Mr. DRINAN. Well, we're left with a mystery in the end that I told this to the gentleman yesterday, that's there four people who who disagree with him fundamentally and someone has to rectify that, I suppose, to find out who was telling the truth and who isn't. But that I'm left with the concept here that we just don't know what has been going on all of these years.

One final question. In your judgment should the Warren Commission be reopened?

Mr. HOSTY. Based upon what I know, I think they have all the information or they had all the information.

Mr. DRINAN. They didn't have all the information that you told us this morning, sir.

Mr. HOSTY. Well, that's true, but I don't think that would be sufficient basis to reopen it.

Mr. DRINAN. Do you think that there is enough new evidence to justify a new commission, a new committee of some type, going back over the entire matter of the assassination of the President?

Mr. HOSTY. That would have to be a judgment made by persons higher than myself.

Based upon what I know, I don't think there's sufficient additional information for them to take further action.

Mr. DRINAN. Thank you. I yield back to the chairman.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Kindness.

Mr. KINDNESS. In view of the line of questioning and testimony that we've just completed, I think it's necessary to go into one other matter in your personnel situation. First: What is your educational background?

Mr. HOSTY. I have a bachelors degree in business administration, accounting minor from the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Ind.

Mr. KINDNESS. And have you worked in a supervisory capacity since you have been with the FBI?

Mr. HOSTY. No, sir, I was barred from that. I mean I did not work in a supervisory capacity before November 22, 1963, and an attempt to make an assistant supervisor or relief supervisor 5 or 6 years ago was turned down.

Mr. KINDNESS. And did you ever have supervisory experience in any other employment prior to being with the FBI?

Mr. HOSTY. No, sir.

Mr. KINDNESS. Is there any reason to believe that you may not be qualified for supervisory position in relation to other things in your personnel record, not relating to this matter.

Mr. HOSTY. Not that I know of.

Mr. KINDNESS. Are there many agents that you know of with your years of experience who are not in the supervisory position? Mr. HOSTY. Beg your pardon, sir?

Mr. KINDNESS. Are there many agents you know of in the FBI with your same years of experience who are not in a supervisory position? Mr. HOSTY. Only approximately 1 out of 10, or 1 out of 12 would be a supervisor, and then there would be 1 or 2 relief or assistant supervisors for each squad, so the percentage would be that the majority would not be.

Mr. KINDNESS. Is it conceivable, then, that the fact that you are not a supervisor is entirely unrelated to the Oswald situation?

Mr. HOSTY. I couldn't state that for certain.

Mr. KINDNESS. Could you state for certain that it is related then? Mr. HOSTY. I can't say for sure. I might clarify here that Mr. Dissley never did make his recommendation in writing to FBI headquarters because he was, he had made a telephonic inquiry first to see if it was feasible to send the written request in, and when he was telephonically advised no, then there was no written record made.

Mr. KINDNESS. But not everybody has achieved it?

Mr. HOSTY. Right, and I fully realize it. I'm not judging that. Mr. KINDNESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Seiberling.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Well, there's always room for one more. Mr. Hosty, in your experience in the FBI, have there been other cases where it looked as though Washington was trying to focus the blame for some failure away from itself and onto some agent out in the field? Mr. HOSTY. This was a normal procedure.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you.

Mr. EDWARDS. Are there further questions?

you

Mr. DODD. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple. I neglected to ask Mr. Hosty, when you talked to Mr. Shanklin in Kansas City, and the suggestion made that you prepare a report or file a report, did do that? Did you prepare a memo, a report to go to Mr. Kelley? Mr. HOSTY. Excuse me, I didn't understand the question. Mr. DODD. Well, according to your testimony and yesterday Mr. Shanklin's testimony, that he had made a suggestion to you regarding this matter, that a memo be prepared, did you prepare a memo or something like that?

Mr. HOSTY. Yes, sir. I had already prepared it. The letter had already been sent to Mr. Kelley. He didn't apparently realize, when I had talked to him, that I had already talked to Mr. Kelley and that I had already sent a letter to him.

Mr. DODD. Could we have a copy of that memo that you prepared? Mr. HOSTY. Yes. My attorney has it.

Mr. DODD. Thank you.

[The material requested follows:]

Re personnel matter.

DIRECTOR, FBI

(personal and confidential):

OCTOBER 24, 1973.

