|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Dec 21, 2019 11:07:09 GMT -5
Affidavit Go 'round  The Commission had a serious problem. One which they are not handling in the proper terms of an investigation. The FBI had seized any Western Union records of wire transactions, there is no record of these being admitted or submitted to the WC. WU directed all inquiries to the FBI - where is that? "Frequent Messages" should lead to a direct contact. OSWALD and the FBI | by Harold Feldman“Someone telegraphed small amounts of money to Lee Harvey Oswald for several months before the assassination of President Kennedy, it was reported today,” the Dallas Times Herald said. The unidentified sender telegraphed Oswald $10 to $20 at a time. The Western Union office in Dallas handled frequent messages for Lee Oswald, but inquiries there brought the reply that “any details or comment would have to come from Washington headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” ...and where is Deputy Sweatt? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ James P HostyThe CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hosty, I think the answer to this question is implicit in your testimony, but I would just like to ask it directly. Did you or anyone in the FBI to your knowledge for compensation or in any manner whatsoever use Oswald as an informant in any way, shape or form? Mr. HOSTY. I have previously furnished a sworn affidavit to this Commission to the effect that I had never seen or talked to Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the 22d of November 1963. I had never made payments of any kind to him, and, in addition, I had never made any attempt to develop him as an informant or source of information. I have made a sworn affidavit to that effect. The CHAIRMAN. Your answer to my question then is "No." Mr. HOSTY. Correct. Mr. STERN. This might be a good opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to have him identify this affidavit. I show you from Commission Exhibit 825 a one-page affidavit. Can you---- Mr. HOSTY. This is my affidavit. This is my signature. Mr. STERN. And it was made when? Mr. HOSTY. On the 5th day of February 1964. Mr. STERN. Why don't you read that? Mr. HOSTY. "I, James P. Hosty, Jr., Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation since January 21, 1952, having been duly sworn, make the following statement: "At no time prior to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy did I ever see or talk to Lee Harvey Oswald. I have never made payments of any kind to him. In addition, I have never made any attempt to develop him as an informant or source of information." Signed, James P. Hosty, Jr., Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation. There is nothing in the record to indicate any proper investigation was done regarding the Western Union messages Nor is there any indication that the commission went any further to find the source of these rumors. There are only affidavits intended to discard the facts that the investigators were so afraid of being confirmed. Dulles confirmed them worthless. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Executive Session | Jan. 27, 1964The Chairman. Wouldn't tell it under oath? Mr. Dulles. I wouldn't think he would tell it under oath, no. The Chairman. Why? Mr. Dulles. He ought not tell it under oath. Maybe not tell it to his own government but he wouldn't tell it any other way. Mr. McCloy. Wouldn't tell it to his own chief? Mr. Dulles. He might or might not. If he was a bad one then he wouldn't +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NOTICE: Bill Alexander has appeared before the Commission, that was done in secret on Jan. 24 th 1964. It is noted in a memo from Hoover, .
THERE IS NO TALK OF ANY PRACTICAL JOKE PLAYED ON LONNIE HUDKINS.
THERE IS NO TALK OF ANY TESTING THE PHONE LINE TO SEE IF THE STORY LEAKS.
