Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE?

[Tom Scully]

It may seem a contradiction, but I do attempt to approach this analysis with an open mind. In this instance, I think it is reasonable to consider that SH Landesberg was a disturbed young man who sent the FBI on an expensive, wild goose chase, and did it at the worst possible time, at least in the opinion of the FBI's tired, short handed, investigative force. I accept that the FBI was reacting from that POV at that time..... 23 Nov. to 5 Dec.

Please stop me when you think what I am presenting in this post is unreasonable, and advise me why.......

Jim, no matter what else we agree or disagree about what happened in Landesberg v. FBI, the record indicates Rizzuto tied them up from NY to El Paso, and in between.

The record seems to indicate that the FBI didn't seem tied up at all. In fact, Hoover was talking about "results" of the investigation the very next day after the assassination.



The following day (Sunday, 11/24/63) FBI Associate Director Clyde Tolson sent a memo to FBI official Alan Belmont. Tolson wrote, "Shanklin said results of the investigation have been reduced to written form and consequently the information will all be available for these two supervisors. We can prepare a memorandum to the Attorney General [Robert Kennedy] to set out the evidence showing that Oswald is responsible for the shooting that killed the President. We will show that Oswald was an avowed Marxist, a former defector to the Soviet union and an active member of the FPCC, which has been financed by Castro. We will set forth the items of evidence which make it clear that Oswald is the man who killed the President."

That's right! The case was closed and "reduced to written form" two days after the assassination of JFK. I think the FBI had the time and resources to do some due diligence on the Landesberg case. Instead, they went to the wrong cities and interviewed the wrong witnesses.

Jim,

You turn the record of what SH Landesberg did, sending already overextended FBI resources on wild goose chases, all on the opinion of yourself and others, but you post not proof that,

(Please substitute supporting detail for "I think".....)

.....I think the FBI had the time and resources to do some due diligence on the Landesberg case. Instead, they went to the wrong cities and interviewed the wrong witnesses.

Please post even a single reliable lead provided to the FBI by Rizzuto aka SH Landesberg that did not divert FBI agents an thus waste their time.

You elected to change the subject, making it seem as if you were responding to my point that Rizzuto interfered with and diverted the investigation, further aggravating the demands put on overworked FBI field agents.

Your diversion is discussed in the lower portion of the page at the following link, but it seems irrelevant to the
crimes Rizzuto aka SH Landesberg was accused of.:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church..._0019b.htm
Book V: The Investigation of the Assassination of President J.F.K.: Performance of the Intelligence Agencies
32

B. The FBI Resvonse
The FBI investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy was a massive effort. Literally thousands of leads were followed in the field by hundreds of agents, many of whom worked around the clock during the days immediately following the assassination. The FBI files produced by this investigation are in excess of five hundred and ninety volumes. .....

......
1. The Investigative Attitude of Senior FBI Oificials
Almost immediately after the assassination. Director Hoover, the
Justice Department and the "WHiite House "exerted pressure" on
senior Bureau officials to complete their investigation and issue a
factual report supporting the conclusion that Oswald Avas the lone
assassin. Thus, it is not suprising that, from its inception, the assassi-
nation investigation focused almost exclusively on Lee Harvey
Oswald.

On November 23, 1963, J. Edgar Hoover forwarded an FBI memo-
randum to President Johnson Avhich detailed the results of the Bu-
reau's preliminary "inquiry into the assassination" and "background
information relative to Lee Harvev Oswald." ^^ The memorandum
stated that "state complaints were filed on November 22, 1963, charg-
ing Oswald with the murder of President Kennedy" and detailed
evidence which indicated that Oswald had indeed assassinated the
President. Although the memorandum did not inform President
Johnson that the FBI had an open security case on Oswald at the
time of the assassination, it did provide a limited description of
Oswald's background, including his visit to the Soviet Union and
activities for the Fair Plav for Cuba Committee.....

I remind you again, I do not have a particular agenda. At least afford me the respect of not
cherry picking, as you did in the above example, denying the obvious validity and accuracy of what I
posted was the aggravating factor of the misleading done by Rizzuto, and then changing the subject
to the agenda at the top level of the FBI. Can you not yet concede that the field agents were
overextended when Rizzuto fed them many details that you have no proof were actionable or even
relevant?

Rizzuto aka SH Landesberg committed the crime, according to the record, supported by his own mother.
You prefer to paint SH Landesberg as a victim of the FBI and you think you support this absurdity by
claiming the FBI intentionally looked in the wrong places.

If you actually have any proof to contradict the record, please post it soon. If you claim the record
is fake because your belief system dictates that it is, I'll go back to replying to long time forum
member Doyle, because both of you are exempting yourselves from any parameters, without earning the right
to do so. So far it seems only Tom Scully must prove what he posts, and when that happens, Scully must
be an LN and FBI apologist, since what else could he be? Thus, commitment to where the facts lead, so far
is a foreign and unrecognized possibility in a walled off belief system. Scully is labeled in the hope of
discrediting his supported points, in lieu of challenging his points of proof. This is an ineffective tactic.
It isn't about me. It is about the supported details in my posts.