Jump to content
The Education Forum

What does OSI stand for?


Steve Thomas
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was reading through an FBI report on the Minutemen in Dallas, and at the end of it, it says, "INTC, OSI and the Secret Service has been advised..."

I'm pretty sure that the INTC is the 112th Intelligence Corps, but can anyone tell me what the OSI stands for? The closest I can figure out is the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations, but I'm not sure that's right.

 

BTW, this is an interesting little memo:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=136065#relPageId=4&tab=page

 

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,  OSI is almost certainly AFOSI or Air Force Office of Special Investigations.  INTC is probably Army Intelligence Corps although that is something of an uncommon usage since its normally Military Intel Corps or MIC.  It might be going to the 112th but it might also be going to a higher headquarters. AFOSI would have had a regional office at the time, not in Dallas.

Its is a local FBI office memo out of Dallas or an FBI HQ memo, that would probably give a clue as to where it was really going.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Steve,  OSI is almost certainly AFOSI or Air Force Office of Special Investigations.  INTC is probably Army Intelligence Corps although that is something of an uncommon usage since its normally Military Intel Corps or MIC.  It might be going to the 112th but it might also be going to a higher headquarters. AFOSI would have had a regional office at the time, not in Dallas.

Its is a local FBI office memo out of Dallas or an FBI HQ memo, that would probably give a clue as to where it was really going.

 

Larry,

 

Thanks for your reply. In looking into this a little bit, I agree that the OSI referred to in this memo was the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations, which opens up a whole 'nuther area of research. It makes me want to re-think the whole "Secret Service on the Knoll" thingy.

 

I wonder if anyone has ever filed a FOIA request with that office for any files they may have related to JFK's visit to Dallas since they had a Presidential Protection role, and any investigation they undertook in its aftermath. If the 112th was indeed ordered to stand down, I wonder if the Air Force's OSI received the same orders.

see p. 4 of CD 852 (Section 1-6-3)

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11249&search=OSI#relPageId=44&tab=page

 

I was looking at another memo where instructions were being relayed to a Lt. Col. James Schofield  of the OSI's 23rd District Office at Carswell Air Force Base, Fort Worth, requesting an FBI investigation of Max Clark in 1952. (He who welcomed Oswald to Forth Worth on his return from the USSR).

From what I can tell, the 112th was constituted, and re-constituted several times in its career, and from what I gather, from 1961 - 1966 it was constituted as the Intelligence Corps Group, with the "Group" part often left off in correspondance.

 

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, first off I would refer you to the actual mission of the OSI, they like an Army military intelligence group would have had no role in Presidential protection unless it involved a visit to a military facility or some relatively remote location where the military was involved in logistics for the trip.  The whole 112th stand down is truly in the class of a JFK myth; all I can do in that regard is to refer you to the ARRB inquiry into it, the related internal memos and their extended voluntary interview with Fletcher Prouty.  Much of that should be online now; I put it all into my CD Keys to the Conspiracy offered by Lancer years ago.

On the other hand, AFOSI as well as Army intelligence at the Regional level and for matter the Naval Investigative Service were all charged with background security checks and were routinely copied with information about groups ranging from the FPCC to the KKK.  You find that relatively commonly in FBI CC's on reports, especially at the local field office level.

Actually Army intelligence at all levels was frequently reorganized and re-designated as Army Groups themselves were restructured during overseas combat and following consolidations.  Group designations changed frequently; same for OSI and its various groups. I happen to be working on the Air Force now and tracing any particular group over the decades is a major chore, although easier with all the military history and unit sites, than it used to be.

Back to the document in question, given that both military intel groups and the FBI were involved in personal background checks and security clearances, the memo in question is pretty standard practice.  It was not at all  unusual to find the FBI involved with assisting in higher level security clearances for the military as well as the AEC.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Steve, first off I would refer you to the actual mission of the OSI, they like an Army military intelligence group would have had no role in Presidential protection unless it involved a visit to a military facility or some relatively remote location where the military was involved in logistics for the trip.

 

Larry,

 

What I had in mind was that Section 1-6-3 of the manual for "Protection Coverage For Distinguished Visitors" where it says with respect to the President of the United States,  that "Armed OSI Agents may actively participate in this protection regardless of the locale."

 

and

 

"Approval is not required...."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11249&search=OSI#relPageId=44&tab=page

 

Section 1-6-6 of that Manual says that protection of Distinguished Visitors would only exist on air bases, or aboard a USAF aircraft (except as set forth in paragraph 1-6-3 (the President).

 

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, the military may indeed be called upon for security; if it involves their own facilities it is routine and involves no special request.  This was discussed at length in the ARRB background work on the 112th, in interviews with their personnel and by reviewing the groups operations manuals.  There were some instances in the Fall where military help was requested, primarily on the conservation tour.  However those normally related to locations where there was not a major law enforcement presence. In that regard any call for support to OSI would be the same as the MIG, if it involves a base or a facility or transport from a landing site to a base you would expect to see them involved.

Beyond that they could actually be called on for support by the Secret Service, but that would require a request and coordination.  If you go through the transcripts and records of the Lawson/Puterbaugh planning meetings for Dallas you will find that did not, in fact there was not even a request for support beyond the DPD - specifically the Sheriff's office was not asked to participate.  

Study of the ARRB work on this issue is critical for understanding the confusion, including the fact that the HSCA called the wrong MIG officer to interview, Jones was intel at the time, not operations.  They should have called the operations officer who would have been able to speak to any actual deployment of personnel.  Even better they should have called the head of the Dallas MIG office. It is true that Jone's local contacts in Dallas, the Dallas field office were active that day but after the fact, you can see that in his communications and the info that is being passed back and forth.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Study of the ARRB work on this issue is critical for understanding the confusion, including the fact that the HSCA called the wrong MIG office to interview, Jones was intel at the time, not operations.  They should have called the operations officer who would have been able to speak to any actual deployment of personnel.  Even better they should have called the head of the Dallas MIG office. It is true that Jone's local contacts in Dallas, the Dallas field office were active that day but after the fact, you can see that in his communications and the info that is being passed back and forth.

