Jeff Carter

It’s generally understood that Martin Luther King’s civil rights were grossly violated by an FBI-led surveillance regime generated by suspicion of communist infiltration conjured by King’s association with Stanley Levison. It was recognized as these abuses were uncovered that suspicion, in itself, could be subject to pre-existing bias or malicious intent, and could not stand as legal justification for violation of civil rights. That history informs consideration of how Trump campaign associate Carter Page became subject to a FISA warrant which permitted the FBI to engage in full electronic surveillance of him and his associates. Representative Adam Schiff stressed that the FISA probable cause requirement, in the warrant application directed at Carter Page, was met by demonstrating four points: evidence of Russian election interference; Russian links to Trump campaign officials; Page’s history with Russian intelligence; Page’s suspicious activities in 2016. The first two points have no direct connection to the targeted suspect, and the fourth point refers to the hearsay evidence as appears in the Steele Dossier. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/ig00/20180205/106838/hmtg-115-ig00-20180205-sd002.pdf The third point refers to events from 2013. Carter Page had longstanding legitimate business activity in Russia tied to the energy industry. In 2013, he was in contact in the US with Russians who were, unknown to him, suspected espionage agents. He was interviewed by the FBI, and at no time was he described as under suspicion or uncooperative. This apparently benign activity will be later spun at the FISA court as “contact” with “Russian intelligence.” This appears to be the sole “corroborating” evidence in addition to the Steele Dossier hearsay. McCarthy makes good case that it is, and nothing referred by Schiff infers secret as yet unrevealed information beyond the aforementioned four points. FBI agent describes Page (Male1) in 2013, see page 13: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2015_0126_spyring2.pdf McCarthy dissects Schiff’s House report: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/schiff-memo-russia-investigation-harms-democrats-more-than-helps-them/ Using online search engines, a simple search for Carter-Page-Russian-espionage-2013 will bring up dozens of mainstream media news stories which paint Page’s contacts in 2013 in the most sinister terms, when in fact the record is completely benign. Schiff also claims that FISA was not used to spy on Trump or his campaign, but the allegations against Page are concerned with exactly the Trump campaign’s supposed Russian links, as confirmed by the fact two of the four points supporting probable cause have to do with these supposed links and the Trump campaign, not with Page. It does appear that a warrant to conduct full surveillance on a US citizen was granted largely on the basis of hearsay evidence, and that there are ongoing efforts, not least in the mainstream media, to justify and normalize these practices. The issues are compounded by the fact the targeted individual had links to a then current presidential campaign, which may have been the true target of the surveillance.

Andrew McCarthy’s dissection of the Steele Dossier and its misuse in creating waves of suspicion directed against persons associated with the Trump administration was published last summer. It received a lot of attention as it undercut many common assumptions, particularly as articulated through the mainstream media. McCarthy argued that the Steele Dossier relied heavily on hearsay evidence, largely unverified at the time it was used to secure a FISA warrant directed at Carter Page. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/carter-page-fisa-applications-fbi-steele-dossier/ This prompted a pushback of legal arguments in the press to counter McCarthy’s points, seekingt to portray the granting of the FISA warrant as normal and justified - including the reliance on hearsay: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/why-team-trump-wrong-about-carter-page-dossier-secret-warrant-n893666 “former officials say the use of hearsay is common in warrant applications, because the FBI wants to tell the judge as much as possible about what is known about the target. No judge, however, would grant a surveillance warrant based entirely on hearsay…” Here is a similar opinion, from a legal panel writing for The Daily Beast: https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-would-have-been-derelict-not-to-use-the-steele-dossier-for-the-carter-page-fisa-warrant?ref=author “The reason why hearsay information is permitted in warrant applications is simple: it is hard enough for law enforcement to develop sources who can infiltrate criminal organizations or foreign threats to our national security. If the FBI were required to not only learn of the information from its own sources but also confirm that information with the sub-sources, it would not be able to do its job. Instead, the FBI is legally entitled to rely upon the assertions of a previously credible source, such as Steele, in relaying information from other sub-sources to whom the FBI does not have direct access.“ McCarthy argues that Steele is not, in fact, a “source”, rather a “purveyor” of collected information consisting mostly of second hand hearsay from unidentified persons. McCarthy argues the FBI was required to properly vet or verify the information. The legal team writing for Daily Beast argue that verification is simply a technical matter: “Under FISA, ‘verification’ simply requires both the FBI and lawyers in the Department of Justice to verify that the facts as set forth in the affidavit are supported by evidence obtained as part of the investigation.” That is, under this technical standard, the hearsay evidence described in the warrant application needs to correspond with the obtained hearsay evidence as appears in the Steele Dossier. Then it is considered “verified”. The panel then argues that because the FBI asserts Steele is "credible", then the use of hearsay presented to the judges is "legally entitled". This leads back to the reassurance that “no judge would grant a surveillance warrant based entirely on hearsay.” The claim is made “other evidence unrelated to the dossier corroborates the dossier’s main allegations (and) is sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. “ But this can be considered a very disingenuous argument, and I’ll follow up on that. If interested in these issues, it is worthwhile reading McCarthy’s piece followed by the two rebuttals, and weigh the conflicting legal arguments yourself. Here is a description of what was in the Steele Dossier at the time of the first FISA application: https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/an-updated-trump-dossier-cheat-sheet-by-publius-tacitus.html#more

