Video of Curry speaking in 1963 AND 1975 saying the FBI knew of Oswald before 11/22/63

[Vince Palamara]

 

[Bill Fite]

Thanks for posting these videos on YouTube. 

They are very interesting and informative.

 

[Vince Palamara]

15 minutes ago, Bill Fite said:

Thanks for posting these videos on YouTube. 

They are very interesting and informative.

 

You're welcome!

[Joseph McBride]

Oswald was an FBI informant. He had met with the FBI in Dallas

two or perhaps three times in November 1963 before

the assassination. Oswald had infiltrated the plot but

did not know he was being set up as the patsy.

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Oswald was an FBI informant. He had met with the FBI in Dallas

two or perhaps three times in November 1963 before

the assassination. Oswald had infiltrated the plot but

did not know he was being set up as the patsy.

If this is true, how do you explain his interactions with Agent Hosty?

[Mark Knight]

The truth is, the ONLY knowledge we have of the interaction between Oswald and Hosty comes from Hosty.

One must trust Hosty to NEVER lie or mislead, if we are to believe his reports of his interactions with Oswald are 100% true and not intended to mislead.

I'm not sure whether I'm ready to go that far for an FBI agent who destroyed evidence [the Oswald note] after the assassination.

 

[Micah Mileto]

The FBI knew about Timothy McVeigh before the Oklahoma City Bombing. A racing fuel dealer caught McVeigh telling a fake cover story and reported him.

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Oswald was an FBI informant. He had met with the FBI in Dallas

two or perhaps three times in November 1963 before

the assassination. Oswald had infiltrated the plot but

did not know he was being set up as the patsy.

 

What evidence is there that Oswald infiltrated the plot? That's news to me... with the exception of Nagell informing Oswald of the  plot IIRC.

[Joseph McBride]

That seems a logical conclusion from his repeated meetings

with the FBI in the run-up to the assassination and other

information, as well as from his well-placed

position on the motorcade route. Here are two sections from my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE:

 

THE FBI COVERS MORE OF ITS TRACKS

 

The delicate matter of the FBI’s possible relationship with Oswald, which caused Agent Hosty to destroy the note he claimed Oswald had left at the Dallas office around November 12, was exacerbated on November 24 when Jim Ewell of the Dallas Morning News reported that Oswald 

 

"was interviewed by the FBI here six days before the Friday assassination.

"But word of the interview with the former defector to Russia was not conveyed to the U.S. Secret Service and Dallas police, reliable sources told The Dallas News Saturday.

"An FBI agent referred all inquiries to Agent-in-Charge Gordon Shanklin, who could not be immediately reached for comment.

"However, in Washington, a spokesman for the FBI said it was 'incorrect' that the FBI had questioned Oswald or had him under surveillance at any time in recent months, the Associated Press reported. The interview reportedly was held Nov. 16 -- at a time when the Secret Service and police officials were coordinating security plans for the President’s ill-fated Dallas visit. These sources said the Oswald interview added more data to an already “thick file” the FBI has on the 24-year-old avowed Marxist who defected to Russia in 1959 and returned in 1962."

 

Later the same morning that report hit the streets, Oswald was killed. And still later that day, Hosty’s supervisor, the same Gordon Shanklin, ordered him to destroy the note from Oswald. A lot was at risk in the frantic attempts to dispose of Oswald and cover up whatever relationship the FBI had with him. What was in jeopardy was the whole house of cards surrounding the assassination, the developing cover story of Oswald as a “loner” who conceived and carried out his scheme to kill the president with no apparent political motive, or, indeed, no discernable motive of any kind. What Scott describes as part of the “phase-two” story was fast being implemented, the denial that Oswald was in cahoots with the USSR or Cuba and portraying him instead as a loner with vague communist sympathies that were not of the nature to lead the U.S. into a retaliatory war.

The same Dallas Morning News article that morning about Oswald’s November 16 interview with the FBI carried Chief Curry’s retraction of his statement about the bureau withholding information from the police. But according to Ray and Mary La Fontaine in their 1996 book Oswald Talked: The New Evidence in the JFK Assassination, reporter Ewell told them that Curry himself “and his police intelligence unit” were the “reliable sources” who leaked that piece of embarrassing information (or falsehood) about the FBI to the newspaper. The chief evidently felt the lack of cooperation his department had received from the bureau contributed to making the Dallas police look worse than unprofessional in the eyes of the world when the president was killed. Nothing, however, could make the police look more incompetent or corrupt than allowing their prisoner to be murdered on live network television while handcuffed to two detectives and surrounded by dozens of other officers in the basement of the police headquarters.

