Post by Rob Caprio on Jul 21, 2019 21:00:49 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/lee-harvey-oswald-4.jpg
i.ytimg.com/vi/L0U6B1FbXYI/hqdefault.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself. They also said he shot and killed Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT) all by himself. They made a lot of claims about LHO that they did NOT support, but one claim that was made in the state of Texas, and throughout many media outlets, that they vehemently denied was that LHO was an agent of some FEDERAL agency.
This post will look at this possibility to see what the truth actually is.
*********************************
The WC would write this in their Report (WCR) about LHO and him being an agent of a federal agency.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0175b.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0176a.gif
These dealings have given rise to numerous rumors and allegations that Oswald may have been a paid informant or some type of undercover agent for a Federal agency, usually the FBI or CIA. The Commission has fully explored whether Oswald had any official or unofficial relationship with any Federal agency beyond that already described.
Director [John] McCone stated unequivocally that Oswald was not an agent, employee, or informant of the CIA, that the Agency never communicated with him in any manner or furnished him any compensation, and that Oswald was never director or indirectly associated with the CIA. The Commission has had access to the full CIA file on Oswald which is entirely consistent with Director McCone’s statements.
All declared [FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, Asst. Director Alan Belmont, FBI Agents, John Quigley, John Fain and James Hosty], in substance, that Oswald was not an informant or agent of the FBI, that he did not act in other capacity for the FBI, and that no attempt was made to recruit him in any capacity…Director Hoover has sworn that he caused to be made of the records of Bureau, and that the search discloses that Oswald “was never an informant of the FBI, and never assigned a symbol number in that capacity, and was never paid any amount of money by the FBI in any regard. This testimony is corroborated by the Commission’s independent review of the Bureau files dealing with the Oswald investigation. (WCR, pp. 326-327)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0175b.htm
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0176a.htm
Quote off
We see according to the CIA and FBI, and confirmed by the WC, LHO was NOT tied to any agency in any way. That may be true, but we have quite a few things to go through to make sure this is a correct conclusion. Also, it is quite strange that the WC said in their Report that they had corroborated this claim by Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) by going through their files when Lead Counsel J. Lee Rankin had said this in an Executive Session.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0122/pages/WcEx0122_0007a.gif
Cooper: How would you test that kind of thing?
Rankin: It is going to be very difficult for us to be able to establish the fact in it. I am confident the FBI would never admit it, and I presume their records would NEVER show it, or if their records do show anything, I would think that their records would show some kind of number that could be assigned to a dozen different people according to how they wanted to describe them. (WC Executive Session, January 22, 1964, p. 6)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0122/html/WcEx0122_0007a.htm
Quote off
Since Rankin admitted that the FBI would NEVER, in all likelihood, show LHO to be associated with the FBI in anyway in their files and records, what good was the WC’s search of the FBI files and records looking for this kind of information? No wonder the WC found NO such information during their investigation, huh? Somehow though, they failed to mention this in their Report.
In this same Executive Session it was admitted by Rankin that the FBI had told them LHO was the man and that he acted alone so the case was closed!
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0122/pages/WcEx0122_0013a.gif
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0122/pages/WcEx0122_0014a.gif
Rankin: They would have us fold up and quit.
Boggs: This closes the case, you see. Don’t you see?
Dulles: Yes, I see that.
Rankin: They [FBI] found the man. There is nothing more to do. THE COMMISSION SUPPORTS THEIR CONCLUSIONS, we can go home and that is the end of it.
Dulles: But that puts the men right on them. If he was not the killer and they employed him, they are already it, you see. So your argument is correct if they are sure this is going to close the case, but if it doesn’t close the case, they are worse off than ever by doing this. (Ibid., pp. 12-13) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0122/html/WcEx0122_0013a.htm
Quote off
This was NOT said in September 1964 when their “investigation” was concluded, but rather it was said on January 22, 1964 BEFORE their “investigation” ever started! And yet, we see Rankin saying the WC SUPPORTED the conclusions of the FBI and that they could really “go home” since the man who was soley guilty (according to the FBI and the WC agreed with) was already dead.
This attitude was how they approached the “investigation” and we see it reflected in their evidence throughout the twenty-six volumes. They had NO interest in anything that did NOT support the FBI’s conclusions that were arrived at by early December 1963. So why did they even bother then?
On January 27, 1964 the WC met for another Executive Session and again we see comments that should show what was written in the Report was NOT accurate and totally misleading.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/pages/WcEx0127_0029a.gif
Rep. Boggs: Let’s say Powers [assuming they mean Gary Francis Powers here] did NOT have a signed contract but he was recruited by someone in the CIA. The man who recruited him would know, wouldn’t he?
Dulles: Yes, but he WOULDN’T TELL.
The Chairman: Wouldn’t tell it under oath?
Dulles: I wouldn’t think he would tell it under oath, no.
The Chairman: Why?
Dulles: He ought not tell it under oath. MAYBE NOT TELL IT TO HIS OWN GOVERNMENT but wouldn’t tell it any other way.
McCloy: Wouldn’t he tell it to his own chief?
Dulles: He might or might not. IF HE WAS A BAD ONE THEN HE WOULDN’T.
Rep. Boggs: What you do is make out a problem if this be true, make our problem UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE because you say this rumor can’t be dissipated under any circumstances.
Dulles: I don’t think it can unless you BELIEVE MR. HOOVER, and so forth and so on, which probably most of the people will. (January 27, 1964 Executive Session, p. 153) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0029a.htm
Quote off
Based on these comments by Allen Dulles, why would we believe anything CIA Director John McCone or JEH told us regarding LHO’s attachment to either agency? If the people involved would NOT tell under OATH, why would they tell the WC who had NO real legal power? They wouldn’t of course, so the comments by both quoted in the WCR are worthless. Especially when you read Dulles' comments about them NOT admitting the man was one of theirs if "he was a bad one." I don't think you could get worse than being accused of killing the President of the United States! Thus, of course they would DENY having any relationship with LHO.
