Jump to content
The Education Forum

James Hosty and KGB Agent Kostikov


Paul Trejo
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 12/18/2016 at 4:34 AM, Steve Thomas said:

November 1st::

Mr. STERN. You say the interview started at about 2:30?
Mr. HOSTY. Approximately 2:30; yes, sir.
Mr. STERN. About how long did it last?
Mr. HOSTY. At the very most 20-25 minutes.

Mr. HOSTY. Oh, yes, sir. This occurred on the 1st. This was a Friday. I returned to the Dallas office. I covered a couple of other leads on the way back. I got in shortly after 5 o'clock...

 

What "leads" did he cover, and why did it take him two hours to go from Irving to Dallas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Pamela Brown said:

Hosty said that he stopped in Irving on his way back from Fort Worth. Has he ever said what he was actually doing in Fort Worth?  Isn't that where George DeMohrenschildt, George Bouhe and Max Clark all lived? Max Clark who first approached Oswald on his return from Russia, George DeMohrenschildt who shepherded Marina around everywhere, and George Bouhe who had "files on everybody"?

George deM. had left for Haiti by that time...just the same, an interesting coincidence...

Actually, George DeMohrenschildt lived in Dallas, not in Fort Worth.  But that's minor.

As for Fort Worth, it forms a pair with Dallas, because they are only minutes away from each other on the freeway.

What was James Hosty doing there?   He tells us in detail in his 1996 book:

"My caseload in the four-man counter-intelligence squad in the Dallas office was domninated by right-wingers.  I spent much of my time tracking the movements and actions of both Klan members and members of former US Army General Edwin Walker's radical militia group, known as the Minutemen...In the eyes of the Minutemen, Kennedy was at best a dupe of the Communists, at worst a Communist collaborator."  (James Hosty, Assignment Oswald, 1996, p. 4)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

"My caseload in the four-man counter-intelligence squad in the Dallas office was domninated by right-wingers.  I spent much of my time tracking the movements and actions of both Klan members and members of former US Army General Edwin Walker's radical militia group, known as the Minutemen...In the eyes of the Minutemen, Kennedy was at best a dupe of the Communists, at worst a Communist collaborator."  (James Hosty, Assignment Oswald, 1996, p. 4)

Paul,

Is the quote above specifically in reference to Nov. 1st, 1963? Because there are a lot of things he could probably be doing but I appreciate the "plug" for the radical right - just in case we forgot.

 

As for the Minutemen, they weren't really Walker's radical militia. They were/are a radical militia that had/has extreme right wing views. They were De Pugh's militia.

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Paul,

 

What was James Hosty doing there?   He tells us in detail in his 1996 book:

"My caseload in the four-man counter-intelligence squad in the Dallas office was domninated by right-wingers.  I spent much of my time tracking the movements and actions of both Klan members and members of former US Army General Edwin Walker's radical militia group, known as the Minutemen...In the eyes of the Minutemen, Kennedy was at best a dupe of the Communists, at worst a Communist collaborator."  (James Hosty, Assignment Oswald, 1996, p. 4)
--Paul Trejo

 

This is the part that I've never understood, because in his WC testimony, Hosty said,

" I noticed it, and then because of the domestic difficulty and the fact that I knew I would be interviewing his wife in the near future, (this was in March, 1963) I requested that the case be reopened. I requested the supervisor in Dallas to reopen the case to me.
Mr. STERN. Was that in writing or verbally?
Mr. HOSTY. Actually, it was, it would appear in writing. I did this by sending a letter to the Bureau, to the FBI headquarters in Washington, setting forth the information I had developed, and then on our office copy I made a request that this case be reopened.

 

Hosty's emphasis was on the right wing, but it appears from this that he went out of his way to be given control of a case involving a Russian (de-facto, Communist) immigrant. This seemingly would not be his area of expertise. And yes, the impression I get from reading through the FBI's Subject Files on the Minutemen, etc. is that a lot of them were located in the Fort Worth area - even more so than in Dallas.

 

Are you aware of any other communists Hosty was monitoring?

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"An FBI Agent was out, I have learned since, on November 1, I made no note of the day for myself."

