22-07-2015, 11:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 23-07-2015, 12:00 AM by Tom Scully.)
Miles Scull Wrote:Hoover was deliberately seeking to discredit Yates as he had other inconvenient witnesses such as Lee Dannelly, etc., etc.
Douglass:
On January 2, 1964, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover sent a teletype marked "URGENT" to Dallas Special Agent in Charge J. Gordon Shanklin on Ralph Leon Yates. Hoover noted that a previous FBI investigation into whether Yates may have been at his company at the same time he said he picked up the Oswald-like hitchhiker provided insufficient evidence "to completely discredit Yates' story." Hoover therefore ordered the Dallas FBI office to "reinterview Yates with polygraph,"[773] the instrument more commonly known as a "lie detector."
On January 4 in another "URGENT" teletype, Shanklin reported back to Hoover on Yates's polygraph examination that day: "Results of test were inconclusive as Yates responded to neither relevant or control type questions."[774] Because his lie-detector test was inconclusive, Yates had still not been discredited. But there was more to come.
Author Douglass has no more insight in what is his interpretation of this "urgent" communication from Hoover to the Dallas office than Mr. Scull or Mr. Scully, or anyone else has. Was the Yates
matter, which is not accompanied by the emphasis assigned to another matter displayed on the same page, a matter of great concern to director Hoover, or was it added to fill the page?
For that reason, I cannot stress enough this recent point posted by Mr. Hargrove:
Quote:Jim Hargrove, on 21 Jul 2015 - 09:53 AM, said:
You didn't point out the FBI claims for the "3 am interview." Tom Scully did on another forum.
Almost all of John's notes for Harvey and Lee are from original source documents. He should go back to that method and approach secondary sources with extreme caution, as he did previously.
It is reasonable to interpret the consistent reaction of Shanklin atnd Hoover to the claims of Yates was that Yates was one of many irrelevant distraction that particularly emerged and
attempted to intrude into any well publicized investigation. The steps in response to the claims
of Yates were to hold off on bothering to perform a polygraph test, to attempting the test to
rule out any value of what he claimed for the purpose of closing the Yates portion of the investigation. Routine, and therefore contrary to Douglass's description of the extraordinary.
In the second half of December, there was a decision not to perform a polygraph test on Yates.
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...8&tab=page
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...9&tab=page
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Rec...05-53b.pdf
This is a link to a page of an "urgent" reply to the communication from Hoover that author
Douglass emphasized as supporting an opinion that Hoover was particularly concerned about
Yates's claims. Yates is mentioned on the pages before this linked page.:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...2&tab=page
The lesson I take away from the WC "investigation" is that it was premised on conclusions reached before the details were obtained and then culled to support those conclusions. I shy away from that flawed approach.
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.