THERE WAS PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THESE EXPLANATIONS TO BE RELEASED IN 1964They were not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Dec 23, 2019 12:10:33 GMT -5
All of these "truths" add up to one big lie I remember in the 70s, "Lee Oswald, FBI", was a prank by the local press, mainly Hugh Aynesworth. He took full responsibility for it. Or was it Bill Alexander, or Lonnie himself? Regardless, there was never any mention of this in 1964. Through the years the story changed to testing the phone line for taps.... ie; pass some info thru a phone call and see if it leaks. In 1978 Hudkins told NBC that he had no intention of printing it. That is obvious BS since it was Hudkins that printed the story and verified his source to Secret Service. There is nothing in the record to indicate the commission or the FBI pursued this matter in any proper investigative manner. There are only traces of cover up. Asst DA Bill Alexander is mysteriously absent from all this finger pointing and blame share. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hugh AynesworthLonnie Hudkins was on the Houston Post, and he'd been sent to Dallas to work on the story. He called me up all the time, he would bug me and give me all these tips that were nothing. I just didn't want him bugging me anymore. So one day he called up and said, 'You hear anything about this FBI link with Os-wald?' I'd just about had it. I said to him, 'You got his payroll number, don't you?' 'Yeah, yeah,' said Lonnie. I reached over on my desk, and there was a Telex number on a telegram, S. x72. I think it was, and I told it to Lonnie. 'Yeah, yeah,' he said, 'that's it. That's the same one I've got.' Lonnie could see the moon coming out at high noon." The number eventually became part of the lore of the assassination. from Scribble, Scribble, by Nora Ephron (197 originally published in Esquire, Feb '76 The Assassination. Reporters.Lonnie HudkinsNBC News tracked down a newspaper reporter who acknowledges he and a friend made up the story on the telephone to try to catch eavesdroppers. Lonnie Hudkins says they didn’t intend that anyone print it. LONNIE HUDKINS: Uh, the conversation went like-- well, it’s been so many years, but it was like, uh-- this was pre-planned mind you. Uh, “Hey Lonnie, what’d you say Oswald’s FBI payroll number was?” And I said, “Well, I thought it was S172.” And the other guy said, “No, I thought it was S179.” And then I said, “No, it was S172.” And we agreed on that and hung up. That was it. We didn’t do anything with that story. It was a fabrication. Source: NBC Today Show | Event Date: 01/19/1978James P. Hosty,
Assignment: Oswald (1996)About a week after the assassination, Aynesworth, along with Bill Alexander, an assistant district attorney in Dallas, decided to find out if Lee Oswald had been an informant of the Dallas FBI, and of mine in particular. To this end, they concocted a totally false story about how Lee Oswald was a regularly paid informant of the Dallas FBI. At the time, I had no idea what information the Houston Post was relying on; it wasn't until February 1976, in Esquire magazine, that Aynesworth finally admitted he and Alexander had lied and made up the entire story in an effort to draw the FBI out on this issue. They said Oswald was paid $200 a month and even made up an imaginary informant number for Oswald, S172 - which was not in any way how the FBI classified their informants. Aynesworth then fed this story to Lonnie Hudkins of the Post, who ran it on January 1, 1964. Hudkins cited confidential but reliable sources for his story's allegations. The FBI issued a flat denial of the Post story. I was once again prohibited by Bureau procedure from commenting. It was clear that they were pointing a finger at me, since I was known to be the agent in charge of the Oswald file. Vincent Bugliosibooks.google.com/books?id=q1VJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT1644&lpg=PT1644&dq=jfk+lonnie+hudkins+reclaiming+history&source=bl&ots=6BT7P_UCqa&sig=ACfU3U1UOjLvDzXcRc4FDGeJxHH00pJPWg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEhPietszmAhWim-AKHXkCA8YQ6AEwA3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=jfk%20lonnie%20hudkins%20reclaiming%20history&f=false
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Jan 2, 2020 11:59:29 GMT -5
The Belmont File Alan H. BelmontFBI man, 26 years, senior position, "...June of 1961 when I was made assistant to the director in charge of all investigative work of the FBI and that is my present position."Pay attention to the dates, and who is in the room, The President's Commission met at 9:25 a.m. on May 6, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C. Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Representative Gerald R. Ford, John J. McCloy, and Allen W. Dulles, members.Also present were J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel; David W. Belin, assistant counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel; and Charles Murray, observer. Notice Boggs, Russell, and Cooper are missing. also note: Charles Murray: observer.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Charles MurrayMurray is from the Public Defenders office. He represents the Bar in DC, to protect or advise the Commission as to any interests of Lee H. Oswald. This came upon the insistence of Lee's mother Marguerite and widow Marina. ...mostly Marguerite.These lawyers were chosen by the Commission, the Oswald family was not allowed independent attorney representation. Researching thru many hours of testimony, there are moments these men should be speaking up, and just a few they are called upon, unfortunately, they do not provide much direct assistance to the defendant, and simply move the process along. WCR Forward pages XIV-XV"In fairness to the alleged assassin and his family, the Commission on February 25, 1964, requested Walter E. Craig, president of the American Bar Association, to participate in the investigation and to advise the Commission whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this assignment and participated fully and with out limitation. He attended Commission hearings in person or through his appointed assistants. All working papers, reports, and other data in Commission files were made available, and Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, to recall any witness heard prior to his appointment, and to suggest witnesses whose testimony they would like to have the Commission hear. This procedure was agreeable to counsel for Oswald's widow." All this goes back to February, now it's May, and they are still not moving to take any leads.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mr Belmont has a file.THE FBI file on Lee Harvey Oswald. He brought a letter, CE 834It was prepared two days before, and describes contents in the file. It is incomplete. This is what will be submitted into evidence for all the world to see, and although the file does actually contain all these things the memo dictates, it does not have to show anything else. Parts of the file were excluded. Mr. BELMONT - The file contains the identity of some of our informants in subversive movements.