Geez, Kirk, all these months later and you are still scratching an itch generated by your own limited sources of information. I made the factually correct observation that there was much concern through the summer and fall of 2016 over candidate Clinton’s proclivities towards hawkish positions and hawkish actions, concern compounded by the equally hawkish advisors and cabinet nominees she was assembling. Anyone who spent time with non-mainstream sources through those months would know that my simple observation was not controversial, and that there was indeed much concerned discussion on this topic. When you challenged this I offered some names to assist your enlightenment, and you responded by wildly misstating my position, mocking the concern expressed by writers you have not read, and demanding I present some kind of dissertation. I’m not wasting time by doing that, as it is perfectly obvious that what I said was correct, which could be confirmed simply by looking into the archives of, for example, Common Dreams (left/progressive) or Antiwar (right/libertarian). I’m sorry you don’t know this, but spiking your comments with gratuitous insults doesn’t make you any less unaware. Cliff, I’m sorry your favoured candidate lost and I’m sorry that your country is in a mess right now. But still fighting the 2016 election two whole years later and adopting a partisan false consciousness over the reasons for the debacle are not helping in any way. Yes, Trump’s an idiot and yes, threatening Alec Baldwin over a TV skit is childish behaviour to say the least…. But did you not notice that over this past summer legal arguments were advanced in the mainstream media holding that “probable cause” to engage total surveillance on any American, and all of his or her associates, could be met solely by hearsay evidence as long as it was endorsed by an authority figure? When did America become East Germany? Maybe you should address that.

Cliff The links regarding an “FBI conspiracy” essentially confirm that Comey’s hand was forced and he committed a limited hangout. He ultimately released the information, not the shadowy Trump faction in New York. Why would he acquiesce to a renegade faction? These articles -all from the mainstream media - if anything suggest the contemporary FBI is riven by internal political disputes and that none of its judgments or activity should be considered as anything but partisan. Otherwise you are simply spouting reasons to detest Trump and ignore or downplay serious issues regarding civil rights and freedom of expression. I think the notion that the Democrats “preferred to lose with Hilary than win with Sanders” sums up a lot, and there is a profound refusal to deal with that.

Hi Andrew I don’t know who Jim Jordan is, but information concerning the use of the Steele dossier to secure a FISA warrant has been covered in some detail. Here are reports on the FISA process from both sides of the political spectrum: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/02/nunes-memo-reports-crimes-at-top-of-fbi-doj/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/carter-page-fisa-applications-fbi-steele-dossier/ As I understand the process, it is the job of the FBI to verify information before using it for judicial warrants, particularly when it is known that the source of information is being paid by partisan interests. There are also divergent points-of-view as to whether Trump campaign officials triggered an investigation through secret cavorting, or whether an investigation was triggered because Trump was so-far successful in his campaign. Well-known journalist Daniel Lazare believes the latter: “The intelligence agencies initiated reports that Donald Trump was colluding with Russia, they nurtured them and helped them grow, and then they spread the word to the press and key government officials. “ https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/31/spooks-spooking-themselves/ Douglas, the Lawfare blog entry does not address the information above, it merely shoots down the idea that the warrant process involves some kind of hearing, a premise which does not feature in the above critiques.