(translation: the FBI says it was Nov. 1 so it was Nov.1)

She then goes into a long explanation about why the FBI checks on immigrants. If this isn't evidence of coaching I'm not sure what is.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39#relPageId=100&tab=page

...starts about line 5...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Roger DeLaria said:

Will I learn any valuable info from  Hosty's Assignment: Oswald?  I just picked it up used and have on deck to read.

Roger,

Yes, you will learn that James Hosty blames the FBI and the US Government for concealing the alleged "fact" that LHO met Valeriy Kostikov in Mexico City, and that this meeting was the secret to the JFK assassination.

IMHO, this allegation proves that James Hosty was part of the plot to frame LHO for the JFK murder.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

This is the part that I've never understood, because in his WC testimony, Hosty said,

" I noticed it, and then because of the domestic difficulty and the fact that I knew I would be interviewing his wife in the near future, (this was in March, 1963) I requested that the case be reopened. I requested the supervisor in Dallas to reopen the case to me.
Mr. STERN. Was that in writing or verbally?
Mr. HOSTY. Actually, it was, it would appear in writing. I did this by sending a letter to the Bureau, to the FBI headquarters in Washington, setting forth the information I had developed, and then on our office copy I made a request that this case be reopened.

Hosty's emphasis was on the right wing, but it appears from this that he went out of his way to be given control of a case involving a Russian (de-facto, Communist) immigrant. This seemingly would not be his area of expertise. And yes, the impression I get from reading through the FBI's Subject Files on the Minutemen, etc. is that a lot of them were located in the Fort Worth area - even more so than in Dallas.

Are you aware of any other communists Hosty was monitoring?

Steve Thomas

Steve,

In my reading, the answer to your question was given in the WC testimony of FBI Assistant Director Alan Belmont.   IIRC, Alan Belmont said that in February, 1963, James Hosty requested that the FBI re-open the file on Lee Harvey Oswald, because Oswald had subscribed to "The Worker" newspaper, printed by the Communists. 

But Alan Belmont personally decided against it -- because it was no crime to subscribe to "The Worker" newspaper, and the FBI could not open a file on everybody who had a subscription to "The Worker."

This testimony again shows, IMHO, that James Hosty was working with General Walker to stalk Lee Harvey Oswald in early 1963 -- because General Walker truly hated and despised everything that touched the USSR -- and so did Hosty's personal friend, Robert Alan Surrey.

In my reading, James Hosty was assigned by the FBI to track the Radical Right in Dallas -- but in the process James Hosty became a friend of Surrey and Walker.  (Penn Jones Jr. said that Hosty and Surrey were bridge partners for years.)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Paul,

Steve,

In my reading, the answer to your question was given in the WC testimony of FBI Assistant Director Alan Belmont.   IIRC, Alan Belmont said that in February, 1963, James Hosty requested that the FBI re-open the file on Lee Harvey Oswald, because Oswald had subscribed to "The Worker" newspaper, printed by the Communists. 

But Alan Belmont personally decided against it -- because it was no crime to subscribe to "The Worker" newspaper, and the FBI could not open a file on everybody who had a subscription to "The Worker."
--Paul Trejo

From Hosty's WC testimony:

On the 14th of March, I verified that Oswalds were residing at this address when I found the mailbox with the name of Lee and Marina Oswald at this address, 214 Neely Street.

So I then checked Lee Oswald's file, at which time I determined that he had a contact with the New York Daily Worker.
Mr. STERN. How did you learn that?
Mr. HOSTY. From our New York office. Our New York office sent a letter through to the Dallas office. This was the first time I had seen this letter.
Mr. STERN. This appeared in his file?
Mr. HOSTY. In his file; yes, sir.
Mr. STERN. Even if the case was closed, the file would continue to accumulate?
Mr. HOSTY. That is correct, and they are periodically rechecked for things of this nature.
I noticed it, and then because of the domestic difficulty and the fact that I knew I would be interviewing his wife in the near future, I requested that the case be reopened. I requested the supervisor in Dallas to reopen the case to me.

 

Mr. STERN. Was that in writing or verbally?
Mr. HOSTY. Actually, it was, it would appear in writing. I did this by sending a letter to the Bureau, to the FBI headquarters in Washington, setting forth the information I had developed, and then on our office copy I made a request that this case be reopened. This is a normal procedure that we go through when we open cases, or reopen cases.

