of Police Curry's statements which left the implication this Bureau was seriously derelict in discharging its responsibilities as an intelligence agency.
The second stage, the most acute, followed the issuance of the Warren Report. (It says that they had recovered their public image a week after the assassination, and it grew until the WCR came out.) (Ibid., p. 56)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=62
Quote off
So the fact that the FBI took over the evidence and bullied witnesses and pushed an "only LHO" mantra wasn't why the public had lost faith in them, but rather it was due to the statements of DPD Chief Jesse Curry and the WCR. I just find it funny that both the WC and the FBI who spent practically zero time actually looking into the assassination to see what really happened were battling each other to show they had more integrity than the other one.
Keep in mind, they BOTH gave us a ridiculous conclusion that has no basis in fact as the actual evidence shows.
Despite this the FBI thought they should have come out of this with an intact public image. At the bottom of the October 6, 1964, Belmont memorandum, JEH wrote this.
Quote on
The FBI will never live down this smear which could have been so easily avoided if there had been proper supervision and initiative. (Ibid., p. 57)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=63
Quote off
IF ONLY there had been "proper supervision and initiative" in the supposed investigation of JFK's assassination, we might have an answer to who really killed JFK and why. It is amazing that JEH and the senior FBI officials thought they should keep their sainted positions when they showed no interest in solving the murder of the 35th president. Just really amazing.
2.bp.blogspot.com/_d9kZfc4kK-Y/S0RGBUx-uKI/AAAAAAAANzc/l12blKgzotQ/s400/warrren-c[1].jpg
www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/j-edgar-hoover-3-768x981.jpg
The Church Committee (CC) was formed in 1975 to look into the activities of the United States' intelligence agencies in various areas. One of these areas was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) as the primary "investigator" in that murder was the FBI. The head of the FBI, Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH), didn't want to investigate at all since he claimed to have solved the case in seventeen days or less when he released the official conclusion of the FBI on December 9, 1963, in its report on the event.
You may be wondering how he could have "solved" the case in such a short period of time when usually the killing of a head of state involves many people and groups, and that would be a good question. The official answer is that it was all the fault of one lone deranged man by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO). While arriving at that conclusion the FBI totally ignored many viable leads; illegally seized evidence when they had no jurisdiction (the only way they did ironically was IF it was a conspiracy); tampered with evidence and bullied witnesses who saw and heard things that did NOT match JEH's conclusion that he arrived at in a few weeks (really a few days).
As we have seen previously in this series, and my other series, JEH did NOT like the WC as he did not feel like President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) should have set it up since he felt his report was the final answer and should have been all that was needed. Furthermore, one person associated with the WC actually tried to stick it to JEH instead of bending the knee and kissing his ring. That was the general counsel of the WC -- J. Lee Rankin. I have written about some of their confrontations before here.
jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/56/statements-sink-wcs-conclusions-40
In short, Rankin wanted to get JEH on the record of committing perjury, but he wasn't allowed to by the members who were all afraid of JEH (and they had good reason to be afraid save for Allen Dulles). Conversely, JEH did not trust the WC as he was paranoid that they would not fully, unequivocally endorse his report that was finished in a few weeks.
The CC would look into this dynamic in a number of ways. One way was in a section about the FBI's reaction to the WC Report (WCR) once it was published in September 1964. When JEH received it, he wrote this short message to his underlings.
Quote on
I want this [the WCR] carefully reviewed as it pertains to FBI's shortcomings by [James] Gale. Chapter 8 tears us to pieces. (CC Report, Book V, p. 53)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=59
Quote off
This shows JEH's paranoia as anyone who has read the WCR can see that they fully supported JEH's ridiculous conclusion except in one main area -- the target of the shots. The FBI to this day says that three shots were fired and three shots hit their target as JEH NEVER accepted witness James Tague's claim of being hit by a ricochet from a missing shot. The WC did call him and accepted that a shot missed, and this led to their even more ridiculous Single Bullet Theory (SBT) that even the FBI said was an insane theory too far for them.