We have seen before in this series that in LHO’s notebook there was FBI Agent James Hosty’s name, address, telephone number and license plate number. How do we explain this? The WC wrote the following in their Report about this issue.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0176a.gif
The Commission also investigated the circumstances which led to the presence in Oswald's address book of the name of Agent Hosty together with his office address, telephone number, and license number. Hosty and Mrs. Paine testified that on November 1, 1963, Hosty left his name and phone number with Mrs. Paine so that she could advise Hosty when she learned where Oswald was living in Dallas. Mrs. Paine and Marina Oswald have testified that Mrs. Paine handed Oswald the slip of paper on which Hosty had written this information. In accordance with prior instructions from Oswald, Marina Oswald noted Hosty's license number which she gave to her husband. The address of the Dallas office of the FBI could have been obtained from many public sources. (WCR, p. 327)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0176a.htm
Quote off
Things are not this simple as the FBI withheld this information from the WC for some time and this is shown in Commission Exhibit (CE) 833. This was a letter from the FBI to the WC in response to a series of questions the WC had.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0415a.jpg
When and for what reason were pages 279 through 283 of the report of SA [Special Agent—S.M.] Gemberling of February 11, 1964, prepared [setting forth the entries in Oswald's address book which had not been included in the report of SA Gemberling of December 23, 1963]?
Pages 279 through 283 of the report of SA Gemberling dated February 11, 1964, were prepared at the time such report was being typed by the Dallas Office during a few-day period immediately preceding submission of such report to FBI headquarters by the Dallas Office. In this connection, your attention is also directed to this Bureau's letter to the Commission dated February 27, 1964, enclosing an affidavit executed by SA Robert P. Gemberling explaining in detail his handling and reporting of data in Lee Harvey Oswald's address book. You will note that in his affidavit, SA Gemberling explains why certain data in Oswald's address book was reported in his December 23, 1963, report, whereas the remaining data . . . was reported in SA Gemberling's February 11, 1964, report. (CE 803, p. 15)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0415a.htm
Quote off
The problem with this answer is it does NOT give an answer to the question. It instead alludes to an affidavit by FBI Special Agent Robert Gemberling, but the affidavit was not published in the twenty-six volumes of evidence. Why NOT?
During his WC testimony JEH made some additional comments about the Gemberling report.
This report was not prepared for this Commission but rather for investigative purposes of the FBI, and therefore the information concerning Hosty's name, telephone number, and license number was not included in the report, as the circumstances under which Hosty's name, etc., appeared in Oswald's notebook were fully known to the FBI.
After our investigative report of December 23, 1963, was furnished... we noted that Agent Hosty's name did not appear in the report. In order that there would be a complete reporting of all items in Oswald's notebook, this information was incorporated in another investigative report... dated February 11, 1964. Both of the... reports were furnished to the Commission prior to any inquiry concerning this matter by the... Commission.
Since the FBI was tasked with being the investigative arm of the WC, why were they writing reports that were “for their own purposes” and NOT the WC as late as December 23, 1963? I thought they were tasked with working for the WC by President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ)? I think so as this is included in the WCR on pp. 471 and 472.
WCR, pp. 471-472:
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0248a.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0248b.gif
Furthermore, since the report was submitted to the WC, albeit NOT prepared for them, why did this copy of the report omit the Hosty entries? If the “circumstances were fully known” to the FBI as JEH said, why did the December report not include an explanation and an account of the Hosty entries in LHO’s notebook? This is important because when one sees Hosty’s name, address, telephone number and license number in LHO’s notebook one is bound to suspect a compromising relationship between Hosty and/or the FBI and LHO.
There is some internal design in play here to protect Hosty and the FBI as this should have been presented to the WC who took it in stride and made no real fuss about it when they did learn this. It was said the license number was attained by Marina Oswald as LHO told her to write it down when the FBI agent came to the Paine’s house. In her February 1964 testimony she would say the following about Hosty’s November 1, 1963 visit to the Paine’s house.
Mr. RANKIN. After you received the telephone number, what did you do with it?
Mrs. OSWALD. He gave the telephone number to Ruth, and she, in turn, passed it on to Lee.
Mr. RANKIN. Did the agent also give his license number for his car to Mrs. Paine or to you or to your husband?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. But Lee had asked me that if an FBI agent were to call, that I note down his automobile license number, and I did that.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you give the license number to him when you noted it down?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. . . .the man who visited us, that man had never seen Lee. He was talking to me and to Mrs. Paine. But he had never met Lee. . . .
This testimony would lead the reader to believe that she copied the license number down during Hosty’s first visit (November 1) to the Paine’s house. We can surmise this based on what LHO supposedly told her, which was, “…Lee asked me that if an FBI agent WERE TO CALL, that I note down his automobile license number.” IF Hosty had already visited and Marina Oswald had not done this then it would have been expected that LHO would have said “if he calls again…”, but this is not the language she used. She also does not suggest LHO was upset at her for NOT jotting down the license number as he asked, so again this tends to lean to this being the first visit by Hosty that she supposedly jotted the number down from. This is important because testimony by Ruth Paine showed there is NO WAY she could have jotted the number down on Hosty’s November 1 visit.
Mr. JENNER - Now you are reporting something agent Hosty has told you?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Did you see the car?
Mrs. PAINE - I saw the car.
Mr. JENNER - Parked?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. I noticed it particularly. Because the first time he had come on the 1st of November, he had parked down the street, and he made reference to the fact that they don't like to draw attention for the neighborhood to any interviews that they make, and in fact my neighbor also commented when she had talked with him a few days previously that his car was parked down the street and wasn't in front of my house.
This testimony by Ruth Paine shows that for the November 1, 1963 visit Hosty parked down the street. Was the car still visible from the Paine’s house?
Mr. JENNER - But the license plate would have been visible to anybody walking down the street or who desired?