 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hosty, did the letter from your New York office say what the nature of the con, tact with the Daily Worker was?
Mr. HOSTY. It said he was on the mailing list, sir, of the Daily Worker.
The CHAIRMAN. On the mailing list?
Mr. HOSTY. Yes, sir.

So, what you are saying I think, is that the FBI Headquarters allowed Hosty to re-open a closed case, just because he had subscribed to a newspaper, even though it was not their policy to do so.

 

Just out of curiosity. have you ever seen this letter from the New York Office? Or the request Hosty made to Headquarters, and their response?

 

Steve Thomas

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Just out of curiosity. have you ever seen this letter from the New York Office? Or the request Hosty made to Headquarters, and their response?

FBI FD-201 dated 9/10/63

The "drinking in excess" charge is curious in that everyone else that knew LHO, (including his wife), said that he didn't drink.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=97142#relPageId=2&tab=page

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2016 at 4:41 AM, Steve Thomas said:

From Hosty's WC testimony:

On the 14th of March, I verified that Oswalds were residing at this address when I found the mailbox with the name of Lee and Marina Oswald at this address, 214 Neely Street.

So I then checked Lee Oswald's file, at which time I determined that he had a contact with the New York Daily Worker.
Mr. STERN. How did you learn that?
Mr. HOSTY. From our New York office. Our New York office sent a letter through to the Dallas office. This was the first time I had seen this letter.
Mr. STERN. This appeared in his file?
Mr. HOSTY. In his file; yes, sir.
Mr. STERN. Even if the case was closed, the file would continue to accumulate?
Mr. HOSTY. That is correct, and they are periodically rechecked for things of this nature.
I noticed it, and then because of the domestic difficulty and the fact that I knew I would be interviewing his wife in the near future, I requested that the case be reopened. I requested the supervisor in Dallas to reopen the case to me.

Mr. STERN. Was that in writing or verbally?
Mr. HOSTY. Actually, it was, it would appear in writing. I did this by sending a letter to the Bureau, to the FBI headquarters in Washington, setting forth the information I had developed, and then on our office copy I made a request that this case be reopened. This is a normal procedure that we go through when we open cases, or reopen cases.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hosty, did the letter from your New York office say what the nature of the con, tact with the Daily Worker was?
Mr. HOSTY. It said he was on the mailing list, sir, of the Daily Worker.
The CHAIRMAN. On the mailing list?
Mr. HOSTY. Yes, sir.

So, what you are saying I think, is that the FBI Headquarters allowed Hosty to re-open a closed case, just because he had subscribed to a newspaper, even though it was not their policy to do so.

Just out of curiosity. have you ever seen this letter from the New York Office? Or the request Hosty made to Headquarters, and their response?

Steve Thomas

Steve,

Not exactly.  I was saying that Hosty requested to re-open the Oswald file in FEBRUARY 1963, because Oswald had subscribed to "The Worker" newspaper, and that no less an authority than FBI Assistant Director Alan Belmont told him "No way."   (Upon review, however, it was March and not February, 1963, as I show below.)

The citation that Chris Newton showed was from seven months later.   Hosty deliberately mixed up the dates to cover his tracks, IMHO.  Hosty persecuted LHO very early in 1963 because the Radical Right (Walker and Surrey) were outraged that folks from the USSR (Lee and Marina Oswald) were now living in Fort Worth, Texas.  

Here is Alan Belmont's actual WC testimony from May, 1964.

--------- BEGIN EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF ALAN BELMONT ----------------------------------

Mr. DULLES - As I recall from the testimony of your people yesterday, with regard to the situation in Dallas and later in New Orleans, that after the case was marked closed in Dallas, there was this incident in New Orleans of the distribution of the Fair Play for Cuba pamphlets...If you could clear that up for us I think it would be helpful. 

Mr. BELMONT - The agent, Fain at the time, who handled the case, closed the case after two interviews with Oswald, arriving at the conclusion that the purpose of our investigation of Oswald which was to determine whether he had been given an assignment by Soviet intelligence, had been served. He closed the case, as he felt there was no further action to be taken. The purpose had been satisfied. Headquarters agreed. In March 1963 Agent Hosty received information in Dallas to the effect that Oswald had been in communication with The Worker, the east coast Communist newspaper. He therefore re-instituted the case, and sent out a lead to check Oswald's employment. He also received information, as I recall it, that Oswald had been in communication with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, so there were two incidents that aroused his interest.  In June 1963 our New Orleans office likewise received information that Oswald had communicated with The Worker or was on a subscription list for The Worker. So that the case was revived in Dallas by Hosty. 