I have covered James Gale before as he was called by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and I did an article on this testimony in my "The HSCA Says..." series.
jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/883/hsca-says-james-gale
When the Washington Post heaped praise on eighty-four staff members of the WC, JEH directed that all of them be checked out. JEH was told on October 2, 1964, that "Bureau files contain derogatory information concerning the following individuals and their relatives." (Ibid.)
On September 30, 1964, Gale presented Clyde Tolson with a memorandum regarding the LHO matter. It was titled "Shortcomings in Lee Harvey Oswald matter by FBI personnel." Here is what the memorandum stated.
Quote on
The Commission has now set forth in a very damning manner some of the same glaring weaknesses for which we previously disciplined our personnel such as lack of vigorous investigation after we had established that Oswald had visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico. (Ibid., pp. 53-54)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=59
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=60
Quote off
First of all, the FBI should have been disciplined as a whole for a "lack of vigorous investigation" as they did NOT investigate anything IF it did NOT point to the patsy -- LHO.
Secondly, when was it "established" that LHO went to Mexico City and visited the Soviet Embassy? NEVER is the answer. What is Gale talking about? This whole trip, like the SBT, was a made-up story to help them convince the American people, and the world, that LHO was guilty. It didn't work.
Gale then turns his ire towards FBI agents as he writes how some of them gave "embarrassing testimony that tainted their public image" (as if reaching a conclusion in several weeks for the murder of the leader of the free world was NOT embarrassing and tainted their public image) before the WC.
Quote on
One agent testified that conditions in the Dallas Police station at the time of the detention and interrogation of Oswald were not "too much unlike Grand Central Station at rush hour, maybe like Yankee Stadium during the World Series." It is questionable whether the agent should have described conditions in such an editorializing and flamboyant manner but rather should have indicated that conditions were crowded. (Ibid., p. 54)
Quote off
Yes, saying the Dallas Police Department (DPD) station was as busy as Grand Central Station or Yankee Stadium during the World Series was so much worse than seizing evidence illegally; bullying witnesses; changing statements to reflect things the witness did NOT say; rushing to a conclusion when the evidence showed something else and, making things up like LHO went to Mexico City when your own director said the man was NOT LHO and the voice heard was NOT LHO's. These agents should have been jailed immediately for their careless statements about Grand Central Station and Yankee Stadium. Could Stephen King write better fiction than this?
Also, keep in mind, that while the FBI and WC were obsessed with LHO, there is NOT one piece of viable evidence that shows LHO shot anyone on November 22, 1963 (or April 10, 1963). LHO is one of the greatest sleights of hand in history as everyone who researches, studies, writes about or produces films/documentaries about this assassination are obliged to spend the vast majority of their time on LHO when he was NEVER shown to be the assassin.
Some researchers waste even more time studying his childhood, his time in the military and when he went to the Soviet Union (and there is some value in this for understanding the entire picture) when there is NOT one iota of evidence showing that he was anything but a patsy. Could he have been involved in some way? Sure, but it would have been at a low-level in all likelihood and not worthy of the "starring" role he had been given by history. LHO would have been a lowly character actor had this been a film and nothing more. This obsession with LHO keeps most from really trying to figure out who was really involved beyond the usual "CIA, CIA, CIA" and "Mafia, Mafia, Mafia" chants.
The CC report mentions how the FBI said publicly that LHO didn't warrant placing a "stop" to prevent him from getting a passport (as he did in June 1963) since their "investigation disclosed no evidence that Oswald was acting under the instructions or on behalf of any foreign Government." Well, if this "investigation" was anything like the one they supposedly conducted after the assassination, then this is a highly questionable statement. Was LHO working for a foreign government? IF LHO was the "Harvey" in this saga then it is highly likely in my opinion that he was since he would have been either eastern European or Russian.
Gale went on to write in the memorandum the following.
