Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[W. Tracy Parnell]

While being enormously concerned about the color of SR Landesberg's beard, the Harvey & Lee Hit Squad that works so diligently here seems quite content to be totally unconcerned about the following:

1. Credible reports indicating different addresses for the two different Landesbergs. L'eandes/SR Landesberg (the future actor) on 8^th St. or McDougal St. and Landes/SH Landesberg, the student, who lived at 66 W. 10^th St. We're told, and offered no evidence whatsoever, that Newsday “got a few things wrong” and the NY Times “relied on second hand information.” Two NY newspapers, according to H&L critics, are simply incapable of getting NYC addresses straight.

The reports are from newspapers that obviously used "a source familiar with the investigation". They couldn't be from anywhere else since the FBI was not releasing information to the press at that point. Sometimes these reports are accurate and sometimes not as in this case on this issue of addresses at least.

2. When WMCA's Barry Gray called the FBI at 1:30 AM on 11/23/63, he said he knew L'eandes (SR Landesberg, the future actor) and had interviewed him two years earlier. But Gray did not know Rizzuto (SH Landesberg, the student) when he first met him an hour and a half or so later.

If Gray saw both L'Eandes and Rizzuto and knew they were two different people, why didn't he say so? He had a talk show that reached millions.

3. The Hit Squad totally ignores the fact that Dallas journalist Earl Golz said that he had seen a televised interview with the SR Landesberg (the actor) from the 1990s when Landesberg said he was “sorry he ever got mixed up with Oswald”

As I have said, I am not ignoring it and commented on it in my original article. But, I don't find it likely that the actor would suddenly between jokes on national TV reveal his association with Oswald. But because of a lack of any documentation I can't really disprove it. I can't disprove Judyth Baker either.

4. Perhaps the Hit Squad can do some actual research based on documents NOT in the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University. Perhaps they can produce an FBI report, or any evidence at all, showing agents actually bothered to ask Al Fowler to identify L'eandes/SR Landesberg (the actor), or interview ANY of the Village Voice reporters who met L'eandes (the actor), or speak to any of the nine different people identified, with addresses for each, by Rizutto/SH Landesberg (the student), who Rizutto said knew L'eandes (the actor), including the actor's former roommate, Michael Dunn, who lived at 169 East 49^th St. in apt. 5C.

It is unknown when Fowler told his story to Sanders but it was likely in the 70's. However, Fowler could have went to the FBI or the media at any time. The FBI did speak to the Voice reporters-at least two of them. They spoke to at least some of the 9 people including Dunn who gave them the address that L'Eandes lived at with him.

5. The H&L Hit Squad is totally unconcerned that, when the FBI attempted to locate a man named “Regan” who Rizzuto (the student) said paid L'eander (the actor), they bothered to travel all the way to the Roosevelt Hotel in New Orleans, forgetting to visit the Roosevelt Hotel in New York, where Rizzuto said Regan lived. This, we're told, is a perfectly understandable mistake.

It was a mistake that probably shouldn't have been made but it does not prove a coverup.

6. The H&L Hit Squad seems totally unconcerned that all court records and backup records for the arrest and incarceration of Stephen Harris Landesberg (the student) have disappeared. Perhaps members of the Hit Squad can contact the US District Court House for the Southern District of NY at 40 Foley Square in NYC, ptoduce those records, and prove John Armstrong wrong. I won't hold my breath.

I don't think those records would reveal anything useful at all. Armstrong says they are missing but I have trouble taking his word for anything because of his track record. My article is now finished and should be available within a couple of days.

[Dawn Meredith]

Tracy : "Fowler could have went to the FBI "

It's "could have gone".

If you are going to be a writer you need to learn proper grammar.

Dawn

I'm not trying to get your goat because we disagree on JA (nor am I going to get into it with anyone here over his work or the kind of person I know him to be- ETHICAL ). This is just a personal pet peeve of mine.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Tracy : "Fowler could have went to the FBI "

It's "could have gone".