Mrs. PAINE - Walking down the street, yes.
Mr. JENNER - Or looking out your garage.
Mrs. PAINE - I don't think so, because to the best of my recollection, an Oldsmobile that my husband bought was also in front of the house, so that the cars would have been close at the bumpers.
Mr. JENNER - So the license plates would have been screened by the Oldsmobile?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
So unless Marina went for a walk there is no way she could have gotten the number on that first visit by Hosty. Also, how would she have known that car was Hosty’s anyway? This leaves the second visit by Hosty, November 5, as the likely time she could have done this if she did this at all. On this occasion Hosty did park in front of the Paine house, but Ruth Paine said this in her testimony.
Mr. JENNER - This date that you are now talking about when he parked the car in front of your house, that was November 5?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes, it was.
Mr. JENNER - Were you aware of the fact that he drove to the end of the street?
Mrs. PAINE - Not at that time, no. I was aware that he had parked his car out in front of my house. My best judgment is that the license plate was not visible, however, while it was parked; not visible from my house…Hosty and I, and a second agent was with him, I don't know the name, stood at the door of my home and talked briefly, as I have already described, about the address of Oswald in Dallas. Marina was in her room feeding the baby, or busy some way. She came in just as Hosty and I were closing the conversation, and I must say we were both surprised at her entering. He then took his leave immediately, and as he has told me later, drove to the end of my street which curves and then drove back down Fifth Street.
Since Marina Oswald was in the bedroom the whole time Hosty and Ruth Paine talked, and then he left as soon as she came out, the ONLY place she could have gotten the license plate number from was the bedroom she was in. Was this possible?
Mr. JENNER - Are you firm, reasonably firm that Marina, even if she desired to learn of the license number on Agent Hosty's car, that she could not have seen or detected it while remaining in the house?
Mrs. PAINE - She might possibly--oh, I wouldn't say that. It is conceivable, depending on where it was parked, it is conceivable that she could have seen it from the bedroom window.
Mr. JENNER - You are holding up exhibit number?
Mrs. PAINE - 430.
Mr. JENNER - And you are pointing to what on that exhibit?
Mrs. PAINE - The window of the bedroom which she occupied, which is the southeast bedroom of my house, looks directly out to where I thought the car was parked. From that position, if I am correct about where the car was parked, she couldn't have seen the license plate, but she could have seen it if as Agent Hosty described to me later she saw it while the car was moving along the street.
CE 430: www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0092b.gif
This testimony was given on March 19, 1964, and on March 23 WC lawyer Jenner went to the Paine’s house along with Secret Service (SS) Agent Joe Howlett to see if it was possible to see the license plate from the bedroom window where Marina Oswald was during Hosty’s visit.
Mr. JENNER. It is impossible—at least impossible to see any license plate on either of the two automobiles parked at the curb...
Mr. HOWLETT. Yes; that's correct... I am shining a flashlight on the front and rear of both automobiles and you cannot even see the license plate, much less any of the numbers.
This showed there was no way Marina Oswald could have seen the license number on the November 5 visit either. With both visits NOT likely to produce this number, and Hosty’s claim of driving away slowly from the house not being verified by Ruth Paine (and no evidence showing Marina Oswald would have seen this and jotted the number down then) the WC was at a loss to explain how this number was obtained for LHO to write in his notebook. The only way Marina Oswald could have gotten the number , if she did, was covertly since Ruth Paine said she had never heard anything about this issue until after the assassination.
Mr. JENNER - Do you recall the matter of the taking of the agent's license number from his automobile?
Mrs. PAINE - I was told by Agent Hosty well after the assassination that they had found in Oswald's room in Dallas a slip of paper which included not only Hosty's name and the telephone number of the FBI in Dallas, but also the license plate number with one letter incorrect, one number incorrect, of the car that Hosty had driven out. This was the first I had heard anything about their having been a license plate.
The trip to the Paine’s house on March 23, 1963, basically eliminated the possibility that Marina Oswald had copied down the license number as claimed. This was made clear that in the three other times Marina Oswald testified before the WC after March 23, 1964, she was NOT asked one question about the license number since it was obvious she could NOT have seen it from the bedroom.
This is of course did NOT stop the WC from asserting this is exactly what happened anyway! The WC simply used Marina’s claim that LHO told her to do this as their basis for saying she did this. Pretty slick, huh?
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0176a.gif
In accordance with prior instructions from Oswald; Marina Oswald noted Hosty’s license number which she gave to her husband. (WCR, p. 327)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0176a.htm
Quote off
Of course the WC never supported any of this with evidence, but what else is new? Marina Oswald also claimed in her testimony that LHO had never met Hosty.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, he goes on to say that this agent, James P. Hosty "warned me that if I engaged in FPCC activities in Texas the FBI will again take an 'interest' in me." Do you remember anything about anything like that?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know why he said that in there, because if he has in mind the man who visited us, that man had never seen Lee. He was talking to me and to Mrs. Paine. But he had never met Lee. Perhaps this is another agent, not the one who visited us.
However, the WC had access to other evidence that showed this claim by Marina Oswald was NOT what she had said before. During Robert Oswald’s, LHO’s brother, testimony he would say the following about Marina Oswald and FBI Agent James Hosty.
Mr. OSWALD. When the FBI agents arrived... when the two agents and Mr. Gopadze came in, Marina immediately identified or recognized one of the agents who she had talked to before, and it is my understanding now, at the Paines' home in Irving, Texas...
Mr. JENNER. Did she have an aversion to being interviewed by the FBI agent on this occasion?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, she did... Marina had recognized this one FBI agent as a man who had come to the Paine's home in Irving, Texas, and perhaps at another location where they might have lived in Dallas or the surrounding territory, and had questioned Lee on these occasions.... In or outside of the home... within the immediate grounds of the home, at least... She had an aversion to speaking to him because she was of the opinion that he had harassed Lee in his interviews... I would say this was certainly so. His manner was very harsh, sir... It was quite evident that there was a harshness there, and that Marina did not want to speak to the FBI at that time... And they were insisting, sir. And they implied in so many words... they were implying that if she did not cooperate with the FBI agent there... that they would perhaps deport her from the United States and back to Russia...