Mr. DULLES - That was even before what we call the New Orleans incident? 

Mr. BELMONT - Correct. 

Mr. DULLES - Yes. 

Mr. BELMONT - And he learned that Oswald had left Dallas, the residence was then picked up in New Orleans, and the case was revived. So that actually there was a joint revival of the case.  Then on August 9, 1963, Oswald was arrested by the New Orleans police in connection with a disturbance of the peace in passing out these pamphlets, which further aroused our interest. So that the reopening of the case after the closing was due to these incidents that I have mentioned. 

Mr. DULLES - Thank you. So that at the time of the assassination, this was an open and not a closed case as regards the Dallas office. 

Mr. BELMONT - That is correct. At the time that Oswald was found to be living in New Orleans, and this was definitely established that he was actually residing there, the Dallas office in accordance with the procedure that I mentioned, transferred the case to New Orleans as office of origin.  Subsequently, the case was again transferred back to Dallas when it was determined that Oswald was again residing in the Dallas area. 

--------- END EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF ALAN BELMONT ----------------------------------

It was not only James Hosty who played the shell game with the dates here, in order to confuse the issue in CYA mode, but Alan Belmont himself did this, too.

The ambiguity arises over the dates when the FPCC was involved.  Alan Belmont tries to imply that was also in March, 1963 as well, but he would not commit, and he was not pressed for documentation.  But the cat was out of the bag.  James Hosty asked to re-open the LHO case back in March, 1963.  This was eight months before LHO returned to Dallas from Mexico City, and six months before LHO's arrest in NOLA.

Notice that the Oswald FBI file was re-opened in August, 1963, even though James Hosty had requested a re-opening back in March, 1963.  There is even more WC testimony on this point.  Even J. Edgar Hoover himself remarked about this.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

James Hosty himself confirms this date of March, 1963, in his early 1963 pursuit of LHO and Marina Oswald.  Here's part of his testimony:

--------- BEGIN EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF JAMES HOSTY ----------------------------------

Mr. HOSTY.  ... I might add that it is the practice of the FBI to interview immigrants from behind the Iron Curtain on a selective basis, and she was so selected to be one of these persons to be interviewed. 
Mr. STERN. When was this? 
Mr. HOSTY. This was March 4, 1963, when I began my inquiry as to her present whereabouts. I determined on March 4, 1963, through the Immigration and Naturalization Service records that she had moved from Fort Worth to the Dallas area. She was living on a street called Elsbeth Street in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. 
Mr. STERN. What happened in connection with the case of Lee Harvey Oswald? 
Mr. HOSTY. This case was closed at this time. It was closed.   On March 11, 1963, I made inquiry at this Elsbeth address, and determined from the landlady, I believe her name was Mrs. Tobias, that she had just evicted Lee and Marina Oswald from her apartment building because of their alleged fighting...They caused a disturbance and she had asked him to leave on March 3, 1963. She told me they had moved a short distance away. She didn't know where. On that same date, I was able to determine from the postal authorities that they had changed their address to 214 Neely Street, also in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas.  On the 14th of March, I verified that Oswalds were residing at this address when I found the mailbox with the name of Lee and Marina Oswald at this address, 214 Neely Street. Now, because of the alleged marital difficulties they were having, I, in my judgment, decided this was not the time to interview Mrs. Oswald, but to allow a certain cooling off period. So I then checked Lee Oswald's file, at which time I determined that he had a contact with the New York Daily Worker
Mr. STERN. How did you learn that? 
Mr. HOSTY. From our New York office. Our New York office sent a letter through to the Dallas office. This was the first time I had seen this letter. 
Mr. STERN. This appeared in his file? 
Mr. HOSTY. In his file; yes, sir. 
Mr. STERN. Even if the case was closed, the file would continue to accumulate? 
Mr. HOSTY. That is correct, and they are periodically rechecked for things of this nature.  I noticed it, and then because of the domestic difficulty and the fact that I knew I would be interviewing his wife in the near future, I requested that the case be reopened. I requested the supervisor in Dallas to reopen the case to me. 
Mr. STERN. Was that in writing or verbally? 
Mr. HOSTY. Actually, it was, it would appear in writing. I did this by sending a letter to the Bureau, to the FBI headquarters in Washington, setting forth the information I had developed, and then on our office copy I made a request that this case be reopened. This is a normal procedure that we go through when we open cases, or reopen cases. 
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hosty, did the letter from your New York office say what the nature of the contact with the Daily Worker was? 
Mr. HOSTY. It said he was on the mailing list, sir, of the Daily Worker
The CHAIRMAN. On the mailing list? 
Mr. HOSTY. Yes, sir. 
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. 
Mr. HOSTY. Then, like I say, I made a judgment that it would be best not to interview Mrs. Oswald at this time until there was a certain cooling off of their domestic difficulty, because it is not wise to interview a person of that type under a strain.  So I set it up that I would go back and recheck in 45 days. This was not highly urgent at the time. We had waited a period of time, and it wouldn't hurt to wait another 45 days. When I went back to check again in May, the middle of May, I found out that they had moved from their Neely Street address and had left no forwarding address. 