If you are going to be a writer you need to learn proper grammar.

Dawn

I'm not trying to get your goat because we disagree on JA (nor am I going to get into it with anyone here over his work or the kind of person I know him to be- ETHICAL ). This is just a personal pet peeve of mine.

OK, I stand corrected, but I would point out that it is only a forum post.

[Paul Trejo]

Tracy : "Fowler could have went to the FBI "

It's "could have gone".

If you are going to be a writer you need to learn proper grammar.

Dawn

I'm not trying to get your goat because we disagree on JA (nor am I going to get into it with anyone here over his work or the kind of person I know him to be- ETHICAL ). This is just a personal pet peeve of mine.

OK, I stand corrected, but I would point out that it is only a forum post.

Tracy, I want to affirm here that your work is OUTSTANDING and SCHOLARLY and PROFESSIONAL and I thank you for it.

As for correcting people's grammar on the Internet -- I thought that was rightly stomped out of existence in the 1990's.

It's a cheap shot, most likely intended to distract your momentum in your ongoing valuable and professional critique of the H&L theory -- a theory which I regard as superfluous -- the CIA-did-it theory run amok.

Pay the petty carpers no mind. Informal writing is what makes the Internet lively, powerful and fast.

Cheers to you, Tracy, and godspeed.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 8, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Paul Trejo said:

Tracy, I want to affirm here that your work is OUTSTANDING and SCHOLARLY and PROFESSIONAL and I thank you for it.

As for correcting people's grammar on the Internet -- I thought that was rightly stomped out of existence in the 1990's.

It's a cheap shot, most likely intended to distract your momentum in your ongoing valuable and professional critique of the H&L theory -- a theory which I regard as superfluous -- the CIA-did-it theory run amok.

Pay the petty carpers no mind. Informal writing is what makes the Internet lively, powerful and fast.

Cheers to you, Tracy, and godspeed.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Thanks Paul, and I really appreciate it!

[Jon G. Tidd]

I side with Dawn.

Language dictates logic.

Example: Poster A says, "All the evidence points to one conclusion: Oswald did it all by himself." Poster B says, "The evidence shows Oswald couldn't possibly have done it." This example is a real-life depiction of what happens on this forum.

Language dictates logic. Drill that into your brain. Then ask yourself, if you're able, why are Poster A and Poster B both out to lunch?

[Steven Gaal]

While being enormously concerned about the color of SR Landesberg's beard, the Harvey & Lee Hit Squad that works so diligently here seems quite content to be totally unconcerned about the following:

1. Credible reports indicating different addresses for the two different Landesbergs. L'eandes/SR Landesberg (the future actor) on 8^th St. or McDougal St. and Landes/SH Landesberg, the student, who lived at 66 W. 10^th St. We're told, and offered no evidence whatsoever, that Newsday “got a few things wrong” and the NY Times “relied on second hand information.” Two NY newspapers, according to H&L critics, are simply incapable of getting NYC addresses straight.

The reports are from newspapers that obviously used "a source familiar with the investigation". They couldn't be from anywhere else since the FBI was not releasing information to the press at that point. Sometimes these reports are accurate and sometimes not as in this case on this issue of addresses at least.

2. When WMCA's Barry Gray called the FBI at 1:30 AM on 11/23/63, he said he knew L'eandes (SR Landesberg, the future actor) and had interviewed him two years earlier. But Gray did not know Rizzuto (SH Landesberg, the student) when he first met him an hour and a half or so later.

If Gray saw both L'Eandes and Rizzuto and knew they were two different people, why didn't he say so? He had a talk show that reached millions.

3. The Hit Squad totally ignores the fact that Dallas journalist Earl Golz said that he had seen a televised interview with the SR Landesberg (the actor) from the 1990s when Landesberg said he was “sorry he ever got mixed up with Oswald”

As I have said, I am not ignoring it and commented on it in my original article. But, I don't find it likely that the actor would suddenly between jokes on national TV reveal his association with Oswald. But because of a lack of any documentation I can't really disprove it. I can't disprove Judyth Baker either.