I went over to Mr. Brown, the agent I knew, who was sitting at the end of the coffee table... and I was shaking my finger at him... that I resented the implications that they were passing on to Marina, because of her apparent uncooperative attitude... They attempted for another five or ten minutes to interview Marina Oswald at that time... Mr. Brown—he left the immediate area of interviewing there, and came over and started speaking to me... And the other FBI agent arose rather disgustedly to end the attempted interview, he walked to the door, opened the door, and spoke very harshly to Mr. Brown... He said, "Just cut it off right there, Mr. Brown."
Mr. Brown indicated he wanted to talk to me some more. He just motioned to him to cut it off right here. Mr. Brown left and went outside with him. . . .
Clearly this in direct opposition to what Marina Oswald had said later on, and like LHO’s reaction to Hosty showing up at the interrogations it would show the supposed “pleasant visits” Hosty made to the Paine’s house are a fabrication. Marina Oswald gave further hints of meetings between LHO and Hosty in her WC testimony.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, did you report to your husband the fact of this visit, November 1, with the FBI agent?
Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't report it to him at once, but as soon as he came for a weekend, I told him about it… I told him that they had come, that they were interested in where he was working and where he lived, and he was, again, upset. He said that he would telephone them--I don't know whether he called or not--or that he would visit them.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not your husband had any interviews or conversations with the FBI during this period?
Mrs. OSWALD. I know of two visits to the home of Ruth Paine, and I saw them each time. But I don't know of any interviews with Lee. Lee had told me that supposedly he had visited their office or their building. But I didn't believe him. I thought that he was a brave rabbit.
This testimony would be corroborated by Ruth Paine who said she also believed LHO had called the FBI office.
Mr. JENNER - Did he say anything when you gave him Agent Hosty's name on the telephone?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Nothing at all?
Mrs. PAINE - I don't recall anything Lee said. I will go on as to the recollections that came later. He told me that he had stopped at the downtown office of the FBI and tried to see the agents and left a note. And my impression of it is that this notice irritated….Irritated, that he left the note saying what he thought. This is reconstructing my impression of the fellows bothering him and his family, and this is my impression then. I couldn't say this was specifically said to him later.
Mr. JENNER - You mean he was irritated?
Mrs. PAINE - He was irritated and he said, "They are trying to inhibit my activities," and I said, "You passed your pamphlets," and could well have gone on to say what I thought, but I don't believe I did go on to say, that he could and should expect the FBI to be interested in him.
Mr. JENNER - Have you given all of what he said and what you said, however, on that occasion?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. I will just go on to say that I learned only a few weeks ago that he never did go into the FBI office. Of course knowing, thinking that he had gone in, I thought that was sensible on his part. But it appears to have been another lie.
Where Ruth Paine got her information that LHO never did go to the FBI is NOT stated or asked, but one can assume it may have been from Hosty himself. IF so, how reliable is this information? Not very reliable since it was confirmed in 1975 that LHO did in fact visit the FBI office and left a note that was destroyed after the assassination by Hosty on orders. According to receptionist Mrs. Nancy Lee Fenner the note said something like if Hosty didn’t stop bothering the writer’s wife he would, “...either blow up the Dallas Police Department or the FBI office.” This is highly doubtful for several reasons. Firstly, if it said something like this why would the FBI have destroyed the note? Wouldn’t this show LHO was a type of person to handle things in a violent way?
Secondly, isn’t it against the law to threaten the police department and FBI like this? I would think so, but we are asked to believe that after he threatened to “blow them up” nobody had an issue with this threat. In fact, despite this threat we are asked to believe that Hosty thought LHO was “not a violent person.” So, threatening to blow up an office or whole police department is NOT violent?
[For more on the note issue, please see this article in the series:
jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1610/statements-sink-wcs-conclusions-470]
Finally, if the note said what Mrs. Fenner said, why did the FBI hide this note from the WC? Like the license number issue we again see the FBI withholding information from the WC. How many times can this happen and NOT make one think the FBI was covering their own butts here?
Hosty said he read the note and it was kind of “innocuous” and not to be of any “serious import.” What? Obviously the note he read did NOT say LHO was going to blow up the FBI office if Hosty did not leave Marina Oswald alone. So again, why was this note not shared with the WC?
[For more information on this topic see this article: www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=48764&relPageId=63
With the benefit of hindsight we see it was ludicrous of the WC to take Ruth Paine’s word for LHO not actually visiting the FBI office based on some “UNKNOWN” source. This shows the reader that the claims of Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine have to be weighed claim by claim as they were both willing to believe that LHO lied about visiting the FBI office when it was confirmed for sure that he did in 1975. How many other things LHO said that were called lies were NOT? Based on the evidence there are many.
[Note: Since I wrote this about 10 years ago, I now realize this was another Oswald double and NOT the Oswald killed on November 24, 1963. This makes Ruth Paine's source even more vital as they told her early on that it was NOT the Oswald of fame. Who was this source?]
The bottom line is that the WC never learned the true relationship between LHO and the FBI (or CIA) so their claims of NO connection are not supported with evidence. In fact, we see from their OWN Executive Sessions that they expected NOT to find any connections since the FBI and CIA would hide it in all likelihood. The simple denial by the two directors are worthless and do not tell us much. The WC, and of course the FBI, did their utmost to cloud and hide the possible relationship instead. Remember, the Texas Attorney General, Waggoner Carr, felt there was a connection as he said LHO was a FBI informant. Whatever his true role, LHO had to have some ties to a federal agency (perhaps more than one) as his story is just too hard to believe without support from a federal institution.