But with the reputation of the nation’s most prominent law enforcement agency, the FBI, in equally serious jeopardy, the report of its November 16 interview with Oswald seemed to magically vanish from the accumulating public record of the assassination, rarely being mentioned again except in an occasional book such as the LaFontaines’ or Scott’s Deep Politics II. Later, another story emerged that may or may not have been connected with a contact between Oswald and the FBI on November 16. It was reported that at 1:45 a.m. on November 17, a clerk in the FBI’s New Orleans office, William S. Walter, received an “URGENT” Teletype sent to all Special Agents in Charge from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover warning of a possible threat to assassinate President Kennedy in Dallas on November 22 by a “MILITANT REVOLUTIONARY GROUP.” Walter later made a copy of the Teletype from notes he said he had taken from it; he added before that phrase, “CUBAN FACTION.”

The FBI denied the existence of the Teletype, but the LaFontaines, who report Walter’s belief that Oswald was an FBI informant, speculate that the urgent warning may have stemmed from a tip provided by Oswald in the November 16 interview. They raise the possibility that the gunrunning investigation involving the Treasury Department and the FBI, in which Oswald also may have been an informant, could have become intertangled with this assassination warning in the eyes of the FBI. With some of the documentation destroyed or otherwise missing, including any original copies of the Teletype Walter said he received, it’s impossible to pinpoint exactly what kind of warning Oswald might have been passing along to the FBI.  The possibility that this tip came from Oswald echoes the report that an FBI informant named “Lee” had passed along the warning that caused President Kennedy’s Chicago trip on November 2 to be canceled because of the threat of an assassination attempt.

 

THE WADE REVELATION

 

The FBI’s jeopardy over its relationship with Oswald could have been even worse if Henry Wade had told the media in 1963 what he told me three decades later. The former Dallas County district attorney revealed a piece of information that, if true, would be an indication of an deeper relationship between Oswald and the FBI than has ever been acknowledged. A former FBI agent himself, Wade told me in 1993 that Oswald may have given information to the FBI only a day or two before the assassination.

“We weren’t getting much -- full cooperation from some of the federal authorities,” Wade said. “You know Jack Revill said when he walked into the jail up there, an agent of the FBI said, ‘We know Oswald well. I talked with him yesterday.’ Or something similar to that. And then it got into a big fuss with the FBI and the Dallas police, [over] who was telling the truth. Hosty’s the agent.” I asked Wade to clarify if Hosty indeed said he talked with Oswald the day before the assassination, and the former DA replied, “Within a day or two, I don’t know exactly.” Wade then recounted the story about Oswald going to the FBI office to tell them to leave his wife alone. Wade seemed uncertain whether or not Oswald had left a note or how that story came out; Wade said, “I don’t know who said he went there. The only one I could think of was his wife.” Whether or not Wade was mixing up the timeline of Oswald’s visit to the FBI office with a subsequent encounter with the FBI was unclear.

But a report from a well-placed source such as Henry Wade about possible contact between Oswald and the FBI a day or two before the assassination would (if accurate) seriously contradict even the belated official version, revealed twelve years after the assassination, of the latest date on which Oswald had contact with the FBI (November 12, the approximate date Hosty said Oswald left the note) as well as the virtually forgotten newspaper report of the Bureau’s interview with Oswald on November 16. Wade’s revelation, especially when added to those other reports, would make it even more likely that Oswald had an informant relationship with the FBI, and would make the destruction of the note (with its contents that remain uncertain) a matter of even more critical importance to maintaining the coverup.

Of course, it is possible that in our interview, the seventy-eight-year-old Wade, who had retired as DA in 1987 but was still practicing law, misremembered the date of Oswald’s last contact with the FBI, placing it closer to the time of the assassination than earlier reported. Nevertheless, Wade still appeared sharp-witted, and he seemed emphatic about the close proximity of Oswald’s contact with the FBI and the assassination, although uncertain whether the contact came on November 20 or 21. It is also conceivable that Wade might have been consciously or subconsciously exaggerating the proximity of the acknowledged and unacknowledged contact(s) with Oswald in order to spite the FBI. This could have been a further sign of the resentment felt by the Dallas law enforcement community over its fraught relationship with the FBI.

Although it’s worth recalling in this context that Wade was one of the Texas law enforcement officials who discussed with the Warren Commission the potentially highly damaging rumor about Oswald being an FBI informant, the DA nevertheless expressed skepticism about that report in his June 1964 testimony. The commission had called Wade, Bill Alexander, and Waggoner Carr to an informal meeting in Washington on January 24 to discuss the rumor after hearing it from Carr. J. Lee Rankin wrote in a memorandum to his files that Carr “suggested that his information came ultimately from District Attorney Henry Wade,” although Wade denied that. Rankin reported after the Washington meeting that Wade “and others of the Texas representatives stated that the rumors to the effect that Oswald was an undercover agent were widely held among representatives of the press in Dallas,” and that the rumors were that Oswald was an informant for both the FBI and the CIA. But Rankin’s memo reports that Wade and Alexander blamed reporters for the rumors and “both indicated that they would not vouch for the integrity or accuracy” of those reporters.