4. Perhaps the Hit Squad can do some actual research based on documents NOT in the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University. Perhaps they can produce an FBI report, or any evidence at all, showing agents actually bothered to ask Al Fowler to identify L'eandes/SR Landesberg (the actor), or interview ANY of the Village Voice reporters who met L'eandes (the actor), or speak to any of the nine different people identified, with addresses for each, by Rizutto/SH Landesberg (the student), who Rizutto said knew L'eandes (the actor), including the actor's former roommate, Michael Dunn, who lived at 169 East 49^th St. in apt. 5C.

It is unknown when Fowler told his story to Sanders but it was likely in the 70's. However, Fowler could have went to the FBI or the media at any time. The FBI did speak to the Voice reporters-at least two of them. They spoke to at least some of the 9 people including Dunn who gave them the address that L'Eandes lived at with him.

5. The H&L Hit Squad is totally unconcerned that, when the FBI attempted to locate a man named “Regan” who Rizzuto (the student) said paid L'eander (the actor), they bothered to travel all the way to the Roosevelt Hotel in New Orleans, forgetting to visit the Roosevelt Hotel in New York, where Rizzuto said Regan lived. This, we're told, is a perfectly understandable mistake.

It was a mistake that probably shouldn't have been made but it does not prove a coverup.

6. The H&L Hit Squad seems totally unconcerned that all court records and backup records for the arrest and incarceration of Stephen Harris Landesberg (the student) have disappeared. Perhaps members of the Hit Squad can contact the US District Court House for the Southern District of NY at 40 Foley Square in NYC, ptoduce those records, and prove John Armstrong wrong. I won't hold my breath.

I don't think those records would reveal anything useful at all. Armstrong says they are missing but I have trouble taking his word for anything because of his track record. My article is now finished and should be available within a couple of days.

Source: Who What Why

Though FBI reports are often admitted as evidence, they are sometimes so unreliable that even a federal judge once refused to be interviewed unless he could review the report first. Photo credits: WGBH News (screen capture) / YouTube, US Marshals Service / Wikimedia

Matt Connolly is a former Deputy District Attorney of Norfolk County, Massachusetts

How credible are the reports of interviews filed by FBI agents working a case? In fact, such reports are known to be so unreliable that in one case, a federal judge refused to be interviewed by agents unless he was allowed to review their report and make corrections.

That case was more than a decade ago, but the problems raised by these FBI reports—which are often offered in evidence during criminal trials—are very much current. Indeed, the judge in the recent trial of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev specifically warned the jurors against giving too much credence to such a report.

***

The case of the judge who insisted on fact-checking the FBI’s work is particularly instructive. This occurred during the much-watched 2002 trial of retired FBI agent John Connolly, the handler of the notorious gangster Whitey Bulger.

Connolly was charged with, among other things, obstruction of justice involving a letter Connolly sent to the presiding federal judge, Mark Wolf. Wolf’s testimony was needed to prove the obstruction.

As is standard practice, prosecutors asked that Wolf submit to an FBI interview in advance of any courtroom testimony. The interview reports, commonly called 302 reports, are named after the form on which they are written.

The FBI’s process for handling 302s is hardly an ideal one for accurate recording and transmittal of what was said during an interview.

The process is as such: two FBI agents ask questions and listen to the answers—without tape recording or obtaining a certified transcript. Instead, they return to their office and, based on their recollection and any notes they may have taken during the interview, write up a summary of what transpired. Summaries are, in most cases, written hours later, sometimes even the following day.