We again see evidence in the twenty-six volumes that sink the conclusion the WC reached in their Report, thus, they are sunk.
www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/lee-harvey-oswald-4.jpg
i.ytimg.com/vi/L0U6B1FbXYI/hqdefault.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself. They also said he shot and killed Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT) all by himself. They made a lot of claims about LHO that they did NOT support, but one claim that was made in the state of Texas, and throughout many media outlets, that they vehemently denied was that LHO was an agent of some FEDERAL agency.
This post will look at this possibility to see what the truth actually is.
*********************************
The WC would write this in their Report (WCR) about LHO and him being an agent of a federal agency.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0175b.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0176a.gif
These dealings have given rise to numerous rumors and allegations that Oswald may have been a paid informant or some type of undercover agent for a Federal agency, usually the FBI or CIA. The Commission has fully explored whether Oswald had any official or unofficial relationship with any Federal agency beyond that already described.
Director [John] McCone stated unequivocally that Oswald was not an agent, employee, or informant of the CIA, that the Agency never communicated with him in any manner or furnished him any compensation, and that Oswald was never director or indirectly associated with the CIA. The Commission has had access to the full CIA file on Oswald which is entirely consistent with Director McCone’s statements.
All declared [FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, Asst. Director Alan Belmont, FBI Agents, John Quigley, John Fain and James Hosty], in substance, that Oswald was not an informant or agent of the FBI, that he did not act in other capacity for the FBI, and that no attempt was made to recruit him in any capacity…Director Hoover has sworn that he caused to be made of the records of Bureau, and that the search discloses that Oswald “was never an informant of the FBI, and never assigned a symbol number in that capacity, and was never paid any amount of money by the FBI in any regard. This testimony is corroborated by the Commission’s independent review of the Bureau files dealing with the Oswald investigation. (WCR, pp. 326-327)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0175b.htm
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0176a.htm
Quote off
We see according to the CIA and FBI, and confirmed by the WC, LHO was NOT tied to any agency in any way. That may be true, but we have quite a few things to go through to make sure this is a correct conclusion. Also, it is quite strange that the WC said in their Report that they had corroborated this claim by Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) by going through their files when Lead Counsel J. Lee Rankin had said this in an Executive Session.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0122/pages/WcEx0122_0007a.gif
Cooper: How would you test that kind of thing?
Rankin: It is going to be very difficult for us to be able to establish the fact in it. I am confident the FBI would never admit it, and I presume their records would NEVER show it, or if their records do show anything, I would think that their records would show some kind of number that could be assigned to a dozen different people according to how they wanted to describe them. (WC Executive Session, January 22, 1964, p. 6)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0122/html/WcEx0122_0007a.htm
Quote off
Since Rankin admitted that the FBI would NEVER, in all likelihood, show LHO to be associated with the FBI in anyway in their files and records, what good was the WC’s search of the FBI files and records looking for this kind of information? No wonder the WC found NO such information during their investigation, huh? Somehow though, they failed to mention this in their Report.
In this same Executive Session it was admitted by Rankin that the FBI had told them LHO was the man and that he acted alone so the case was closed!
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0122/pages/WcEx0122_0013a.gif
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0122/pages/WcEx0122_0014a.gif
Rankin: They would have us fold up and quit.
Boggs: This closes the case, you see. Don’t you see?
Dulles: Yes, I see that.
Rankin: They [FBI] found the man. There is nothing more to do. THE COMMISSION SUPPORTS THEIR CONCLUSIONS, we can go home and that is the end of it.
Dulles: But that puts the men right on them. If he was not the killer and they employed him, they are already it, you see. So your argument is correct if they are sure this is going to close the case, but if it doesn’t close the case, they are worse off than ever by doing this. (Ibid., pp. 12-13) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0122/html/WcEx0122_0013a.htm
Quote off
This was NOT said in September 1964 when their “investigation” was concluded, but rather it was said on January 22, 1964 BEFORE their “investigation” ever started! And yet, we see Rankin saying the WC SUPPORTED the conclusions of the FBI and that they could really “go home” since the man who was soley guilty (according to the FBI and the WC agreed with) was already dead.
This attitude was how they approached the “investigation” and we see it reflected in their evidence throughout the twenty-six volumes. They had NO interest in anything that did NOT support the FBI’s conclusions that were arrived at by early December 1963. So why did they even bother then?
On January 27, 1964 the WC met for another Executive Session and again we see comments that should show what was written in the Report was NOT accurate and totally misleading.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/pages/WcEx0127_0029a.gif
Rep. Boggs: Let’s say Powers [assuming they mean Gary Francis Powers here] did NOT have a signed contract but he was recruited by someone in the CIA. The man who recruited him would know, wouldn’t he?
Dulles: Yes, but he WOULDN’T TELL.
The Chairman: Wouldn’t tell it under oath?
Dulles: I wouldn’t think he would tell it under oath, no.
The Chairman: Why?
Dulles: He ought not tell it under oath. MAYBE NOT TELL IT TO HIS OWN GOVERNMENT but wouldn’t tell it any other way.
McCloy: Wouldn’t he tell it to his own chief?
Dulles: He might or might not. IF HE WAS A BAD ONE THEN HE WOULDN’T.
Rep. Boggs: What you do is make out a problem if this be true, make our problem UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE because you say this rumor can’t be dissipated under any circumstances.
Dulles: I don’t think it can unless you BELIEVE MR. HOOVER, and so forth and so on, which probably most of the people will. (January 27, 1964 Executive Session, p. 153) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0029a.htm
Quote off
Based on these comments by Allen Dulles, why would we believe anything CIA Director John McCone or JEH told us regarding LHO’s attachment to either agency? If the people involved would NOT tell under OATH, why would they tell the WC who had NO real legal power? They wouldn’t of course, so the comments by both quoted in the WCR are worthless. Especially when you read Dulles' comments about them NOT admitting the man was one of theirs if "he was a bad one." I don't think you could get worse than being accused of killing the President of the United States! Thus, of course they would DENY having any relationship with LHO.