In compliance with your instructions following our conversation in Kansas City on 10/19/73, I am setting forth the basic facts that we discussed. I am convinced that the administrative action taken against me in December, 1963, and again in October, 1964, was unjustified for the following reasons:

(1) The letter of censure in December, 1963, and the suspension in October, 1964, were based upon answers to questions telephonically furnished by former Assistant Director James Gale on 12/5/63. I answered these questions by memo to the SAC in Dallas dated 12/6/63.

About four years ago I had an opportunity to review my field personnel file in the Kansas City Office and noted that Serial 157 of the Dallas section of this file contains answers dated 12/8/63, which are not the same answers I submitted on 12/6/63. Most particularly I object to the answers to Questions 5 and 6 that appear in my personnel file. I am enclosing a copy of my memo to the SAC, Dallas, dated 12/6/63, which you will note is different from the one appearing in my personnel file.

I am aware, however, that former Supervisor Kenneth Howe did make alterations to my answers without my advice or consent, but with my knowledge. I am enclosing a copy of my memo to the SAC, Dallas, dated 12/6/63, with his corrections, and a copy of a routing slip from Howe to me furnishing me with the corrections. However, the answers appearing in my personnel file are not these answers either. It appears my answers were changed a second time, probably on 12/8/63, without my knowledge. The most obvious change is the false answer to Questions 5 and 6, in which I am falsely quoted as saying, "Perhaps I should have notified the Bureau earlier." This constitutes an admission of guilt, which I did not make at any time.

1

As to the motive for the above and the persons responsible, I believe the third paragraph of [deleted] 1 letter dated [deleted], pretty well pinpoints the responsibility. I am enclosing a copy of this letter.

(2) The letter of censure and suspension dated October, 1964, constitutes double jeopardy based upon the letter of censure dated December, 1963. The only thing added to the letter of October, 1964, was the statement that I made inappropriate remarks before a Hearing Board. Yet former Director Hoover personally advised me on 5/6/64, and SAC Gordon Shanklin of the Dallas Office in June, 1964, that my testimony before the Warren Commission was excellent. The Bureau had a summary of my testimony on 5/6/64, and the full text of my testimony one week later, five months before my letter of censure in October, 1964, and no mention was made at any time concerning my inappropriate remarks until October, 1964. Mr. Hoover also assured me on 5/6/64, that the Warren Commission would completely clear the FBI. The unexpected failure of the Warren Commission to do this, I believe, was the principal reason for my second letter of censure and suspension in October, 1964.

(3) The matters covered in both letters of censure had no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the case; namely, the prevention of the assassination of President Kennedy.

In accordance with your specific request on 10/19/73, the following should be noted regarding the failure to place Lee Harvey Oswald on the Security Index: Oswald was not on the Security Index because he did not fit the criteria in existence as of 11/22/63. The criteria was later changed to include Oswald. It should be noted, however, even if he had been on the Security Index, no specific action would have been taken regarding him or any other Security Index subject at the time of President Kennedy's visit to Dallas.

The FBI as of 11/22/63, had only one responsibility regarding presidential protection, at the insistence of the U.S. Secret Service. The responsibility was to furnish the Secret Service any information on persons making direct threats against the President, in possible violation of Title 18, USC, Section 871. I personally participated in two such referrals immediately prior to 11/22/63.

In conclusion, [deleted] 2 letter dated [deleted], sums up my attitude in this matter that because of the action taken by the Bureau in October, 1964, the Bureau in effect told the world I was the person responsible for President Kennedy's death.

On 10/19/73, you asked me what I think should be done. I believe that it first must be determined if I was derelict in my duty in any manner, and was responsible for President Kennedy's death. After that it should be determined what damages I suffered, and then we can discuss the third point-what action should be taken.

I can state with a perfectly clear conscience that I in no way failed to do what was required of me prior to 11/22/63, and based upon information available to me, which was not all the information available to the U.S. Government on 11/22/63. I had absolutely no reason to believe that Oswald was a potential assassin or dangerous in any way.

I have no desire to blame anyone else or to seek an alternate scapegoat. I am firmly convinced, despite the totally unjustified conclusion of the Warren Commission, that the FBI was not in any way at fault.

1 Information deleted for reasons of personal privacy.

2 The material referred to above has been received as executive committee material and is retained in the subcommittee files.

In accordance with your instructions, I will not discuss the contents of this letter with anyone. In the event you want further clarification on any point, I will gladly furnish additional information to you.

SA JAMES P. HOSTY, Jr.
Kansas City Office.

