A Case Not Tried:

[Ashton Gray]

There are indications in the timeline that the Hunt note and the Hosty note are one and the same. If so, it makes Hosty a cut-out between Oswald and E. Howard Hunt, and resolves all the ridiculously conflicting stories about who saw or did not see the Hosty note, what its contents were or were not, whether any threats against the FBI were contained therein, and what became of the purported Hosty note: a "Hosty note" never existed, only the Hunt note delivered to Hosty, not in an opened envelope, but sealed and delivered only to Hosty.

In the timeline, this hypothesis adds another bouquet to Hosty's contacts with Ruth Hyde Paine, particularly in relation to other events.

But all this will be explored more fully at another time. It is only mentioned here for entertainment value.

Ashton

Edited December 20, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[James Richards]

Let's not forget about Nelson Bunker Hunt. Rumors amongst the Lester Logue connections is that N.B. Hunt actually met with Oswald.

I stress there is no supporting evidence for this, just rumor.

FWIW (very little really).

James

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

James Olmstead wrote:

Although I do not support at this time that the Dear Mr. Hunt letter was addressed to either H. L. Hunt or any specific Hunt family member or E. Howard Hunt, I do have research in support that the letter is not a forgery or fake.

Did the Dear Mr. Hunt letter show up at the same time as the alleged memo from (Helms I think it was) saying, "Someday we are going to have to explain Hunt's presence in Dallas on 11/22?

Steve Thomas

Steve, I believe the Hunt letter was sent to Penn Jones in '72. Jim believes the timing might have been tied in with the death of JEH. Jones sat on it however, for 3 years.

[Robert Howard]

Irrespective as to who authored the letter, I ran across something yesterday that is pretty interesting while going through some of the newer de-classified material which has been added to the Mary Ferrell website.

The document RIF # is 180-10128-10002

See

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1

It is 14 pages long, and although untitled; it is essentially Stewart McKinney's Briefing materials, which is what is listed under RECORD SERIES. The document seems to have been produced to give a short synopsis, and in some cases pertinent information regarding some pretty important individuals in Louisiana, the CIA's Western Hemisphere Station in Mexico City, etc....

On page 6, the following passage is written

P.S. Insurgentes sent copy of letter from LHO to “Mr. Hunt”

Sur No. 309 re what do I do next?

Mexico, D.F. Mexico

END

As far as I can tell, the passage is a reference to the Dear Mr. Hunt letter, but what is more interesting is the fact that the address is ostensibly [at least I think it seems likely] the address from which the original letter originated from, if such is the case that would be something more in the area of information than what was previously thought.....Just an opinion

[Robert Howard]

Irrespective as to who authored the letter, I ran across something yesterday that is pretty interesting while going through some of the newer de-classified material which has been added to the Mary Ferrell website.

The document RIF # is 180-10128-10002

See

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1

It is 14 pages long, and although untitled; it is essentially Stewart McKinney's Briefing materials, which is what is listed under RECORD SERIES. The document seems to have been produced to give a short synopsis, and in some cases pertinent information regarding some pretty important individuals in Louisiana, the CIA's Western Hemisphere Station in Mexico City, etc....

On page 6, the following passage is written

P.S. Insurgentes sent copy of letter from LHO to “Mr. Hunt”

Sur No. 309 re what do I do next?

Mexico, D.F. Mexico

END

As far as I can tell, the passage is a reference to the Dear Mr. Hunt letter, but what is more interesting is the fact that the address is ostensibly [at least I think it seems likely] the address from which the original letter originated from, if such is the case that would be something more in the area of information than what was previously thought.....Just an opinion

[Robert Howard]

Sorry about the double post but, the comments next to the address are actually about an inch away from the address in the original document, I attempted to duplicate the passage as is, but when I entered the post it appeared closer to the address; at least I highlighted it.

I don't usually have this type of problem, so I don't know what to say except to repeat what I wrote at the top of this page.......

[William Kelly]

I received the following email from Jim Olmstead today, and am posting it here with permission. Jim has also offered to address any comments/questions through me. As noted in his email, he is willing to have this work used free, so if anyone is aware of any where it could be used, please let me know, and I'll forward the information on. He has said in a further email that "I really feel strongly that the letter is not any forgery." so this would seem a quite important breakthrough, if it indeed can be shown to have been written by Oswald.

Although I do not support at this time that the Dear Mr. Hunt letter was addressed to either H. L. Hunt or any specific Hunt family member or E. Howard Hunt, I do have research in support that the letter is not a forgery or fake.

The key consideration on my part is that even with poor quality examples to study the "e" is not really missing from the signature of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I based this on McNally's testimony that it only "appears to be missing" and study to confirm the appearance shows that the "e" is actually a portion of the y stroke.

Every point presented in the HSCA panel examination of the Dear Mr. Hunt letter has a valid counterpoint consideration. The "script" created for "A Case Not Tried" dealing with handwriting is available free, to any news or investigative production or

educational institution, wishing to produce this segment of my series "A Case Not Tried".

I do retain certain rights and considerations on production. The program must show all aspects of consideration, in all fairness, with rebutal to points presented.

James K. Olmstead

Wait a Minute! Wait a Minute! Where's Tim Gratz?

He's suppose to chime in here and say that we've already solved the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter when Mitrokin defected and gave MI5 the whole story about how the Ruskies forged the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter to implicate E. Howard Hunt in the assassination, and what's the point of rehashing stuff we already figured out...anyway?

Come on Tim,

You're slacking,

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Come on, Bill, give me a chance.

Of course there is no question the KGB forged it. The KGB even had its Department that deals in forgeries (Directorate 3 if I recall) examine it closely three different times.

But hold your horses for a minute: are all those who now want to argue the legitimacy of the letter suddenly switching positions and arguing that dear departed Lee Henry was part of a conspiracy (with either a member of the oil clan or with the recently departed E. H., our favorite spook)?

And by the way, re E. H., am I not correct that in keeping with good tradecraft he usually did not give out his correct last name? (Maybe it was not tradecraft, maybe it was just not in him to tell the truth about anything.)

But my main point is that I thought most of us here subscribed to the "I'm just a patsy" scenario. Let's not indict poor Lee at this late date!

Edited August 29, 2007 by Tim Gratz