It contains information as to some of the investigative techniques whereby we were able to receive some of
the information which has been made available to the Commission. Mr. STERN - I think that is enough, Mr. Belmont, on that. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Testimony, May 6, 1964 Mr. BELMONT - This is a letter dated May 4, 1964, addressed to the Commission which sets forth in summary the contents of the headquarters file on Oswald prior to the assassination. Mr. STERN - Do you have that file with you? Mr. BELMONT - Yes, sir. Mr. STERN - Would you explain generally to the Commission what materials there are in that file that for security reasons you would prefer not to disclose? Mr. BELMONT - The file contains the identity of some of our informants in subversive movements. It contains information as to some of the investigative techniques whereby we were able to receive some of the information which has been made available to the Commission. Mr. STERN - I think that is enough, Mr. Belmont, on that. Mr. MCCLOY - You didn't have anything further to add to that, did you? Mr. BELMONT - No. The CHAIRMAN - I think as to those things if it is agreeable to the other members of the Commission, we will not pursue any questioning that will call for an answer that would divulge those matters that you have just spoken of. Mr. BELMONT - I would like to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that-I think that is very kind of you--I would like to make it clear that Mr. Hoover has expressed a desire to be of the utmost help to the Commission, and to make any information available that will be helpful to the Commission. I think your observation is very much worthwhile. Mr. STERN - Mr. Belmont, have you reviewed the actual file and this letter of May 4 which summarizes each document in the file? Mr. BELMONT - Yes, sir. Mr. STERN - And to your knowledge, is this an accurate summary of each piece of information in the file? Mr. BELMONT - Yes, sir. Mr. STERN - The file is available to the Commission? Mr. BELMONT - Yes, sir. Mr. STERN - If they want to look at any item in it? Mr. BELMONT - Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN - The file does not include that security matter that you mentioned, or does it? Mr. BELMONT - This file is as it is maintained at the Bureau with all information in it. The CHAIRMAN - With all information in it? Mr. BELMONT - Yes, sir; this is the actual file. The CHAIRMAN - I see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Jan 2, 2020 12:01:06 GMT -5
“mizaru, kikazaru, iwazaru.” Mr. STERN - Mr. Belmont, have you reviewed the actual file and this letter of May 4 which summarizes each document in the file? Mr. BELMONT - Yes, sir. Mr. STERN - And to your knowledge, is this an accurate summary of each piece of information in the file? Mr. BELMONT - Yes, sir. Mr. STERN - The file is available to the Commission? Mr. BELMONT - Yes, sir. Mr. STERN - If they want to look at any item in it? Mr. BELMONT - Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN - The file does not include that security matter that you mentioned, or does it? Mr. BELMONT - This file is as it is maintained at the Bureau with all information in it. The CHAIRMAN - With all information in it? Mr. BELMONT - Yes, sir; this is the actual file. The CHAIRMAN - I see. Mr. RANKIN - Mr. Belmont, are you willing to leave the file a reasonable time in case any of the Commissioners desire to examine it personally? Mr. BELMONT - Yes, sir. Mr. RANKIN - We will return it. The CHAIRMAN - I wonder if we do want it on those conditions. If we want to get anything from it don't you think, Mr. Rankin,
that we ought to make it known here while the witness is here. I personally don't care to have this information that involves our security unless it is necessary,
and I don't want to have documents in my possession where it could be assumed that I had gotten that information and used it, so I would rather,
I would rather myself confine our questions to this file to the testimony of Mr. Belmont. Then if we want it, if we want any of those things,
it then becomes a matter to discuss here in the open, and not just in privacy. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CE 834: Summary of the contents of the FBI Headquarters file on Oswald prior to the assassination"The file contains the identity of some of our informants in subversive movements. It contains information as to some of the investigative techniques whereby we were able to receive some of the information which has been made available to the Commission." A description of the FBI file was introduced into the record as CE 834.
The actual contents were denied admission by Chief Justice Warren and Allen Dulles on May 6th 1964 Mr. DULLES - I assume, Mr. Belmont, if later other testimony arises that would make us desire to refer to this file
we could consult it in your offices or you would make it available to us? Mr. BELMONT - Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN - I think I would personally rather have it done on that basis.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The ONLY Commissioners Present: Warren, McCloy, Dulles, Ford enters later.