Mr. DODD. Do you know whether or not there was an agent in New Orleans by the name of Dobey or de Breeze? Warren de Bruyes? Mr. HOSTY. Warren de Bruyes?

Mr. DODD. That's it.

Mr. HOSTY. Warren de Bruyes. Yes, I know him well.

Mr. DODD. Did he have contact with Oswald? Do you know?

Mr. Hosty. From what he told me, he didn't. He came to Dallas, I believe on November 24, 1963, as part of the large group of agents that were sent in from adjoining field offices to assist us. We got approximately 80 agents sent in from other field offices that came in to help us, and he was one of them.

I saw his name on the list and recognized his name as being an agent familiar with security work and for that reason I asked for him to work with me, and he was with me when we picked up the evidence from the Dallas Police Department on Tuesday following the assassination, and he did work with me for about 2 weeks.

Mr. DODD. But, to the best of your knowledge, he had no contact with Oswald?

Mr. HOSTY. He told me he hadn't.

Mr. DODD. You have no other reason to believe that he did?
Mr. HOSTY. He'd have no reason to tell me otherwise.

Mr. DODD. He mentioned it in the notebook entries. The omission of your name and address and so forth, and that the reason was that were really looking for lead information, since you were

you

Mr. HOSTY. Agent Gemberling accidently took what was meant to be a lead memo and made an investigative insert out of it, according to his testimony, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

I prepared the memorandum in question for the purpose of identifying the persons named in the notebook, and since my identity was already known to myself and the agent in charge, I had that on a sepa

rato memo.

Mr. DODD. Now, if that's the case, why would the memo also include the names of John Connally, Marina Oswald, and the Paines, who were all known as well?

And why would it omit your name, or why would your name be omitted, if that were the basis of excluding it?

Mr. HOSTY. Well, I don't remember John Connally's name being on the list. It may have been.

Mr. DODD. Ör Marina Oswald, or the Paines? They were known. Mr. Hosty. I don't believe their names were in the notebook, that I recall. I might be incorrect in my recall, but I don't recall their names being in his address book.

Mr. DODD. But there were notations in there to that effect.
Mr. HOSTY. Oh, well, then I don't recall that.

82-629-77—12

Mr. DODD. That doesn't seem to follow, does it? If that were the reasons given.

Mr. HOSTY. Well, I dictated all of the names that were in English. I could not pick out the Russian names. I dictated them into the memorandum for the purpose of identifying them.

Mr. DODD. In fact, you copied out everything?

Mr. HOSTY. That I could, yes.

Mr. DODD. That you could decipher?

Mr. HOSTY. Right.

Mr. DODD. All right. Now, I asked you one question earlier about whether or not you had any information as to whether or not the FBI had a mail cover?

Mr. HOSTY. They did not during the period I had the case.

Mr. DODD. All right. Let me ask you a question, a policy question now. Now, according to Commission exhibit 2718, by April 1963, the FBI had access to the contents of letters written by Oswald, according to the confidential informant T-2, who did not know Oswald personally.

Mr. HOSTY. Right, that's correct.

Mr. DODD. The return address on this April 21, 1963 letter was P.O. Box 2915, which it turns out is the same post office box where the rifle was kept.

Mr. HOSTY. Right.

Mr. DODD. Apparently the FBI knew about that box earlier because they had information from other informants as to subscriptions that Oswald had taken out on certain books, magazines, military work, and so forth. So, while you might be led to believe that the FBI didn't have access to everything coming in, it certainly would appear that they had access even to outgoing mail based on the fact that he was making subscriptions, or was supplied with subscriptions.

Mr. HOSTY. Now that information was received from the point where the mail was received, not from a Dallas source.

Mr. DODD. But in other words, they would have to know they would be watching for Oswald, or were they just checking out those magazines particularly?

Mr. HOSTY. No, they wouldn't be particularly watching for Oswald. They would be watching for any incoming mail. I think that the thing that you have reference to is a letter that he wrote to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee?

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. HOSTY. That would have been a mail cover on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, rather than on Oswald.

Mr. DODD. But you have no information at all, none whatsoever as to the allegation that there was a mail cover, either ingoing or outgoing, incoming or outgoing?

Mr. HOSTY. Not by the FBI on Oswald.

Mr. DODD. Well, let's assume they did. There seems to be some information that they were at least watching mail to some degree coming in. The fact that you had known of the fact that he was working at the Book Depository, which was on the route of the Presidential motorcade

Mr. HOSTY. I didn't know it was the route, no, sir.