 

 

 

 

Larry,

 

"Study of the ARRB work on this issue is critical for understanding the confusion, including the fact that the HSCA called the wrong MIG office to interview,..."

 

Yes, if I've learned nothing else, I've learned that understanding command and control, and the proper chain of command and responsibility is crucial for discovering the flow of information.

 

I was reading through the "Agreement for Coordination in the Investigation of all Activities Under the Categories of Espionage, etc." worked out between the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the FBI which was originally drafted in 1949 and later revised from time to time with "Supplements", starting on page 27 of CD 852.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11249#relPageId=30&tab=page

 

What fascinating reading!

 

I have much studying to do.

 

PS: I had two other questions:

 

1) When Robert Jones first started testifying, he was handed something called "JFK Exhibit no. 94". Would you know what that was, and how I can locate a copy?

2) Have you ever had a chance to look at the records in the Central Records Facility (which I'm assuming is or was at either Fort Holabird or Fort Meade?) - he said that was where the 112th after-action report might be, or the "Vault Files" that Jones referred to on pp. 47 and 48 of his testimony?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/unpub_testimony/Jones_4-20-78/html/jones_0047a.htm

 

Jones suggested to the HSCA that they look there, but I can't tell, (at least based on the transcript of that session) if they followed up on his suggestion.

 

Thanks,

Steve Thomas

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the first question, it appears that JFK#94 is Oswald's unpublished manuscript:

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_94.pd

The obvious question is why give that to Jones?  The answer may be that they asked Jones a lot of questions about intelligence work, and about "spying", including his opinions on Oswald as an intelligence asset.  Almost all of that was outside Jone's experience - although he answered anyway - and above his pay grade not to mention in regard to matters which would have fallen either outside military intelligence or with counter intelligence at best. They were questions that should have been asked of the CIA or even the subversive unit of the FBI.  Which brings up the point once again that most of the staff in these investigations really had virtually no backgrounds for this sort of inquiry and should have had recourse to consultants to at least point them in the right direction as to both witnesses and questions.   Much of Jones' testimony is so far outside his expertise I sometimes wonder if calling him rather than more relevant witnesses was just stupid or actually a diversion.  Why not call the MIG people in Dallas if you are asking questions about 112th people in the Plaza, the ones the ARRB interviewed decades later?

As to the Central Records Facility, it would have been at Fort Holabird but the records there were central files on personnel security investigations, the major mission of intelligence groups like the 112th.  Any personnel security investigation file on Oswald would have been with the Navy or Marines.  As far as Jones response, a reference to those files doesn't make much sense to me.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ni7gk3-iY-EC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=army+central+records+facility&source=bl&ots=sOFOP_wBDV&sig=flVnA2RN0gIFkDzPoy-59rc2oLc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih-qvdw8bQAhWL54MKHYKcDLIQ6AEIWTAJ#v=onepage&q=army%20central%20records%20facility&f=false

On an after action report, that is interesting since a report of that sort might have been written if there had been some specially requested field deployment but such a report would have been retained at the local MIG office in Dallas or at headquarters in San Antonio.  Since at one point in time Jones had served as ops officer for the 112th he should have known exactly where such files would be - but of course if there had been no security deployment there would be no after action report.

The ARRB did interview the commander of the 112th and its records and found nothing of that nature - that's another story in itself but fortunately its in the internal files and available. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

On the first question, it appears that JFK#94 is Oswald's unpublished manuscript:

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_94.pd

The obvious question is why give that to Jones?  The answer may be that they asked Jones a lot of questions about intelligence work, and about "spying", including his opinions on Oswald as an intelligence asset.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Larry,

 

Thank you for your help. I appreciate it.

 

But, I think I found (sort of) what JFK Exhibit no. 94 was.

I haven't actually read it yet, but 94 seems to be a blanket letter used to release various government officials from their oaths of secrecy. The same # 94 was a letter from CIA Deputy Director Frank Carlucci to the Chairman of the House Select Committee on Assassinations releasing E.Howard Hunt and Richard Helms, the Tarasoffs and others at the beginning of their HSCA testimonies. Carlucci was Deputy Director of the CIA from 1978–1981, under CIA Director Stansfield Turner.

 

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That certainly makes sense given that it was handed to him initially;  its interesting that it bears the same number as an actual  CE JFK document exhibit item related to Oswald, as you can see from the link i provided.  Just a curiosity of course.  My comments on a number of the Oswald related intelligence questions asked of Jones still stand though....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

On an after action report, that is interesting since a report of that sort might have been written if there had been some specially requested field deployment but such a report would have been retained at the local MIG office in Dallas or at headquarters in San Antonio.  Since at one point in time Jones had served as ops officer for the 112th he should have known exactly where such files would be - but of course if there had been no security deployment there would be no after action report.

The ARRB did interview the commander of the 112th and its records and found nothing of that nature - that's another story in itself but fortunately its in the internal files and available.

 

Larry,

 

I think that without coming right out and saying so, Jones was telling the HSCA that the files at Fort Sam Houston had been purged. I believe they were purged in the wake of Christopher Pyle's, testifying before Sam Ervin's Senate Subcommittee on Consti­tutional Rights. See:

http://www.cmhpf.org/Random Files/senator sam ervin.htm

 

See especially footnotes 20, 21 and 22 of the above article.

and a discussion on this Forum called, "The Oswald Files" here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/3155-the-oswald-files/

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

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...