I think the insider/outsider perspective is of some value in assisting to see the current moment clearly. It is one reason why this discussion is not entirely off-topic on this board. To say the FBI “threw” the election to Trump is implying intent - I.e. Comey wanted Trump to win. That is obviously not accurate, and continuing to frame discussion that way leads to faulty premises. Comey implied in the Colbert interview that his hand was forced and officially releasing the information was the least worst option available. Unfortunately, the Democratic candidate had plenty of skeletons in the closet and huge negatives among the voters, and so was vulnerable to exactly what happened. The anti-Russia propaganda is cooked up in think tanks like the Atlantic Council, Brookings, Chatham House, etc, then repeated uncritically in the major media outlets, combined with very nasty ad hominem attacks. It is a proven demonization strategy which has played out in much the same fashion at least five times in the past quarter century. The focus on Russia is promoting paranoid delusions similar to Cold War theories of Soviet conspiracies, and is being used in efforts to censor or marginalize certain political viewpoints, particularly in social media. The Steele information, generally agreed to have been unverified opposition research, was improperly used to secure a FISA warrant in October 2016 which, in effect, put the entire Trump campaign subject to the full dragnet of NSA capabilities. That is probably the most serious violation of Constitutional rights and the integrity of the electoral system in this situation, and it follows on the Snowden revelations of the massive illegal spying programs themselves.

Comey "swinging" the election: that is your opinion, it’s not a “fact”. As far as I know, Comey has never expressed his motivation for the email release. But it is a fair speculation, and more in keeping with what actually transpired since, that Comey did what he did as a limited hangout, to forestall a far more damaging leak. Trump’s observation during the 2016 campaign that US interests would be better served by a friendlier diplomatic posture towards Russia seemed like a common-sense position, which was met by something approaching hysteria by certain national security cliques, an affliction which was then passed over to shocked Democratic Party supporters after the election. The negative passion directed towards Russia has been a manufactured propaganda campaign, based largely on exaggeration, conjecture, and Orwellian “two minutes of hate” tantrums. The scholar Stephen Cohen, one of America’s leading Russia “experts”, finds this hysteria extremely troubling and damaging to US interests as well. In a recent interview, Cohen described how he has now been effectively banned from the mainstream media. The banishment of reasonable opinion is partly what leads to casual smears of persons you disagree with as “Putin/Trump fascists” without recognizing you sound like the John Birch Society.

On the basis that he did not seem to produce many photographs. Despite having equipment, and a young family, really just a small handful of photos in the Oswald collection could be directly attributed to his activity, and most of those were landscapes from Russia.

hi John - I appreciate you taking time to work through these issues. I have a few responses/clarifications: I’m not sure it is accurate to assume the photo purportedly destroyed by Marina and Marguerite Oswald was actually a BYP. There were known photographs of Oswald on his infrequent hunting excursions, so what they may have destroyed was one of those. Unfortunately, unlike the witness statements of Paine and O’Leary, the LIFE Magazine cover had not been published yet when Marguerite Oswald talked to the WC, or so she could not say it was or was not similar, and the Warren Commission people did not think to get the description of the photo more precise. If, though, it was a backyard photo as understood (with an Oswald figure), then I would say this makes the authenticity of the BYP (i.e. that was actually Oswald posing) far more likely. Again, I am not sure of the Hesters’ story. It would be helped if anything like the photos they described (empty backyard, color transparency) had showed up somewhere over the years. That said, on a hypothetical level, Hosty could be considered a candidate to have introduced the BYP on the Friday. The surveillance of Oswald, such as it was through the postal service etc, was channeled through the FBI. There were rumours Oswald might have sent a BYP to The Militant (or similar), and an informant could have turned it in…but that is totally hypothetical. George deMohrenschildt had nothing to do with the BYP other than finding it. Someone with access to the negative and good darkroom equipment was responsible for this particular print. People argue whether Oswald actually signed the back, but it can be determined that Marina did not write the other phrase, but someone who knew Marina’s way of talking did. Numerous persons had access to the box of records where the photo was discovered. This box, as an Oswald possession, was presumably searched by the DPD or FBI without finding it - so the insertion of the photo probably happened after Oswald had been killed. Lee Oswald was not really a camera buff. The only photos tied to the Imperial Reflex camera were taken between March and May 1963. The photos taken in May were very possibly more tied to Ruth Paine than to Oswald. The camera was not listed as among Oswald’s possessions, and was probably not in the Paine house on Nov 22/63.

In “Crossfire”, Jim Marrs makes a direct connection between Jack Revill’s list of TSBD employees, which features an incorrect Oswald address of 605 Elsbeth, with a “Harvey Lee Oswald” file held by 112th MI which supposedly listed the exact same mistaken address “605 Elsbeth”. There was no citation in Marrs’ book. Does anyone know if this information has been confirmed?