Before meeting with Wade in Washington, the commission quietly but expeditiously looked into the DA’s own relationship with the FBI and why he had left as an agent in 1943 after working mostly on espionage cases. Rankin told the commission in the secret January 27 executive session (not declassified until 1974) that “we thought possibly there was --- he might have left under a cloud.” But Rankin found that Wade left the FBI because he wanted to go into private practice and to join the U.S. Navy; “there was no ill feeling between them,” and the FBI had tried to persuade Wade to return to its employ. So that suspicion about Wade’s motives was unsupported by evidence, and Rankin’s impression of Wade was that he was “a very canny, able prosecutor.” . . .

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Joseph McBride said:

That seems a logical conclusion from his repeated meetings

with the FBI in the run-up to the assassination and other

information, as well as from his well-placed

position on the motorcade route. Here are two sections from my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE:

 

THE FBI COVERS MORE OF ITS TRACKS

 

The delicate matter of the FBI’s possible relationship with Oswald, which caused Agent Hosty to destroy the note he claimed Oswald had left at the Dallas office around November 12, was exacerbated on November 24 when Jim Ewell of the Dallas Morning News reported that Oswald 

 

"was interviewed by the FBI here six days before the Friday assassination.

"But word of the interview with the former defector to Russia was not conveyed to the U.S. Secret Service and Dallas police, reliable sources told The Dallas News Saturday.

"An FBI agent referred all inquiries to Agent-in-Charge Gordon Shanklin, who could not be immediately reached for comment.

"However, in Washington, a spokesman for the FBI said it was 'incorrect' that the FBI had questioned Oswald or had him under surveillance at any time in recent months, the Associated Press reported. The interview reportedly was held Nov. 16 -- at a time when the Secret Service and police officials were coordinating security plans for the President’s ill-fated Dallas visit. These sources said the Oswald interview added more data to an already “thick file” the FBI has on the 24-year-old avowed Marxist who defected to Russia in 1959 and returned in 1962."

 

Later the same morning that report hit the streets, Oswald was killed. And still later that day, Hosty’s supervisor, the same Gordon Shanklin, ordered him to destroy the note from Oswald. A lot was at risk in the frantic attempts to dispose of Oswald and cover up whatever relationship the FBI had with him. What was in jeopardy was the whole house of cards surrounding the assassination, the developing cover story of Oswald as a “loner” who conceived and carried out his scheme to kill the president with no apparent political motive, or, indeed, no discernable motive of any kind. What Scott describes as part of the “phase-two” story was fast being implemented, the denial that Oswald was in cahoots with the USSR or Cuba and portraying him instead as a loner with vague communist sympathies that were not of the nature to lead the U.S. into a retaliatory war.

The same Dallas Morning News article that morning about Oswald’s November 16 interview with the FBI carried Chief Curry’s retraction of his statement about the bureau withholding information from the police. But according to Ray and Mary La Fontaine in their 1996 book Oswald Talked: The New Evidence in the JFK Assassination, reporter Ewell told them that Curry himself “and his police intelligence unit” were the “reliable sources” who leaked that piece of embarrassing information (or falsehood) about the FBI to the newspaper. The chief evidently felt the lack of cooperation his department had received from the bureau contributed to making the Dallas police look worse than unprofessional in the eyes of the world when the president was killed. Nothing, however, could make the police look more incompetent or corrupt than allowing their prisoner to be murdered on live network television while handcuffed to two detectives and surrounded by dozens of other officers in the basement of the police headquarters.

But with the reputation of the nation’s most prominent law enforcement agency, the FBI, in equally serious jeopardy, the report of its November 16 interview with Oswald seemed to magically vanish from the accumulating public record of the assassination, rarely being mentioned again except in an occasional book such as the LaFontaines’ or Scott’s Deep Politics II. Later, another story emerged that may or may not have been connected with a contact between Oswald and the FBI on November 16. It was reported that at 1:45 a.m. on November 17, a clerk in the FBI’s New Orleans office, William S. Walter, received an “URGENT” Teletype sent to all Special Agents in Charge from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover warning of a possible threat to assassinate President Kennedy in Dallas on November 22 by a “MILITANT REVOLUTIONARY GROUP.” Walter later made a copy of the Teletype from notes he said he had taken from it; he added before that phrase, “CUBAN FACTION.”