We have seen before in this series that in LHO’s notebook there was FBI Agent James Hosty’s name, address, telephone number and license plate number. How do we explain this? The WC wrote the following in their Report about this issue.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0176a.gif
The Commission also investigated the circumstances which led to the presence in Oswald's address book of the name of Agent Hosty together with his office address, telephone number, and license number. Hosty and Mrs. Paine testified that on November 1, 1963, Hosty left his name and phone number with Mrs. Paine so that she could advise Hosty when she learned where Oswald was living in Dallas. Mrs. Paine and Marina Oswald have testified that Mrs. Paine handed Oswald the slip of paper on which Hosty had written this information. In accordance with prior instructions from Oswald, Marina Oswald noted Hosty's license number which she gave to her husband. The address of the Dallas office of the FBI could have been obtained from many public sources. (WCR, p. 327)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0176a.htm
Quote off
Things are not this simple as the FBI withheld this information from the WC for some time and this is shown in Commission Exhibit (CE) 833. This was a letter from the FBI to the WC in response to a series of questions the WC had.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0415a.jpg
When and for what reason were pages 279 through 283 of the report of SA [Special Agent—S.M.] Gemberling of February 11, 1964, prepared [setting forth the entries in Oswald's address book which had not been included in the report of SA Gemberling of December 23, 1963]?
Pages 279 through 283 of the report of SA Gemberling dated February 11, 1964, were prepared at the time such report was being typed by the Dallas Office during a few-day period immediately preceding submission of such report to FBI headquarters by the Dallas Office. In this connection, your attention is also directed to this Bureau's letter to the Commission dated February 27, 1964, enclosing an affidavit executed by SA Robert P. Gemberling explaining in detail his handling and reporting of data in Lee Harvey Oswald's address book. You will note that in his affidavit, SA Gemberling explains why certain data in Oswald's address book was reported in his December 23, 1963, report, whereas the remaining data . . . was reported in SA Gemberling's February 11, 1964, report. (CE 803, p. 15)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0415a.htm
Quote off
The problem with this answer is it does NOT give an answer to the question. It instead alludes to an affidavit by FBI Special Agent Robert Gemberling, but the affidavit was not published in the twenty-six volumes of evidence. Why NOT?
During his WC testimony JEH made some additional comments about the Gemberling report.
This report was not prepared for this Commission but rather for investigative purposes of the FBI, and therefore the information concerning Hosty's name, telephone number, and license number was not included in the report, as the circumstances under which Hosty's name, etc., appeared in Oswald's notebook were fully known to the FBI.
After our investigative report of December 23, 1963, was furnished... we noted that Agent Hosty's name did not appear in the report. In order that there would be a complete reporting of all items in Oswald's notebook, this information was incorporated in another investigative report... dated February 11, 1964. Both of the... reports were furnished to the Commission prior to any inquiry concerning this matter by the... Commission.
Since the FBI was tasked with being the investigative arm of the WC, why were they writing reports that were “for their own purposes” and NOT the WC as late as December 23, 1963? I thought they were tasked with working for the WC by President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ)? I think so as this is included in the WCR on pp. 471 and 472.
WCR, pp. 471-472:
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0248a.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0248b.gif
Furthermore, since the report was submitted to the WC, albeit NOT prepared for them, why did this copy of the report omit the Hosty entries? If the “circumstances were fully known” to the FBI as JEH said, why did the December report not include an explanation and an account of the Hosty entries in LHO’s notebook? This is important because when one sees Hosty’s name, address, telephone number and license number in LHO’s notebook one is bound to suspect a compromising relationship between Hosty and/or the FBI and LHO.
There is some internal design in play here to protect Hosty and the FBI as this should have been presented to the WC who took it in stride and made no real fuss about it when they did learn this. It was said the license number was attained by Marina Oswald as LHO told her to write it down when the FBI agent came to the Paine’s house. In her February 1964 testimony she would say the following about Hosty’s November 1, 1963 visit to the Paine’s house.
Mr. RANKIN. After you received the telephone number, what did you do with it?
Mrs. OSWALD. He gave the telephone number to Ruth, and she, in turn, passed it on to Lee.
Mr. RANKIN. Did the agent also give his license number for his car to Mrs. Paine or to you or to your husband?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. But Lee had asked me that if an FBI agent were to call, that I note down his automobile license number, and I did that.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you give the license number to him when you noted it down?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. . . .the man who visited us, that man had never seen Lee. He was talking to me and to Mrs. Paine. But he had never met Lee. . . .
This testimony would lead the reader to believe that she copied the license number down during Hosty’s first visit (November 1) to the Paine’s house. We can surmise this based on what LHO supposedly told her, which was, “…Lee asked me that if an FBI agent WERE TO CALL, that I note down his automobile license number.” IF Hosty had already visited and Marina Oswald had not done this then it would have been expected that LHO would have said “if he calls again…”, but this is not the language she used. She also does not suggest LHO was upset at her for NOT jotting down the license number as he asked, so again this tends to lean to this being the first visit by Hosty that she supposedly jotted the number down from. This is important because testimony by Ruth Paine showed there is NO WAY she could have jotted the number down on Hosty’s November 1 visit.
Mr. JENNER - Now you are reporting something agent Hosty has told you?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Did you see the car?
Mrs. PAINE - I saw the car.
Mr. JENNER - Parked?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. I noticed it particularly. Because the first time he had come on the 1st of November, he had parked down the street, and he made reference to the fact that they don't like to draw attention for the neighborhood to any interviews that they make, and in fact my neighbor also commented when she had talked with him a few days previously that his car was parked down the street and wasn't in front of my house.
This testimony by Ruth Paine shows that for the November 1, 1963 visit Hosty parked down the street. Was the car still visible from the Paine’s house?
Mr. JENNER - But the license plate would have been visible to anybody walking down the street or who desired?
Mrs. PAINE - Walking down the street, yes.