I don’t think there is any evidence of connections or links between most of the persons/agencies on your list. Robert Oswald, for example, had little or no contact with any of those entities other than Marina, and that itself was limited to a brief period of time. Same could be said of de Mohrenschildt. Roscoe White had no connection to any of the Oswalds or Paines. It seems to me the major points of interest, and of misconduct or bad faith on behalf of the investigating authorities, relate to 1) assigning “authorship” of the photos to Marina 2) establishing the Imperial Reflex as “Oswald’s camera” and 3) suppressing the existence of 133-C. I think the deMohrenschildt copy of the photo, and issues with the Nov 29 recreation, are interesting but not directly related to the three points above (other than suppression of 133-C which the recreation certainly underlines).

FYI, I did a research project on the BYP which covers most of the topics listed above. It appears on the Kennedy and King website. For example, there’s a discussion of possible explanations for the deMohrenschildt BYP, which was discovered in a box of records on his return from Haiti. No one really knows who put it there or who wrote the inscription on the back. It did have the effect of unsettling deMohrenschildt, and that may have been the intention. Robert Oswald was said to have received a box from Ruth Paine in December 1963, a box containing loose random items previously owned by Lee Oswald. The Imperial Reflex camera, identified as the camera which exposed the backyard photos, was allegedly in that box. That camera does not appear in the inventory of Oswald’s possessions drawn up by the Dallas police officers who searched the Paine household (but the other loose items handed to R Oswald did). It was later claimed by a Fort Worth police officer that he had seen the camera during the search, but felt it was too old and worn out to be of interest. The Dallas officers were adamant that no item missed their attention or was left off the list. Robert Oswald said that he paid no attention to the camera in the box, even while the FBI was asking many questions about his brother’s cameras through January and February. He then supposedly noticed or recognized the camera and realized it might be what the FBI was looking for. He said he never thought about it previously because it was too old and worn to be of interest. Does that give anyone confidence that the Imperial Reflex was “Oswald’s camera”? Good enough for the Warren Commission, but that camera was never located and identified until late February 1964, and its presence in the box before then cannot be verified. I don’t believe it is helpful to describe the photos taken Nov 29, 1963 as a “second set” of BYPs. They are police re-creation photos. The backyard photos are best understood and identified as featuring an Oswald figure, which of course the Nov 29 photos do not. Oswald was not shown a BYP until after the discovery on Nov 23. He was not shown a photo in its “drugstore print” form, but was shown a print created in the DPD lab from the discovered negative. Roscoe White and Robert Stovall created their BYP prints at the Dallas Police photo lab, for the presumed purpose of retaining “souvenirs”. The Dallas police photo lab leaked BYPs to the media in February 1964, causing an extensive investigation by the FBI. More effort was put into that investigation than actually ID’ing the ownership of the camera. Two crucial persons to understanding the BYP not on your list - Ruth and Michael Paine.

If the BYP was indeed created in the Spring of 1963, there is no credible reason to assign a date (such as March 31) other than Marina's contradictory stories and/or Michael Paine's later recollections of seeing a BYP on a particular evening. They could have been created anytime in late March/April - or even later as that house sat empty through the summer. Oswald was not shown a BYP until after the photos were "found" on the afternoon of Nov 23. Previously, Oswald was questioned about the Neeley St address based on its identification via the photo the DPD had, but the physical photo was not revealed to him. Robert Oswald's alleged discovery of the Imperial Reflex camera occurred in February 1964, not December 1963.

Paul makes good points. Salandria was also driven by an urgency in the 60s-70s. It's not that no one was listening: there was immense institutional resistance to honest inquiry. Gaeton Fonzi was a Salandria acolyte and was in a position of some influence during the HSCA, and he saw for himself the limits of what could be done. At this point, to suggest that wide-ranging intellectual curiosity should be funnelled into one expression is counter-productive, to say the least. As far as "solving the case", Bill Kelly's recent work shared on JFK Countercoup is really honing in on something, and he wouldn't have got there if he was limited to discussing T3 and the jacket. This case, because of the institutional resistance, has been "crowd-sourced" and the vast range of topics and information has served as an asset and a detriment simultaneously, but ultimately will be acknowledged as an asset.

I am less eager to jump on the Hester’s story, as I believe it was not told until the eighties - twenty years or more after the events. A color transparency is mentioned no where else in the record and based on the known existing materials, would have been difficult to create in short order. And while I can understand the need for help with a probable flood of unexposed photos, it is hard to imagine unvetted civilians would have been allowed to come into contact with potentially sensitive information if there was a “BYP operation” that evening.

Thanks for this comparison. The shrub from Nov 29 '63: "They appear much larger as if more than just a few months have passed." Does this not make it more likely the original BYPs date back to the Spring. March-April '63?