***

This reporter sat in court listening to Judge Wolf’s testimony—which is included in my book, Don’t Embarrass The Family, based on FBI agent Connolly’s trial. Under questioning, Judge Wolf revealed that he had agreed to be interviewed, but only on the condition that he would be able to review the 302 for accuracy and to make any necessary corrections. It was clear he had little confidence the FBI agents would accurately reproduce what he said. In plain English, he did not trust them. Judge Wolf had seen his share of FBI interview reports, as he had been a federal judge since 1985 and prior to that had served as an assistant US attorney for eight years.

Judge Wolf’s concern about FBI agents’ ability to accurately render interview content is made even more clear in a footnote in his 661–page decision filed on September 15, 1999 in the matter of US v. Salemme, where it was disclosed Whitey Bulger was an informant.

In footnote 35, Wolf quotes Edwin O. Guthman, who once served as press secretary to Attorney General Robert Kennedy: “You can have a conversation with an agent… and when it is over he will send a memo to the files. Any relation between the memo and what was said in the conversation may be purely coincidental. You would think you were at different meetings.”

Wolf says that after reviewing the 302s, he made only minor changes or corrections. Thus, in this case, at least, no substantive errors had been introduced. But then other interviewees, such defendants and key witnesses, have no right to review and correct 302s. And a presiding judge is hardly the most likely victim of misstatements by FBI agents. Based on a variety of published claims, such misstatements, tendentious or otherwise,may be distressingly common.

FBI witness reports are often written the day after the interview was given. Photo credits: Justin Evans / Wikimedia, FBI / Wikimedia

In Wolf’s case, his concern seems to have been anchored principally in the recognition that it is extremely difficult for people to remember what was said during an interview while making only an occasional note. Of course, the greater the delay between the end of the interview and the writing of the 302 report, the greater the possibility of errors.

Judge Wolf, based on his experience, would also have known that the 302 becomes the official record of what was said during the interview. Its importance can not be overstated. FBI agents review their 302s prior to testifying at trial; the federal prosecutors will rely upon it in examining (or cross-examining) a witness. Perhaps most importantly, defendants or witnesses who contest what’s written in a 302 open themselves up to charges of “making false statements or even perjury.”

That this is an ongoing problem is demonstrated by the recent trial in Boston of the Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Judge George O’Toole, having given permission to Tsarnaev’s attorneys to read FBI 302s to the jurors, felt compelled to warn them that the 302s were not “verbatim transcriptions of the conversation, but summaries, and they may be made from the agent’s notes and then put together in a report either that day or perhaps the next day.”

Despite the obvious flaws in the FBI’s system of interviewing and then later dictating the gist of interviews, the Bureau harbors a gospel-like belief in the 302s. An FBI agent testifying at Connolly’s trial revealed there is a common expression amongst agents: “If it isn’t in writing it doesn’t exist.”

Of course, this implies that the 302 accurately contains all the important statements the witness made. But the potential for selectivity here is obvious. If the witness said he did not get a good look at an assailant, and the FBI agent does not include that in the 302, then no one on the prosecution team will believe he said it because it is not written down.

With that in mind, the FBI agents’ aphorism reads like a cynical inside joke.

Solution is Obvious—But Why Does FBI Resist?

It would be easy to remedy this ancient system of conducting interviews that has existed since J. Edgar Hoover became FBI director in 1924. Why not establish a rule that all interviews be electronically recorded? In this high-tech age it’s hard to conceive of valid arguments against mandatory electronic recording, except in instances where circumstances make it impracticable. Other than such exceptions, the most trustworthy evidence—the person’s voice—would be preserved.

Ironically, the federal government itself does not seem to fully trust the memories of FBI agents. In 1968, Congress passed Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act which gave federal law enforcement authorities and the states the ability to conduct secret interceptions through electronic means between parties who were unaware they were being listened to. However, it required that all those intercepted communications be electronically recorded. Congress did not want FBI agents to listen to the conversations and later write down what they thought they heard. Instead, they reasoned, it’s better for judges and juries to hear for themselves what is said.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, tacitly acknowledged to the need for a recording policy when on May 12, 2014 he authorized his Deputy James M. Cole to issue a memorandum allegedly changing the policy concerning electronic recording of statements. This reporter noted at times it had so many holes in it that it made little difference to the way things were done. Noted First Amendment expert and author Attorney Harvey Silverglate followed up nine days later with a similar opinion noting: ”a careful read of the missive… proves that the exception often overwhelms the rule.”