Mr. JENNER - Or looking out your garage.
Mrs. PAINE - I don't think so, because to the best of my recollection, an Oldsmobile that my husband bought was also in front of the house, so that the cars would have been close at the bumpers.
Mr. JENNER - So the license plates would have been screened by the Oldsmobile?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
So unless Marina went for a walk there is no way she could have gotten the number on that first visit by Hosty. Also, how would she have known that car was Hosty’s anyway? This leaves the second visit by Hosty, November 5, as the likely time she could have done this if she did this at all. On this occasion Hosty did park in front of the Paine house, but Ruth Paine said this in her testimony.
Mr. JENNER - This date that you are now talking about when he parked the car in front of your house, that was November 5?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes, it was.
Mr. JENNER - Were you aware of the fact that he drove to the end of the street?
Mrs. PAINE - Not at that time, no. I was aware that he had parked his car out in front of my house. My best judgment is that the license plate was not visible, however, while it was parked; not visible from my house…Hosty and I, and a second agent was with him, I don't know the name, stood at the door of my home and talked briefly, as I have already described, about the address of Oswald in Dallas. Marina was in her room feeding the baby, or busy some way. She came in just as Hosty and I were closing the conversation, and I must say we were both surprised at her entering. He then took his leave immediately, and as he has told me later, drove to the end of my street which curves and then drove back down Fifth Street.
Since Marina Oswald was in the bedroom the whole time Hosty and Ruth Paine talked, and then he left as soon as she came out, the ONLY place she could have gotten the license plate number from was the bedroom she was in. Was this possible?
Mr. JENNER - Are you firm, reasonably firm that Marina, even if she desired to learn of the license number on Agent Hosty's car, that she could not have seen or detected it while remaining in the house?
Mrs. PAINE - She might possibly--oh, I wouldn't say that. It is conceivable, depending on where it was parked, it is conceivable that she could have seen it from the bedroom window.
Mr. JENNER - You are holding up exhibit number?
Mrs. PAINE - 430.
Mr. JENNER - And you are pointing to what on that exhibit?
Mrs. PAINE - The window of the bedroom which she occupied, which is the southeast bedroom of my house, looks directly out to where I thought the car was parked. From that position, if I am correct about where the car was parked, she couldn't have seen the license plate, but she could have seen it if as Agent Hosty described to me later she saw it while the car was moving along the street.
CE 430: www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0092b.gif
This testimony was given on March 19, 1964, and on March 23 WC lawyer Jenner went to the Paine’s house along with Secret Service (SS) Agent Joe Howlett to see if it was possible to see the license plate from the bedroom window where Marina Oswald was during Hosty’s visit.
Mr. JENNER. It is impossible—at least impossible to see any license plate on either of the two automobiles parked at the curb...
Mr. HOWLETT. Yes; that's correct... I am shining a flashlight on the front and rear of both automobiles and you cannot even see the license plate, much less any of the numbers.
This showed there was no way Marina Oswald could have seen the license number on the November 5 visit either. With both visits NOT likely to produce this number, and Hosty’s claim of driving away slowly from the house not being verified by Ruth Paine (and no evidence showing Marina Oswald would have seen this and jotted the number down then) the WC was at a loss to explain how this number was obtained for LHO to write in his notebook. The only way Marina Oswald could have gotten the number , if she did, was covertly since Ruth Paine said she had never heard anything about this issue until after the assassination.
Mr. JENNER - Do you recall the matter of the taking of the agent's license number from his automobile?
Mrs. PAINE - I was told by Agent Hosty well after the assassination that they had found in Oswald's room in Dallas a slip of paper which included not only Hosty's name and the telephone number of the FBI in Dallas, but also the license plate number with one letter incorrect, one number incorrect, of the car that Hosty had driven out. This was the first I had heard anything about their having been a license plate.
The trip to the Paine’s house on March 23, 1963, basically eliminated the possibility that Marina Oswald had copied down the license number as claimed. This was made clear that in the three other times Marina Oswald testified before the WC after March 23, 1964, she was NOT asked one question about the license number since it was obvious she could NOT have seen it from the bedroom.
This is of course did NOT stop the WC from asserting this is exactly what happened anyway! The WC simply used Marina’s claim that LHO told her to do this as their basis for saying she did this. Pretty slick, huh?
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0176a.gif
In accordance with prior instructions from Oswald; Marina Oswald noted Hosty’s license number which she gave to her husband. (WCR, p. 327)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0176a.htm
Quote off
Of course the WC never supported any of this with evidence, but what else is new? Marina Oswald also claimed in her testimony that LHO had never met Hosty.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, he goes on to say that this agent, James P. Hosty "warned me that if I engaged in FPCC activities in Texas the FBI will again take an 'interest' in me." Do you remember anything about anything like that?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know why he said that in there, because if he has in mind the man who visited us, that man had never seen Lee. He was talking to me and to Mrs. Paine. But he had never met Lee. Perhaps this is another agent, not the one who visited us.
However, the WC had access to other evidence that showed this claim by Marina Oswald was NOT what she had said before. During Robert Oswald’s, LHO’s brother, testimony he would say the following about Marina Oswald and FBI Agent James Hosty.
Mr. OSWALD. When the FBI agents arrived... when the two agents and Mr. Gopadze came in, Marina immediately identified or recognized one of the agents who she had talked to before, and it is my understanding now, at the Paines' home in Irving, Texas...
Mr. JENNER. Did she have an aversion to being interviewed by the FBI agent on this occasion?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, she did... Marina had recognized this one FBI agent as a man who had come to the Paine's home in Irving, Texas, and perhaps at another location where they might have lived in Dallas or the surrounding territory, and had questioned Lee on these occasions.... In or outside of the home... within the immediate grounds of the home, at least... She had an aversion to speaking to him because she was of the opinion that he had harassed Lee in his interviews... I would say this was certainly so. His manner was very harsh, sir... It was quite evident that there was a harshness there, and that Marina did not want to speak to the FBI at that time... And they were insisting, sir. And they implied in so many words... they were implying that if she did not cooperate with the FBI agent there... that they would perhaps deport her from the United States and back to Russia...