The Warren Commission had hoped to be finished by July 01, 1964. It took until Sept.
The "Oswald was an Agent" matter began within weeks of the assassination.
There has been no proof or any conclusive evidence that the rumor was started or spread falsely by the press.
The record indicates there is only evidence of the authorities attempting to squash any lead that requires further study.
In the matter of the Belmont file, there is absolutely no reason not to accept the file in to the record,
even if active sensitive information needs to be masked until further study can be allowed.
The Warren Commission has denied it's content with the charade of a memo purporting to be the contents of the file.
And Charles Murray says nothing. Not a word, not to even review the contents of the file pertaining to his client's family interest.
It is an obvious display of suppression and coverup to be locked away, or worse, lost forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Jan 7, 2020 14:27:07 GMT -5
"I really would prefer not to have a secret file" Mr Belmont: "The file contains the identity of some of our informants in subversive movements. It contains information as to some of the investigative techniques whereby we were able to receive some of the information which has been made available to the Commission." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Keep in mind, This is the FBI file on Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination. The question of Lee having FBI contact on the inside has been looming since January. They have it in front of them. This witness has brought the exact file that sits with the FBI. * FBI informants in subversive movements to gather information.
* Investigative techniques used to gather information for the commission.This is all we are told, that Belmont let slip, and was promptly scolded as he said it.
Mr. STERN - I think that is enough, Mr. Belmont, on thatIsn't that where answers are re: Lee as an informant? Isn't that where the leads are to take, regarding Lee having been paid for information. Would it contain the "who" of any contacts Lee had with the FBI prior to Nov. 22nd They won't even look at it. Both Dulles and Warren refuse the file to be admitted into evidence. Instead what is accepted is a summary of the contents without any confirmation necessary of its detail. "I wonder if we do want it on those conditions.", begins the Chief Justice "....we could consult it in your offices or you would make it available to us", adds Dulles Keep that thing away from us. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Testimony Alan BelmontMr. RANKIN - Mr. Belmont, are you willing to leave the file a reasonable time in case any of the Commissioners desire to examine it personally? Mr. BELMONT - Yes, sir. Mr. RANKIN - We will return it. The CHAIRMAN - I wonder if we do want it on those conditions. If we want to get anything from it don't you think, Mr. Rankin, that we ought to make it known here while the witness is here. I personally don't care to have this information that involves our security unless it is necessary, and I don't want to have documents in my possession where it could be assumed that I had gotten that information and used it, so I would rather, I would rather myself confine our questions to this file to the testimony of Mr. Belmont. Then if we want it, if we want any of those things, it then becomes a matter to discuss here in the open, and not just in privacy. Mr. RANKIN - Mr. Chairman, I felt it made a better record if the file is available only to the Commissioners in case they do want to examine it, and then it will be taken back and the staff will not examine it. The CHAIRMAN - I think he has stated that the file will be made available to us whenever we want it. Mr. RANKIN - Yes. The CHAIRMAN - If we do want it to read it that is one thing. For myself, I think we can get what we want from examining the witness, and then if there is any portion of it that comes into play why we can determine the question here, but I really would prefer not to have a secret file, I mean a file that contains matters of that kind in our possession. Mr. RANKIN - There is one factor that I wanted to get before the Commission and in the record, and that is that you had all the information that the FBI had in regard to this matter, and I thought that was important to your proceedings, so that we would not retain such a file, and we had an accurate summary but that it is available so that the Commission can be satisfied that nothing was withheld from it in regard to this particular question. That was the purpose of the inquiry. Mr. DULLES - I assume, Mr. Belmont, if later other testimony arises that would make us desire to refer to this file we could consult it in your offices or you would make it available to us? Mr. BELMONT - Yes, sir.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Jan 7, 2020 14:27:31 GMT -5
"An Able Man" Belmont's name first came up in Executive session. Jan. 22. Boggs showed concerns about the rumor, and if it could be proven. He calls it a serious thing. Both he and Cooper have been asking for an investigation, on how it could be proven, and if it could. Later, they are both left out of the decision NOT to view the file that could generate further leads. These Executive Sessions were thought to be destroyed. It is remarkable to read the honest concerns they were facing with the FBI's already concluded investigation. or continuing investigation...which is it?"...that the FBI is very explicit that Oswald is the assassin or was the assassin,