-------- END EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF JAMES HOSTY ----------------------------------

So, there is the date -- March, 1963.  Also, there is Hosty's motive for re-opening the LHO case file closed by FBI agent John Fain, namely, that LHO had subscribed to the Worker newspaper.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
emphasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, here is a small snippet from the WC testimony of J. Edgar Hoover:

Mr. HOOVER.  ... There are many people who read the Daily Worker, or what is now the Worker, and you certainly can't brand them as hazards to the security of the country or as potential assassins. It is in that area that I am particularly concerned that we don't become hysterical and go too far in restricting the citizens of our country from exercising their civil and Constitutional rights. The mere fact a person disagrees with you in a matter on Communism doesn't mean he should be arrested. Many Communists make very violent speeches, and we know them, but I don't feel that the time has come that they should be arrested...

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hosty says, " I requested that the case be reopened. I requested the supervisor in Dallas to reopen the case to me. "

Mr. STERN. Was that in writing or verbally?
Mr. HOSTY. Actually, it was, it would appear in writing. I did this by sending a letter to the Bureau, to the FBI headquarters in Washington

I made a request that this case be reopened

 

Belmont says, " In March 1963 Agent Hosty received information in Dallas to the effect that Oswald had been in communication with The Worker, the east coast Communist newspaper. He therefore re-instituted the case..."

So that the case was revived in Dallas by Hosty. 

And he learned that Oswald had left Dallas, the residence was then picked up in New Orleans, and the case was revived. So that actually there was a joint revival of the case

 

Hosty says he made a request. Belmont says he did it on his own. 

I don't know............... something doesn't feel right here. I don't think Hosty would have had that authority. From what I've been able to glean in reading through FBI reports on other things, Hoover didn't want his agents chasing their tails.

 

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Hosty says, " I requested that the case be reopened. I requested the supervisor in Dallas to reopen the case to me. "

Mr. STERN. Was that in writing or verbally?
Mr. HOSTY. Actually, it was, it would appear in writing. I did this by sending a letter to the Bureau, to the FBI headquarters in Washington.  I made a request that this case be reopened

Belmont says, " In March 1963 Agent Hosty received information in Dallas to the effect that Oswald had been in communication with The Worker, the east coast Communist newspaper. He therefore re-instituted the case..."  So that the case was revived in Dallas by Hosty.  And he learned that Oswald had left Dallas, the residence was then picked up in New Orleans, and the case was revived. So that actually there was a joint revival of the case

Hosty says he made a request. Belmont says he did it on his own. 

I don't know............... something doesn't feel right here. I don't think Hosty would have had that authority. From what I've been able to glean in reading through FBI reports on other things, Hoover didn't want his agents chasing their tails.

Steve Thomas

Steve,

I think you're on the right track.   Let's give the FBI a little leeway here, though, in terms of language.  They could mean that Hosty originated the request to re-open the Oswald case, and FBI HQ approved the request.   So, one could briefly summarize the events by saying that "Hosty re-opened the case."

My point is that Hosty began to persecute LHO in March, 1963, for subscribing to the Worker newspaper.  