I went over to Mr. Brown, the agent I knew, who was sitting at the end of the coffee table... and I was shaking my finger at him... that I resented the implications that they were passing on to Marina, because of her apparent uncooperative attitude... They attempted for another five or ten minutes to interview Marina Oswald at that time... Mr. Brown—he left the immediate area of interviewing there, and came over and started speaking to me... And the other FBI agent arose rather disgustedly to end the attempted interview, he walked to the door, opened the door, and spoke very harshly to Mr. Brown... He said, "Just cut it off right there, Mr. Brown."
Mr. Brown indicated he wanted to talk to me some more. He just motioned to him to cut it off right here. Mr. Brown left and went outside with him. . . .
Clearly this in direct opposition to what Marina Oswald had said later on, and like LHO’s reaction to Hosty showing up at the interrogations it would show the supposed “pleasant visits” Hosty made to the Paine’s house are a fabrication. Marina Oswald gave further hints of meetings between LHO and Hosty in her WC testimony.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, did you report to your husband the fact of this visit, November 1, with the FBI agent?
Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't report it to him at once, but as soon as he came for a weekend, I told him about it… I told him that they had come, that they were interested in where he was working and where he lived, and he was, again, upset. He said that he would telephone them--I don't know whether he called or not--or that he would visit them.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not your husband had any interviews or conversations with the FBI during this period?
Mrs. OSWALD. I know of two visits to the home of Ruth Paine, and I saw them each time. But I don't know of any interviews with Lee. Lee had told me that supposedly he had visited their office or their building. But I didn't believe him. I thought that he was a brave rabbit.
This testimony would be corroborated by Ruth Paine who said she also believed LHO had called the FBI office.
Mr. JENNER - Did he say anything when you gave him Agent Hosty's name on the telephone?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Nothing at all?
Mrs. PAINE - I don't recall anything Lee said. I will go on as to the recollections that came later. He told me that he had stopped at the downtown office of the FBI and tried to see the agents and left a note. And my impression of it is that this notice irritated….Irritated, that he left the note saying what he thought. This is reconstructing my impression of the fellows bothering him and his family, and this is my impression then. I couldn't say this was specifically said to him later.
Mr. JENNER - You mean he was irritated?
Mrs. PAINE - He was irritated and he said, "They are trying to inhibit my activities," and I said, "You passed your pamphlets," and could well have gone on to say what I thought, but I don't believe I did go on to say, that he could and should expect the FBI to be interested in him.
Mr. JENNER - Have you given all of what he said and what you said, however, on that occasion?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. I will just go on to say that I learned only a few weeks ago that he never did go into the FBI office. Of course knowing, thinking that he had gone in, I thought that was sensible on his part. But it appears to have been another lie.
Where Ruth Paine got her information that LHO never did go to the FBI is NOT stated or asked, but one can assume it may have been from Hosty himself. IF so, how reliable is this information? Not very reliable since it was confirmed in 1975 that LHO did in fact visit the FBI office and left a note that was destroyed after the assassination by Hosty on orders. According to receptionist Mrs. Nancy Lee Fenner the note said something like if Hosty didn’t stop bothering the writer’s wife he would, “...either blow up the Dallas Police Department or the FBI office.” This is highly doubtful for several reasons. Firstly, if it said something like this why would the FBI have destroyed the note? Wouldn’t this show LHO was a type of person to handle things in a violent way?
Secondly, isn’t it against the law to threaten the police department and FBI like this? I would think so, but we are asked to believe that after he threatened to “blow them up” nobody had an issue with this threat. In fact, despite this threat we are asked to believe that Hosty thought LHO was “not a violent person.” So, threatening to blow up an office or whole police department is NOT violent?
[For more on the note issue, please see this article in the series:
jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1610/statements-sink-wcs-conclusions-470]
Finally, if the note said what Mrs. Fenner said, why did the FBI hide this note from the WC? Like the license number issue we again see the FBI withholding information from the WC. How many times can this happen and NOT make one think the FBI was covering their own butts here?
Hosty said he read the note and it was kind of “innocuous” and not to be of any “serious import.” What? Obviously the note he read did NOT say LHO was going to blow up the FBI office if Hosty did not leave Marina Oswald alone. So again, why was this note not shared with the WC?
[For more information on this topic see this article: www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=48764&relPageId=63
With the benefit of hindsight we see it was ludicrous of the WC to take Ruth Paine’s word for LHO not actually visiting the FBI office based on some “UNKNOWN” source. This shows the reader that the claims of Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine have to be weighed claim by claim as they were both willing to believe that LHO lied about visiting the FBI office when it was confirmed for sure that he did in 1975. How many other things LHO said that were called lies were NOT? Based on the evidence there are many.
[Note: Since I wrote this about 10 years ago, I now realize this was another Oswald double and NOT the Oswald killed on November 24, 1963. This makes Ruth Paine's source even more vital as they told her early on that it was NOT the Oswald of fame. Who was this source?]
The bottom line is that the WC never learned the true relationship between LHO and the FBI (or CIA) so their claims of NO connection are not supported with evidence. In fact, we see from their OWN Executive Sessions that they expected NOT to find any connections since the FBI and CIA would hide it in all likelihood. The simple denial by the two directors are worthless and do not tell us much. The WC, and of course the FBI, did their utmost to cloud and hide the possible relationship instead. Remember, the Texas Attorney General, Waggoner Carr, felt there was a connection as he said LHO was a FBI informant. Whatever his true role, LHO had to have some ties to a federal agency (perhaps more than one) as his story is just too hard to believe without support from a federal institution.
We again see evidence in the twenty-six volumes that sink the conclusion the WC reached in their Report, thus, they are sunk.