I am confused as to what exactly is being analyzed. These photos were all taken at the same location, but at different times, at different positions, with different light conditions and different cameras, lenses and photographic stock. Whatever the cut-out represents, it was not used to create what we understand as the backyard photos, as those predate the cutout photo by at least a week if not many weeks.

That’s a fair observation, but the case is in fact extraordinarily complex. Also, it is not unusual for interest in topics in American History to lead towards what could be described as obsessive cultism. Have you ever been to a Civil War reenactment? A further example - this week I have been flipping through a 400 page minute-by-minute analysis of the Custer’s Last Stand battle. That is a very famous event which most Americans have at least heard of, which has received varying degrees of focussed attention since it happened, and has retained a sort of generalized public interest, including visits to its rather remote location which is a popular national park. Beyond that, a much smaller number of persons have cultivated a more intense personal interest, which would include debates over how many members of C Company went over which ridge at what time and other similar topics addressed in, for example, the book I have been flipping through, which is not really directed to anything like a mass audience. What can be seen as obsessive interest can also be understood as a healthy interest which attracts a small but devoted number of persons as a naturally occurring phenomenon which underlines and confirms a recurring general interest.

Michael Paine described seeing a backyard photo on Friday night Nov 22 in his Warren Commission testimony taken March 17, 1964. Washington Evening Star reporter Jerry O'Leary described seeing a backyard photo in the hands of Dallas Police officers on either the evening of Nov 22 or the morning of Nov 23 to interviewing FBI officers, as noted in FBI DeLoach to Mohr 2-25-64.

The official claim is that the photos were discovered Saturday afternoon Nov 23 with Oswald's possessions, but two witnesses including Michael Paine saw a backyard photo in the possession of Dallas police on Friday night, Nov 22, and Captain Fritz refers to this photo in his notes around noon on Saturday, some hours before they were "found".

Okay. What would mitigate against that is the presence of a BYP on Friday, Nov 22 - identified by witnesses as the same photo as appeared in Life February '64 - and also the descriptions of the photos discovered on the afternoon of Nov 23 provided by Curry in a press conference that same evening, which are consistent with details seen in 133-A-B-C.

I agree. Unfortunately, we will probably never be able to determine this conclusively because the HSCA failed to ask the proper questions. By what means did the Dallas Police come into possession of a backyard photo on Friday night, Nov 22? Why was the fact of this possession hidden from the record? Why was 133-C hidden from the record, even as the Secret Service and (probably) the FBI were aware of it? (more technical) What format did 133-C come to DPD possession - a negative only? a "drugstore photomat" print like the other two? some other contact print? I believe the answer to the first question likely leads directly to the person(s) responsible for setting Oswald up as the patsy.

The claims by DPD officer Bobby Brown were made many years after the fact. There is no information to contradict what he says, but there is also no information to corroborate what he says. That BYP 133-C was known to members of the DPD, the Secret Service, and the FBI a week after the assassination is confirmed by its use in the Nov 29 reenactment. It’s not clear why Brown would feel he needed to cut his image out from a print copy of the reenactment, or why the FBI would instruct him to do the same with the Oswald figure. His work was done with prints of the photos, and so had no permanent effect on the integrity of, for instance, the negative or remaining first gen copies. I am not sure what you are getting at with the arrangement of four versions of the backyard: the 1967 photo is an outlier as three years or more had passed, and therefore no comparative information of the state of the backyard is useful. The other three photos can all be traced to 1963, and two of them can be dated to Nov 29, 1963. It is the most well-known and widely circulated photos, with the Oswald figure, which is in question, and what can be said is it appears to be taken some months earlier than Nov 1963, that the official story says it was taken in March, while speculation of a doctored photo tends to situate the creation in September.

Yes, Photoshop is rather straightforward, but having that measure of control over opacity in a darkroom is very difficult, compounded by the requirement of varying the adjustment between the Oswald figure and the shadows.

The initial observation of this thread is a great question, but still unanswered - What is the identification of the plant appearing behind the Oswald figure? What is the plant's normal cycle of foliage, and can a time of year be established based on observation of the foliage. The November 29, 1963 photo shows a fair amount of difference in the plant's appearance from the BYP. The 1967 photo is less useful as it cannot be determined if any pruning work etc had occurred over that time. "Is there anyway possible, with techniques utilised in the 60s, that a human body with shadows were superimposed over a photograph of the backyard at Neely St?" I will agree with the HSCA panel that the existing detail of geographic features discernible within the shadows rules out such a superimposition. (see items 412-413) https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=173&tab=page