Craig Carvalho Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) Among the newly released JFK documents there is an interview of retired FBI agent James P. Hosty by fellow retired agent Jack O'Flaherty of the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI. The interview occurred on March 8, 2006. I found this passage of particular interest as I had never come across it anywhere in my prior research. On page two Hosty is relating to Flaherty the progression of the Oswald investigation prior to the assassination. "I got the case in October of 1963, one month before the assassination, lucky me. I never did interview Oswald until he was arrested. Now one of the criticisms of the Warren Commission was that I should have interviewed him. If they had bothered to ask me which they didn't, I could have told them I was forbidden to interview Oswald because he was a contact case." "As you all know, in 105 contact cases, when they contact the Soviet Embassy, you may not interview them without specific permission. In this case, I am sure it would never have been granted because the CIA was involved. They were the ones that came up with the information about Oswald talking to the Soviets. They would have never, ever given permission because this was a new technique and it would have blown all sorts of cover down in Mexico City and would have serious repercussions in the Mexican government if they had gotten wind that the CIA was being allowed to monitor the Soviet Embassy." Perhaps this is revealed in Hosty's book Assignment Oswald. Regardless, I will definitely be putting this on my list of publications "to be read". Thought those of you who were also unaware of this fact might find it of interest. Regards, Craig C. Edited April 3, 2018 by Craig Carvalho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 37 minutes ago, Craig Carvalho said: Among the newly released JFK documents there is an interview of retired FBI agent James P. Hosty by fellow retired agent Jack O'Flaherty of the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI. The interview occurred on March 8, 2006. I found this passage of particular interest as I had never come across it anywhere in my prior research. Craig, If people want to read that interview, they can find it here: http://www.nleomf.org/assets/pdfs/nlem/oral-histories/FBI_Hosty_interview.pdf "So that’s where the confusion was. We had the address at Irving. I knew I could find him at Irving. As I say, the Warren Commission in re-writing criticized mefor not finding where he was living and going out and talking to him. I knew where I could find him. I could have interviewed him any time I wanted to but I was forbidden, but that’s, we’ve already gone through that." Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 52 minutes ago, Craig Carvalho said: I was forbidden to interview Oswald because he was a contact case." "As you all know, in 105 contact cases, when they contact the Soviet Embassy, you may not interview them without specific permission. Craig, I am just going on a hunch, but I think Hosty is referring to case files that start out with 105- For example: FBI Oswald Headquarters File (105-82555) FBI Oswald Mexico City File (105-3702) https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/JFK_Documents_-_FBI.html The main FBI Assassination file is a 62 case number FBI JFK Assassination File (62-109060) The anti-Castro case numbers had a 109 case file number FBI Anti-Castro and Cuba-related files in 109 series I don't know enough to know what other 105 cases were out there. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Carvalho Posted April 3, 2018 Author Share Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) Thanks Steve. I will definitely be following up on this. I'm also going to check my copy of Oswald and the CIA as John Newman seems to be the expert on decoding these reference numbers. Perhaps he mentions the "105 contact" case, and at the time it simply meant little to me when reading it. Thanks also for providing the links! Edited April 3, 2018 by Craig Carvalho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 2 hours ago, Craig Carvalho said: Thanks Steve. I will definitely be following up on this. I'm also going to check my copy of Oswald and the CIA as John Newman seems to be the expert on decoding these reference numbers. Perhaps he mentions the "105 contact" case, and at the time it simply meant little to me when reading it. Thanks also for providing the links! Craig, What got me thinking about it is that Hosty used the word "cases", as in more than one. But, like I said, I'm just guessing. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) Thanks to Craig Carvalho for more information about the CIA and FBI in this case. This new information shouldn't be seen in a vacuum. As many here know all too well, the FBI took Oswald off the watch list, managed by its “WANTED NOTICE” cards, at the very same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health, just a couple of months after his New Orleans arrest for alleged violence in support of Communist Cuba and just six weeks before the assassination. These two actions effectively took the federal spotlight off “Lee Harvey Oswald.” The WC didn’t even bother to depose the Division 5 guy (Gheesling) who ordered the FBI's flash cancellation. “Lee Harvey Oswald” had been on that list for nearly four years, since the “defection.” Now that he was taken off it, he’d no longer be under FBI and SS surveillance on 11/22. At the very same time the FBI was taking “Lee Harvey Oswald” off the watch list, the CIA was