The FBI did recognize the pressure to change it in 2006. Its reasons are specious, boiling down to it likes the way things are now done so why change? It also states there are no federal laws requiring it to record the conversations which allows it to refuse to do it.

The issue is straight forward: do we want the best evidence—a record of the words spoken between an FBI agent and another person—or would we rather continue with the evidence the FBI agent looking to solve a case figured she heard and decides to write down. It is time that Congress acts to require federal agents to do the same thing when they interview witnesses and suspects as they do when listening to intercepted communications… which is to record them.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Steve,

I understand your point. The FBI reports are only as good as the individual making them and anyone can make a mistake. The thing I have never understood about Armstrong is that he uses the FBI as a source in his book dozens and dozens of times. But the minute that someone brings up something from the FBI that doesn't fit his theory it is questioned or said to be an outright fabrication. How does Armstrong decide what FBI information is good and what is not?

[Greg Parker]

Steve,

I understand your point. The FBI reports are only as good as the individual making them and anyone can make a mistake. The thing I have never understood about Armstrong is that he uses the FBI as a source in his book dozens and dozens of times. But the minute that someone brings up something from the FBI that doesn't fit his theory it is questioned or said to be an outright fabrication. How does Armstrong decide what FBI information is good and what is not?

If he wanted to be perfectly consistent, he would use only those FBI reports that are signed by the interviewee. All others should be ignored. THis won;t happen, and we all know why.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

^{My response to Armstrong's article is now online:}

^{http://wtracyparnell.com/john-armstrong-and-his-evolving-landesberg-story/}

Edited July 9, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell

[David Andrews]

I side with Dawn.

Language dictates logic.

Example: Poster A says, "All the evidence points to one conclusion: Oswald did it all by himself." Poster B says, "The evidence shows Oswald couldn't possibly have done it." This example is a real-life depiction of what happens on this forum.

Language dictates logic. Drill that into your brain. Then ask yourself, if you're able, why are Poster A and Poster B both out to lunch?

There is no admissible evidence as is commonly defined under legal principal.

Edited July 9, 2015 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

^{My response to Armstrong's article is now online:}

^{http://wtracyparnell.com/john-armstrong-and-his-evolving-landesberg-story/}

Tracy, your new article, entitled, John Armstrong and His Evolving Landesberg Story, is EXCELLENT.

Your article is professionally conceived and written, and I hope you get thousands of hits for it.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Some here subscribe to "conspiracy lite". Meaning there was a conspiracy, but it didn't go that far.

I ask those who believe in "conspiracy lite" these questions:

1. Did the conspirators intend to kill JFK and accept all the consequences of that act?

2. Did the conspirators want to cover their trail, meaning hiding who they were?

3. Would the conspirators do whatever it took to accomplish 1 and 2?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

^{My response to Armstrong's article is now online:}

^{http://wtracyparnell.com/john-armstrong-and-his-evolving-landesberg-story/}

Tracy, your new article, entitled, John Armstrong and His Evolving Landesberg Story, is EXCELLENT.

Your article is professionally conceived and written, and I hope you get thousands of hits for it.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Thank you kindly Paul, I appreciate it!

[Jim Hargrove]

^{My response to Armstrong's article is now online:}

^{http://wtracyparnell.com/john-armstrong-and-his-evolving-landesberg-story/}

Wow! "Hargrove said" ... this and "David Josephs said" ... that! This IS research for the ages!!

Be sure to read the lengthy comments by "Buster" at the end before Tracy deletes them. I've taken the liberty of saving "Buster's" comments to my HD in case they should vanish as fast as an honest FBI doc!