and they are very explicit that there was no conspiracy,
and they are also saying in the same place that they are continuing their investigation."They are aware the conclusion already drawn raises more questions. The commission's hands are tied by the FBI, and the FBI appears to be protecting the core at which some of those answers lie. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Executive Session | Jan, 22, 1964It is sometimes noted as Q or A, so it is not always know who is speakingBoggs: This is a serious thing. A: I thought first you should know about it. Secondly, there is this factor too that a consideration, that is somewhat an issue in this case, and I suppose you are all aware of it. That is that the FBI is very explicit that Oswald is the assassin or was the assassin, and they are very explicit that there was no conspiracy, and they are also saying in the same place that they are continuing their investigation. Now in my experience of almost nine years, in the first place it is hard to get them to say when you think you have got a case tight enough to convict somebody, that that is the person that committed the crime. In my experience with the FBI they don't do that. They claim that they don't evaluate, and it is uniform prior experience that they don't do that. Secondly, they have not run out all kinds of leads in Mexico or in Russia and so forth which they could probably -- It is not our business, it is the very -- Dulles: What is that? A: They haven't run out all the leads on the information and they could probably say -- that isn't our business. Q: Yes. A: But they are concluding that there can't be a conspiracy without those being run out. Now that is not from my experience with the FBI. Q: It is not. You are quite right. I have seen a great many reports. A: Why are they so eager to make both of those conclusions, both in the original report and their experimental report, which is such a departure. Now that is just circumstantial evidence,. and it don't prove anything about this, but it raises questions. We have to try to find out what they have to - say that would give any support to the story, and report it to you. Ford: Who would know if anybody would in the Bureau have such an arrangement? A: I think that there are several. Probably Mr. Belmont would know every undercover agent. Q: Belmont? A: Yes. Q: An informer also would you say? A: Yes, I would think so. He is the special security, of the division. Dulles: Yes, I know. A: And he is an able man. But when the Chief Justice and I were just briefly reflecting on this we said if that was true and it ever came out and could be established, then you would have people think that there was a conspiracy to accomplish this assassination, that, nothing the Commission did or anybody could dissipate. Boggs: You are so right. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Where is the Belmont file? Could it still exist in it's original format? It would be in the hands of the FBI. Somehow, I doubt it. This important piece of evidence is one for Arjan's list.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Jan 25, 2020 11:21:21 GMT -5
A Minox Camera minox III cameraThe first sub miniature cameras sold by Minox were invented by Walter Zapp. Zapp was a German engraver, that had taken a job in photography, around 1936. With friends, Nikolai 'Nixi' Nylander and Richard Jürgens, they discussed a camera small enough to carry in a pocket. Nixi Nylander designed the name "Minox" and the mouse logo. Jürgens contacted, Valsts Elektrotehniskā Fabrika (VEF), an electrotechnical manufacturing business in Riga. Production began in 1937 until 1943. Meanwhile, VEF received patent protection on Zapp's inventions in at least 18 countries. It soon attracted the attention of intelligence agencies in America, Britain and Germany. The compact size and viewing capability, made it excellent for document photos. After the war, a new company was formed Minox GmbH. The Minox got a new plastic casing and aluminum shell, that was lighter and cost less. The type of camera among Lee Oswald's possessions on Nov. 22 nd was a Minox III. Then it wasn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Jan 25, 2020 11:21:57 GMT -5
My Deputy to Search Sometime after 2 o'clock on November 22nd,
Capt. Fritz told detectives to get a search warrant and go out to the Paine residence and pick Oswald up. SGT. Gerald Hill He walked up to Rose and Stovall and made the statement to them,
"Go get a search warrant and go out to some address on Fifth Street,"
and I don't recall the actual street number, in Irving, and "pick up a man named Lee Oswald." Mr. STOVALL. I'm not positive on that--I believe it was [spelling] H-i-d-e-l-l, I'm not sure.
And he also had identification of Lee Harvey Oswald, and I believe that was on a Social Security card
and at that time Captain Fritz opened the door to the office there and sent Rose and I to go out to this address
in Irving at 2515 West Fifth Street in Irving. That was--I don't know where the Captain got the address, but it was an address where he was supposed to be staying part of the time. Mr. BALL. The captain had you get another man to go with you? Mr. STOVALL. Yes; we got J. P. Adamcik to go with us. I need to make clear,
Dallas, and the suburbs of Dallas are covered by different police jurisdictions,
The City of Dallas is run by the city police dept. under the mayor.
The surrounding suburbs are covered by Dallas County Sheriffs Dept under Sher. Bill Decker
Dallas Police have no jurisdiction in Irving, where this house is located.