The FBI denied the existence of the Teletype, but the LaFontaines, who report Walter’s belief that Oswald was an FBI informant, speculate that the urgent warning may have stemmed from a tip provided by Oswald in the November 16 interview. They raise the possibility that the gunrunning investigation involving the Treasury Department and the FBI, in which Oswald also may have been an informant, could have become intertangled with this assassination warning in the eyes of the FBI. With some of the documentation destroyed or otherwise missing, including any original copies of the Teletype Walter said he received, it’s impossible to pinpoint exactly what kind of warning Oswald might have been passing along to the FBI.  The possibility that this tip came from Oswald echoes the report that an FBI informant named “Lee” had passed along the warning that caused President Kennedy’s Chicago trip on November 2 to be canceled because of the threat of an assassination attempt.

 

THE WADE REVELATION

 

The FBI’s jeopardy over its relationship with Oswald could have been even worse if Henry Wade had told the media in 1963 what he told me three decades later. The former Dallas County district attorney revealed a piece of information that, if true, would be an indication of an deeper relationship between Oswald and the FBI than has ever been acknowledged. A former FBI agent himself, Wade told me in 1993 that Oswald may have given information to the FBI only a day or two before the assassination.

“We weren’t getting much -- full cooperation from some of the federal authorities,” Wade said. “You know Jack Revill said when he walked into the jail up there, an agent of the FBI said, ‘We know Oswald well. I talked with him yesterday.’ Or something similar to that. And then it got into a big fuss with the FBI and the Dallas police, [over] who was telling the truth. Hosty’s the agent.” I asked Wade to clarify if Hosty indeed said he talked with Oswald the day before the assassination, and the former DA replied, “Within a day or two, I don’t know exactly.” Wade then recounted the story about Oswald going to the FBI office to tell them to leave his wife alone. Wade seemed uncertain whether or not Oswald had left a note or how that story came out; Wade said, “I don’t know who said he went there. The only one I could think of was his wife.” Whether or not Wade was mixing up the timeline of Oswald’s visit to the FBI office with a subsequent encounter with the FBI was unclear.

But a report from a well-placed source such as Henry Wade about possible contact between Oswald and the FBI a day or two before the assassination would (if accurate) seriously contradict even the belated official version, revealed twelve years after the assassination, of the latest date on which Oswald had contact with the FBI (November 12, the approximate date Hosty said Oswald left the note) as well as the virtually forgotten newspaper report of the Bureau’s interview with Oswald on November 16. Wade’s revelation, especially when added to those other reports, would make it even more likely that Oswald had an informant relationship with the FBI, and would make the destruction of the note (with its contents that remain uncertain) a matter of even more critical importance to maintaining the coverup.

Of course, it is possible that in our interview, the seventy-eight-year-old Wade, who had retired as DA in 1987 but was still practicing law, misremembered the date of Oswald’s last contact with the FBI, placing it closer to the time of the assassination than earlier reported. Nevertheless, Wade still appeared sharp-witted, and he seemed emphatic about the close proximity of Oswald’s contact with the FBI and the assassination, although uncertain whether the contact came on November 20 or 21. It is also conceivable that Wade might have been consciously or subconsciously exaggerating the proximity of the acknowledged and unacknowledged contact(s) with Oswald in order to spite the FBI. This could have been a further sign of the resentment felt by the Dallas law enforcement community over its fraught relationship with the FBI.

Although it’s worth recalling in this context that Wade was one of the Texas law enforcement officials who discussed with the Warren Commission the potentially highly damaging rumor about Oswald being an FBI informant, the DA nevertheless expressed skepticism about that report in his June 1964 testimony. The commission had called Wade, Bill Alexander, and Waggoner Carr to an informal meeting in Washington on January 24 to discuss the rumor after hearing it from Carr. J. Lee Rankin wrote in a memorandum to his files that Carr “suggested that his information came ultimately from District Attorney Henry Wade,” although Wade denied that. Rankin reported after the Washington meeting that Wade “and others of the Texas representatives stated that the rumors to the effect that Oswald was an undercover agent were widely held among representatives of the press in Dallas,” and that the rumors were that Oswald was an informant for both the FBI and the CIA. But Rankin’s memo reports that Wade and Alexander blamed reporters for the rumors and “both indicated that they would not vouch for the integrity or accuracy” of those reporters.

Before meeting with Wade in Washington, the commission quietly but expeditiously looked into the DA’s own relationship with the FBI and why he had left as an agent in 1943 after working mostly on espionage cases. Rankin told the commission in the secret January 27 executive session (not declassified until 1974) that “we thought possibly there was --- he might have left under a cloud.” But Rankin found that Wade left the FBI because he wanted to go into private practice and to join the U.S. Navy; “there was no ill feeling between them,” and the FBI had tried to persuade Wade to return to its employ. So that suspicion about Wade’s motives was unsupported by evidence, and Rankin’s impression of Wade was that he was “a very canny, able prosecutor.” . . .

 

Thank you Joseph. Interesting theory.