DONALD WILLIS SAID:
So Hosty and Bookhout's notes from 11/22 were dictated the next day, and destroyed...11/23.
Bookhout, then, had no notes from which to dictate 11/24. The only legitimate report, then, was the one dictated 11/23 from Hosty's and Bookhout's notes, which report Bookhout calls "the reported interviewing report" [singular]. He shows no knowledge of a second, solo report.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
To think that the Bookhout (solo) report (which covers the initial interview with Oswald on 11/22/63) is "bogus", as Don Willis claims, is simply ridiculous and ludicrous.
The fact is: BOTH REPORTS EXIST AND ARE PART OF THE OFFICIAL WARREN REPORT, as linked below:
THE "HOSTY/BOOKHOUT" REPORT (BEGINNING ON PAGE 612 OF WCR):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0318b.htm
THE "BOOKHOUT" REPORT (BEGINNING ON PAGE 619 OF WCR):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm
Now, what possible reason would anybody have had to want to create a fake FBI report that mirrors almost exactly the same words that appear in a report that most conspiracy theorists think was NOT a fake or "bogus" FBI report?
Does Don Willis REALLY believe that the FBI wanted so desperately to get into the record a statement about Oswald saying something about "Bill Shelley" that they were willing to create a fraudulent document (the one on Page 619 of the Warren Report) and put Agent Bookhout's name on it?
But...why? What for? Was it just to put one additional lie into the mouth of Lee Oswald? Is that the reason?
Why didn't the FBI merely ADD IN a bogus reference to Bill Shelley within the already-existing FBI report co-authored by both Hosty and Bookhout? Why the need to create a totally NEW fake FBI report?
Plus, there was ALREADY a reference to "Shelley" in Captain Will Fritz' handwritten notes. But apparently, according to Don Willis, Fritz' reference to "Shelley" wasn't good enough, so the FBI decided to have Bookhout put some additional words in Oswald's mouth regarding Shelley that certain CTers evidently believe were never uttered by Lee Harvey at all.
Such speculation about faked documents is just plain silly.
HERE'S WHAT I THINK HAPPENED:
The reason there are two separate FBI reports which say almost the exact same thing is because there were TWO different FBI agents present for that particular Oswald interview on 11/22/63.
Both James Hosty and James Bookhout were present (mainly as bystanders) during that interview, and EACH MAN had his own set of notes that he took during the course of that (approx.) 50-minute interview.
From the testimony that I have looked at (and I just now read every word of both Jim Hosty's and Jim Bookhout's Warren Commission testimony), it appears as though Hosty was the person who physically wrote the joint report that has both Hosty's and Bookhout's names on it, but both men signed-off on it and approved of its contents:
"I dictated it and he [Bookhout] read it and we both approved it." -- James P. Hosty, Jr.; WC Testimony
My guess is that Bookhout decided to also write up his own "interview report" (as the FBI agents call them), which would serve as a supplemental report to the dual Hosty/Bookhout document.
Hence, Bookhout's "solo" report wasn't dictated until November 24th, one day after the joint Hosty/Bookhout report (which was dictated, BY HOSTY, on November 23rd).
Now, it's true that Bookhout does allude to just ONE "interviewing report" in his Warren Commission testimony. But since the basic contents of BOTH reports is virtually identical (except for the extra details regarding Bill Shelley), it's quite likely that Bookhout felt he did not need to refer to his "solo" report at all during his Warren Commission session.
And it's also true that Agent Hosty said this to the Warren Commission (regarding official FBI reports):
"The procedure is that when there are two agents involved, they both must approve it, so there can be no discrepancies."
But the FACT remains, via Page 619 and Page 620 of the Warren Commission Report, James Bookhout positively did fill out an additional (solo) "interview report" concerning the very same Oswald interview that is referred to in the joint Hosty/Bookhout document.
I guess it's possible that in the case of Bookhout's solo report, official FBI "procedure" might not have been followed to the letter (if Hosty is correct about the FBI procedure for such documents). But the solo Bookhout report DOES EXIST nevertheless, like it or not.
BTW, as a side note here, I'm not entirely sure that it is mandatory that the "dictated" date also be the exact same date when a particular report was initially written.
Why couldn't Bookhout have written his solo report a little bit earlier (from his notes), and then have it "officially" written up (or "dictated") one or two days later? Is that not entirely possible in some instances? If CTers think that scenario is NOT at all possible, I'd like to know why not?
Also -- An FBI agent, per both Hosty's and Bookhout's testimony, didn't customarily destroy his handwritten notes until AFTER he wrote up his formal (longer) report. This is only common sense, of course. The agent would retain his original notes until he completed writing his formal report. And only after writing the report would he destroy them, which was common practice at the Dallas FBI offices in 1963 (per both Hosty and Bookhout).
Therefore, since we know that Agent Bookhout did, indeed, write up an additional "solo" report that he dictated on 11/24/63, it stands to reason that Bookhout probably did not destroy his handwritten notes until sometime AFTER he completed dictating that report on November 24th.
In short -- BOTH REPORTS EXIST and are available to read in the Warren Commission Final Report (in Appendix XI).
David Von Pein
February 22, 2010