It would require a JUDGE to issue a search warrant, and then sheriffs would accompany DPD in the search
That is not what happened on the 22nd.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ TestimonyMr. BALL. The three of you? Mr. STOVALL. Yes; the three of us---we went out to the location and parked, oh, a block or half block from the house. We were supposed to meet some county officers out there. Mr. BALL. Why were you to meet the county officers out there? Mr. STOVALL. Well, Irving is out of our jurisdiction, actually, we had to either have the Irving police or the county officers with us. Mr. BALL. Would that be within the jurisdiction of the sheriff's office? Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And did you meet some county officers there? Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; they arrived about 30 to 45 minutes after we did --after we got out there; yes. Mr. BALL. Did you wait for them? Mr. STOVALL Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Where did you wait for them? Mr. STOVALL. This was about one-half a block or a block from the house address. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Nobody had a search warrant.The officers waited 40 minutes for the deputies that did not know the purpose of the mission until they were told at the scene. How could the Police get a search warrant ordered by the Chief of Homicide to perform police functions where they had no jurisdiction? When they went back on the 23 rd they had a warrant, and deputies, even Judge Brown himself at one point, (another story)
But Stovall makes it clear to Mrs. Paine (on the first visit) he does not have a warrant, Mrs. Paine allows the search of Oswald's possessions anyway, thereby waiving Marina's legal rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Jan 25, 2020 11:22:20 GMT -5
Camera, Case and Film Dallas police records show that Stovall itemized a "small German camera and black case on chain and film." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Deputies did not conduct the searchMr. STOVALL. I don't believe there was anybody went with me at the time I went in. I heard--I think Rose started to the back bedroom, which would be Ruth Paine's bedroom and Ruth Paine was standing there talking to him--I could hear her talking to him and she told him that Marina suggested that he look out into the garage and so they looked and they were out of my sight then. The concluding statement of the Inventory Exhibit A is "the above property was recovered from 2515 5th Ave., Irving by detectives G F Rose, R S Stovall, and J P Adamcik, all the property has been initialized and marked for evidence by Stovall and Rose" --ALL DPD Stovall, said cameras and camera equipment were found both in the house and in Oswald's sea bag in the garage Nov. 22-23, but he could not recall where the German camera was found. He also said he remembers someone - "I think it was somebody from the FBI later on, asking about that deal" involving the camera and light meter. "They (FBI) were (later) calling it a light meter, I know that," Rose said. "But I know a camera when I see it....The thing we got at Irving out of Oswald's sea bag was a Minox miniature camera. No question about it. " from OSWALD CAMERA DISAPPEARED DURING FBI INVESTIGATION By EARL GOLZ
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Jan 28, 2020 13:58:39 GMT -5
This Gadget Jack Ruby showing his friend a flashy new Minox spy camera. - thank you, Arjan.So here's this picture of Jack Ruby, and his new spy camera. When I look at this, I can't help but think what Seth Kantor said about Jack. In 1986, Kantor, said Ruby was a PCI, This is FBI; SPENCE: What did those records reveal in that regard? SETH KANTOR: That Jack Ruby had been a, what the FBI called a, a PCI, a potential criminal informer.Jack Ruby was a potential criminal informant for the FBI, and for whatever reason, he has one of these spy cameras. In 1963, there are no copy machines, it was close, but not yet ready for the general office, So these cameras are the perfect gadget to copy and transport documents. Perhaps one task of a PCI. The FBI used them. Vincent Drain (FBI): "...I'm well aware of what a Minox camera is because we used them..." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ from: OSWALD and the FBI | by Harold Feldman"Oswald’s apartment, too, was filled with fascinating things. Besides the batches of leaflets with the legend “Hands Off Cuba!” and bearing the unauthorized imprint of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, police found several metal file boxes filled with names of Castro sympathizers." He's talking about the house in Irving, and assuming it was Lee's apartment. Then I'm thinking about these file cabinets, and what Arjan quoted about the Paines.
So why does Lee Oswald need one of these document cameras?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Found: Minox #27259
Kurt Lohn , from Minox Corp. talked to Earl Golz in 1978. Lohn was formerly in charge of distribution for Minox in NYC.
He told Golz, the serial number of the camera found did not exist among any of Minox cameras distributed for commercial use.
All cameras sold in the United States carried a six digit serial beginning with 135xxx. 27259 was not a registered number.
It was not a valid number that would be available for commercial sale in the United States. [source: Jim Marrs]
One more thing, Michael Paine also had a Minox III Camera.
|
|