publishing several confusing things about him. Responding to a query from the Mexico City station, four CIA officers signed a cable giving lots of accurate biographical data on our boy but calling him “Lee Henry Oswald.” The three page cable expressed no security concerns whatsoever about Oswald and, in fact, indicated the Moscow embassy felt “life in the Soviet Union had clearly had maturing effect on Oswald.” Nothing to worry about here! This cable was signed by Jane Roman (Angleton’s assistant), William Hood (also close to Angleton), Thomas Karamessines (assistant to Helms) and John Whitten who, according to Jefferson Morley, was the only CIA officer of the four signers who suffered any adverse consequences for this troubling cable. John Armstrong believes that Angleton ran the Oswald Project. At the same time the FBI was taking “Lee Harvey Oswald” off the watch list, the CIA was giving “Lee Henry Oswald” (biographical data mostly matching LHO’s official biography) a clean bill of political health in the infamous cable of 10/10/63 (see above). It was now no longer officially necessary for the FBI to monitor “Oswald’s” activities in Dallas. And the Secret Service would no longer be expected to investigate him prior to a presidential visit to Dallas. Although “Lee Harvey Oswald” had been arrested for a supposedly violent confrontation in support of Fidel Castro in New Orleans just two months earlier, the entire National Security apparatus of our Federal government now seemed to just stop worrying about him. What happened next, of course, has been documented by scores of writers and filmmakers for more than half a century. “Lee Harvey Oswald,” or more likely someone who looked like him, began making all kinds of appearances in and around Dallas. These appearances were clearly designed to attract attention. Edited April 4, 2018 by Jim Hargrove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Carvalho Posted April 3, 2018 Author Share Posted April 3, 2018 2 hours ago, Steve Thomas said: Craig, What got me thinking about it is that Hosty used the word "cases", as in more than one. But, like I said, I'm just guessing. Steve Thomas Absolutely. Point taken Steve. What I am most interested in now is exactly what the criteria would be for such a designation(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Carvalho Posted April 3, 2018 Author Share Posted April 3, 2018 Hello Jim, I thought of the same thing... the timing of the canceled "Flash" on Oswald. I knew it had followed Mexico City, but I couldn't recall offhand the exact date or who had signed off on it. Thanks so much for filling in the specifics on that. I really need to archive more documents on my computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 Please humor my current interest in James McCord Jr. when I note that, on October 16, 1963, it was deemed necessary to swear this CIA officer to secrecy; noting that during his previous 14 months with A "Q" clearance from the Atomic Energy Commission it was not deemed necessary. "In 1961, and under James McCord's direction, a counter-intelligence program was launched against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee." Wikipedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 to Michael Clark.... Raw PDF files will not display on this forum's software. Please show us the docs you have by simply converting (exporting) them from PDFs to GIFs or to JPG graphic formats. It is easy to do this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: to Michael Clark.... Raw PDF files will not display on this forum's software. Please show us the docs you have by simply converting (exporting) them from PDFs to GIFs or to JPG graphic formats. It is easy to do this! Thanks for the heads-up Jim! They appear on my iPad as if they are document images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) I just used the insert URL tool, edited-in, above. Did that work? here are links, in case that did not work. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10123-10377.pdf https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10124-10007.pdf Edited April 4, 2018 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 Here is a link to multiple Archive docs on McCord https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/2017-release?page=419&_ga=2.18593977.1657956965.1509547456-224044424.1509547456&sort=desc&order=Num Pages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaleen Kilroy Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 Great thread! Very useful information. I like discussions like this that move the case forward in a fact-based way and don’t go down the proverbial rabbit holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 5 hours ago, Craig Carvalho said: Absolutely. Point taken Steve. What I am most interested in now is exactly what the criteria would be for such a designation(s). Craig, I don't know if this will help you in your search but, John Fain's July 3, 1961 Report on Oswald is given Dallas Field Office File# 100-10461 and Bureau File# as 105-82555 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10409&search=Fain_July+3%2C+1961#relPageId=3&tab=page Hosty's September 10, 1963 Report on Oswald is given Dallas Field Office File# 100-10461 and Bureau File # 105-82555 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10412&search=Hosty#relPageId=2&tab=page The 100 designation seems to be a local thing, and the 105 is a national thing. A lot of documents from different agencies were routed to the 105-82555 file. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now