Here is the sequence: (1) Hosty allegedly responded to an INS policy to randomly select Iron-Curtain immigrants for interrogation, and he selected Marina Oswald; (2) Hosty got a report from FBI HQ that LHO had subscribed to the Worker newspaper; and (3) Hosty requested that the FBI re-open the Oswald file in March, 1963.

In his WC testimony, however, J. Edgar Hoover saw it this way:

Mr. HOOVER. ...Now, we interviewed Oswald a few days after he arrived...We interviewed him twice...We had no indication at this time of anything other than his so-called Marxist leanings, Marxist beliefs.  We wanted to know whether he had been recruited by the Soviet government as an intelligence agent, which is a frequent and constant practice...After those interviews had been completed, the next incident was the difficulty he had at New Orleans.

In other words, Hoover's total control over the Oswald case recollected that FBI agent John Fain closed the case in August 1962, and "the next incident" was when Oswald himself called the FBI on himself in New Orleans, after his arrest in connection with the FPCC, in August, 1963 -- exactly one year later.

It seems that nobody in the FBI was interested in Oswald except James Hosty during that year.  Hosty's interest in the Oswalds was mild, according to Hosty himself; and he never actually made contact with either Lee nor Marina in Dallas in early 1963.   The next thing he learned was that the New Orleans FBI was the "primary" on the case.

However -- there was some extra activity on the Oswald case in the meantime, according to Hosty himself.   Here is more of his WC testimony:

----------------- BEGIN EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF JAMES HOSTY -----------------------

Mr. STERN. The last paragraph on [page 2 of CE 829]  relates--well, tell us what information that refers to. 
Mr. HOSTY. It says, "On April 21, 1963, Dallas confidential informant T-2 advised that Lee H. Oswald of Dallas, Texas, was in contact with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New York City at which time he advised that he passed out pamphlets for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. According to T-2, Oswald had a placard around his neck reading, 'Hands Off Cuba, Viva Fidel.'" 
Mr. STERN. Did you attempt to verify that information? 
Mr. HOSTY. When I got it, it was approximately 6 or 7 weeks old, past the date it allegedly took place, and we had received no information to the effect that anyone had been in the downtown streets of Dallas or anywhere in Dallas with a sign around their neck saying "Hands Off Cuba, Viva Fidel." It appeared highly unlikely to me that such an occurrence could have happened in Dallas without having been brought to our attention. So by the time I got it, it was, you might say, stale information and we did not attempt to verify it. 
Mr. STERN. When you record this as something that an informant advised about on April 21, that doesn't mean he advised you or the Dallas office on April 21? 
Mr. HOSTY. That is right. 
Mr. STERN. Did this information come from another part of the FBI? 
Mr. HOSTY. Yes, sir; it came from the New York office of the FBI. They were advised on the 21st of April. 
Mr. STERN. But the information didn't get to you until some time after? 
Mr. HOSTY. In June, I believe. 
Mr. STERN. Did you have any information apart from this that there was an organization active in the Dallas area called, "The Fair Play for Cuba Committee"? 
Mr. HOSTY. No, sir; we had no information of any organization by that name. 
Mr. STERN. Had you at this time ever heard of such an organization? 
Mr. HOSTY. Yes, sir; I had. 
Mr. STERN. In what connection? 
Mr. HOSTY. The New York office had advised all offices of the FBI to be on the alert for the possible formation of chapters of this organization which was headquartered in New York. 
Mr. STERN. Had you investigated the Dallas area in that connection? 
Mr. HOSTY. We had checked our sources, I had and other agents assigned to the internal security division had checked sources. We were on the alert for it. 
Mr. STERN. And you found what? 
Mr. HOSTY. We found no evidence that there was any such organization in Dallas. 

----------------- END EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF JAMES HOSTY -----------------------

The accusation that LHO was involved in the FPCC in Dallas during April, 1963 (which Hosty dismissed) came from confidential informant "T-2."

Who was "T-2" ?    I am going to suspect that T-2 was Robert Alan Surrey -- the bridge partner of James Hosty (according to Penn Jones Jr.)   Who else would falsely accuse LHO of FPCC activity months before the 544 Camp Street period?

I further suspect that James Hosty originally began to track Marina Oswald and LHO in March 1963 at the recommendation of General Walker and Robert Alan Surrey.  

Why do I name these two characters?  Because of their WC testimony.   Have you read Robert Alan Surrey's WC testimony?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...