• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Joe Bauer

Integrity of the Warren Commission & James Hosty's Contribution To This.

8 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

"We had inside people in the Warren Report. Gerald Ford was reporting to us, and, uh, Russell ...they had three of them."

James Hosty to Eric Bushman in a November 21st, 2010 interview ( at the 16:23 mark) regarding Hosty's book "Assignment: Oswald " on radio station KMBZ in Kansas City, Missouri.

 

 

When James Hosty was asked years later why he didn't mention to the Warren Commission his ordered destruction of contents from Oswald's local Dallas FBI file immediately after Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby he said  ... "They didn't ask."

They didn't ask?

How could the Commission ask about something they don't even know exists?

Didn't the "oath" Hosty took clearly ask for the "whole" truth? 

Hosty didn't understand that part of his oath?

That preposterous even offensive answer and excuse is about as rational as a witness to a deadly car accident not telling the investigative police that he had actually filmed the accident ...simply because they "didn't ask" about it!

Does anyone here realize what Hosty telling the Oswald file destroying truth to the Warren Commission would have meant to the JFK truth seeking investigation?

And what his withholding of this information meant in this same context? 

If I could have personally interviewed Mr. Hosty after his admission of withholding this information I would have asked him these questions:

Mr. Hosty, you do realize that the Warren Commission's whole creation and purpose was to find out the truth ( the whole truth and nothing but the truth )  as to what happened to our beloved president JFK in Dallas, Texas on 11,22,1963 ?  And that our entire nation wanted, needed and deserved to know the truth of perhaps the greatest crime in our history ( along with Abe Lincoln's murder ) and the only way they could have any chance of knowing this was supposedly through this LBJ appointed commission?

Yet Mr. Hosty, you took that entire oath before testifying and you knowingly violated the "whole and nothing but the truth" part of it?

And wasn't the traditional "So Help You God" addendum also part of this oath? 

Being an Irish Catholic, didn't this part of this oath make it even more sacred and honorable to you personally?

So, for what reason Mr. Hosty ... what reason could you give for not keeping the "whole truth" part of your oath?

And since you admitted purposely withholding important information on Oswald to the highest investigative body in the land with the highest truth seeking purpose, what else did you hold back in this matter? Your credibility  ( as well as the WC ) for total truth telling was lost on that day you were interviewed by the Warren Commission and refused to bring up what you fully knew and had on Lee Harvey Oswald before 11,22,1963.

And you "dare" to complain in your memoirs that important truth information about Oswald ( regards his alleged Mexico City activities ) was withheld from "you" for many years? And how this offended you?

Now you know how your fellow Americans, and especially us JFK truth seekers, feel about you, after you admitted withholding incredibly important Lee Harvey Oswald information from the Warren Commission and the American public, even and especially after you took "an oath"  to tell the "whole truth" as you knew it.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In virtually ANY court, a lawyer will advise his/her client to answer ONLY the questions asked, and not to volunteer any information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

In virtually ANY court, a lawyer will advise his/her client to answer ONLY the questions asked, and not to volunteer any information.

Mark, wouldn't this advice be appropriate for a client who may have some reason to fear self-incrimination by revealing a fuller truth testimony as to what they know about a crime or suspects in a crime being investigated or tried?

What would justify James Hosty and his attorney or employer choosing to place him into this kind of witness category - an almost adversarial or hostile witness one?

What would they possibly consider as dangerously self-incriminating if they told more of what they knew about Lee Harvey Oswald?

Weren't members of the FBI supposed to be on the same page as our own government and the Warren Commission as far as searching for the whole truth regarding JFK's assassination on 11,22,1963?

When Hosty was asked at some points in his questioning, like almost every other WC witness, if there wasn't something more they knew or wanted to add about the main subjects and other areas of this investigation to help this commission discover the full truth, and he said no...that is purposely and knowingly withholding vital truth revealing information and a violation of the " the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God" oath sworn to by him at the beginning of his testimony.

The legal and ethical line between knowingly withholding vital and important truth revealing information and making false statements and outright lying in any criminal investigations is always very thin if not usually indistinguishable.  In this case especially.

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was about creating a record that would support the report conclusions. there are lots of questions that were not asked of the doctors and key witnesses. answers that did not comport with the pre-ordained conclusion were ignored. sometimes the examining lawyer would go "off the record" when the witness was going off the reservation and then resume after the witness' memory was correctly "refreshed."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a lawyer but I've been an IT Director and a VP in two different Trial Support Companies. I've read a thousand transcripts, attended hundreds of video depositions and been to court as the trial technologist (in the "hot seat") a hundred times. I can tell you there is a huge difference between what goes on in a real trial or even a real deposition and what is portrayed in the Warren Commission hearings transcripts.

That said, I'm also convinced FBI Agent James P. Hosty was not telling the truth about a lot of things, and maybe everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is a fascinating addendum to this.  The WC did know about Oswald leaving a note at FBI HQ.

They learned about it from Ruth Paine.  But they never followed up on it.

Now, how did Ruth know about this?  She says Oswald told her.  Hmm. (See Breach of Trust, p. 260)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Well, there is a fascinating addendum to this.  The WC did know about Oswald leaving a note at FBI HQ.

They learned about it from Ruth Paine.  But they never followed up on it.

Now, how did Ruth know about this?  She says Oswald told her.  Hmm. (See Breach of Trust, p. 260)

Was there any other person who incriminated Oswald more than Ruth Paine? With Michael Paine perhaps running a close second with his shared Oswald conversation testimony?

Most of the Warren Commission testimony was not taken by the big boys - Dulles, Ford, etc.

However, you will notice that these two were right on top of and directly very engaged in the questioning of James Hosty.

Hosty garnered their attention as much as Marina Oswald and George DeMohrenschild.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The person who perhaps provided the most incriminating evidence against Lee Oswald was none other than his wife Marina. Under the spousal immunity rules in effect then, she would not have been permitted to testify against her husband. Her testimony-as shaky and inconsistent as it was- would have been inadmissible...along with some other key pieces of evidence. We will expose the holes in the criminal case against Oswald in the upcoming Houston mock trial.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now