Quote on
We previously took administrative action against those responsible for the investigative shortcomings in this case some of which were brought out by the Commission. It is felt that it is appropriate at this time to consider further administrative action against those primarily culpable for the derelictions in this case which have now had the effect of publicly embarrassing the Bureau. (Ibid.)
Quote off
Wouldn't it have been great IF the FBI had worried about their derelictions in their lack of investigating the assassination as much as they worried about how they looked regarding the placing of a stop on LHO's passport? Again, when was LHO shown to be the assassin again? NEVER is the answer. They thought this one issue would embarrass the FBI when they totally did NOT investigate the murder of the American President! This shows what they really cared about, and it was NOT JFK.
The Gale memorandum was then sent to Alan Belmont and again his focus was on how the WC made the FBI look instead of the total lack of investigation that was done to find the real culprits in the assassination.
Quote on
...It [WCR] contains criticism of the FBI. We are currently taking aggressive steps to challenge the findings of the Warren Commission insofar as they pertain to the FBI. (Ibid., p. 55)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=61
Quote off
Belmont was worried about what people would think of the FBI. He was challenging the findings of the WCR in regard to how the FBI was portrayed in some areas. He could NOT have cared any less to challenge their ridiculous findings regarding the entire case of course.
Nothing should show that the FBI should NOT have been handling this case at all since they cared more about how they looked than what happened to JFK.
On September 30, 1964, the FBI sent a letter to the White House and the acting Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach saying that "the Commission's report is seriously inaccurate insofar as its treatment of the FBI is concerned." (Ibid.) Again, to hell with JFK, the WC wrote bad things about us. What a farce this all is.
IF only the FBI cared about the ridiculous conclusions the WC wrote about in their report half as much. What a different country we would be living in.
Belmont wrote to Tolson that "this letter is an indictment of the Commission in that we charge that in the Commission's approach, instead of adopting a realistic and objective attitude, the Commission was more interested in avoiding possible criticism." (Ibid.)
IF ONLY they had said this about their ridiculous conclusion, huh?
The FBI acknowledged the severe criticism the Bureau had received since the assassination and instead of blaming their total lack of integrity in the "investigation" they supposedly conducted, they would blame others for this criticism.
Quote on
The criticism concerning the FBI and its role in events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy raises three questions which merit consideration at this time.
(1) What is the public image of the FBI at the present time?
Certainly, it cannot be denied that the public image of the FBI has been affected in certain areas by the criticism made of the Bureau and its role in the events taking place prior to the assassination of the President. It is believed this situation reached one stage during the days immediately following this event and was climaxed by Dallas Chief of Police Curry's statements which left the implication this Bureau was seriously derelict in discharging its responsibilities as an intelligence agency.
The second stage, the most acute, followed the issuance of the Warren Report. (It says that they had recovered their public image a week after the assassination, and it grew until the WCR came out.) (Ibid., p. 56)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=62
Quote off
So the fact that the FBI took over the evidence and bullied witnesses and pushed an "only LHO" mantra wasn't why the public had lost faith in them, but rather it was due to the statements of DPD Chief Jesse Curry and the WCR. I just find it funny that both the WC and the FBI who spent practically zero time actually looking into the assassination to see what really happened were battling each other to show they had more integrity than the other one.
Keep in mind, they BOTH gave us a ridiculous conclusion that has no basis in fact as the actual evidence shows.
Despite this the FBI thought they should have come out of this with an intact public image. At the bottom of the October 6, 1964, Belmont memorandum, JEH wrote this.
Quote on
The FBI will never live down this smear which could have been so easily avoided if there had been proper supervision and initiative. (Ibid., p. 57)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1161#relPageId=63
Quote off
IF ONLY there had been "proper supervision and initiative" in the supposed investigation of JFK's assassination, we might have an answer to who really killed JFK and why. It is amazing that JEH and the senior FBI officials thought they should keep their sainted positions when they showed no interest in solving the murder of the 35th president. Just really amazing.