Warren Commission, a "Legal Court," Cross Examination, Penalty for Perjury? One Member's Irony vs. Another's "Truth".

[Guest Tom Scully]

Paul Trejo, I completely agree with you when you say that the Warren Commission was not a legal court. Without a defence or proper cross examination how could it be otherwise?

I further agree when you say that the commission 'ignored all testimony that failed to point to the lone nut theory' and the commission was set-up to sell this view to the public. That Earl Warren could not deliver justice or act with integrity as head of the commission is a point you make well.

I also agree, and I paraphrase you here, that by extension the witnesses must have reflected this lack of integrity exhibited by Warren.

This lack of integrity no doubt was reflected in Marina Oswalds testimony, which you have went to great lengths to prove was dubious. Thank you.

I too find it tedious that people here are picking up on the small mistakes you've made with quotations etc. I, like you, try my best to quote accurately. I find it important.

Keep up the good work.

Gary, brilliant exercise of irony. Hilarious. I salute you, sir.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Surely you realize that Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren was the head of the Supreme Court in 1964, don't you?

The head of the Supreme Court led the Warren Commission! Does that mean nothing to you people? Wow.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Following that logic, then...if Earl Warren had led the prayer group at his church, that prayer group would have become an extension of the Supreme Court as well.

Wait a minute, Mark. The head of the Supreme Court in 1964 was also the head of the Warren Commission in 1964 -- and you can totally separate those historical facts in your mind?

No connection? None? Honestly?

Of course a Presidential Commission is different than a Supreme Court case -- that's obvious. However, the very fact that the chief of the Supreme Court was also the chief of the Warren Commission is a significant historical phenomenon. You seem to be closing your mind to the significance.

It seems absurd to me to observe that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presided over eight months of hearings of ~200 witnesses (all of them formally sworn in and subject to cross-examination), and then somehow announce that this was "not a legal court." Just absurd!

Now, I agree that Warren was constrained by Executive Order to conclude -- no matter what -- that Hoover's preconceived solution was correct. Nevertheless, that was executed on the basis of National Security -- to ultimately avoid World War Three. Within those constraints, the eight months of formal court proceedings were carried on with massive energy -- and anybody caught in perjury would have been publicly hung out to dry -- it was a terrifying time, no doubt.

But LBJ designed the Commission around the oversight of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That remains a core feature of the Warren Commission.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Paul Trejo, on 20 May 2013 - 11:53 PM, said: "Gary, brilliant exercise of irony. Hilarious. I salute you, sir."

and just 11 minutes later,

Paul Trejo, on 21 May 2013 - 12:04 AM, said: "....It seems absurd to me to observe that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presided over eight months of hearings of ~200 witnesses (all of them formally sworn in and subject to cross-examination), and then somehow announce that this was "not a legal court." Just absurd! ..... and anybody caught in perjury would have been publicly hung out to dry -- it was a terrifying time, no doubt."

Full quote: “At the very first meeting of the Commission, on December 5, 1963, Warren announced his belief that the Commission needed neither its own investigators nor the authority to issue subpoenas and grant immunity from prosecution to witnesses if they were compelled to testify, after first having chosen to take the Fifth Amendment on grounds of self-incrimination. The Chief Justice was overruled by the Commission on the subpoena and immunity authority, thorough immunity was never used; but he held sway on his insistence that evidence that had been developed by the FBI would form a foundation for the Commission investigation.” (In: R. Blakey and R. Billings. Fatal Hour--The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime. New York, Berkley Books, 1992, p. 82)

HSCA Testimony of Warren Commission Asst. Counsel, Wesley Liebeler

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hsclieb.htm

"....Mr. CORNWELL. What contribution did Mr. Jenner make with respect to the investigation of Oswald's background and His conspiratorial relationships?

Mr. LIBELER - The record will show that Mr. Jenner conducted testimony before the Commission, itself. He took a large number of depositions in Dallas and New Orleans. And subsequently my recollection is that he worked on a draft of some material that related to the Oswald involvement with the so-called Russian community in Dallas. My impression was that he worked primarily on this in the drafting process.

Mr. CORNWELL - When did you leave the Warren Commission?

Mr. LIBELER - After the work was finished, some time I believe in October 1964.

Mr. CORNWELL - When did Mr. Jenner leave?

Mr. LIBELER - He stayed until the end also I believe, close to the end.

Mr. CORNWELL - Did you consider your assignment there a full-time job?

Mr. LIBELER - Yes. sir.

Mr. CORNWELL - How many hours a week did you work?

Mr. LIBELER - The pay records will show what I charged the Government for. Mr. Rankin sometimes didn't believe there were that, many hours worked. There were in fact many more. It was a 7-day-a-week job for large periods of time.

Mr. CORNWELL - Was that also true with respect to Jenner.

Mr. LIBELER - In the latter part of the work of the Commission Mr. Jenner put in a lot of hours working on Commission matters. During the early stage of the investigation his participation was somewhat less.

Mr. CORNWELL - During what period of time was it somewhat less?

Mr. LIBELER - My recollection is that when I started to work the first thing I had to do was read a very large number of basically FBI reports and trying to organize the material within my general area in such a way that I could decide what additional evidence had to be developed and whose depositions had to be taken. It was difficult for Mr. Jenner and I to work out a general relationship on that, question at the time. Since I was a so-called junior staff member at that time, Mr. Jenner was not, I was quite unsure when I started as to how to handle the problem. I finally just decided to do my own thing and basically went ahead and did most of that original work, myself. Mr. Jenner and I never actually worked very closely together. He worked on projects and I worked on projects.

Mr. CORNWELL - I don't think you actually ever answered the last question which was when was it that the changeover occurred between Mr. Jenner's part-time activity and his full-time.

Mr. LIBELER - My recollection is that during the early part of the Commission's work that Mr. Jenner was concerned, I believe he was interested in becoming president of the American Bar Association and believe he spent some time on that issue. I suppose that the record will show when the Bar Association convention was held which is usually in the summer sometime. His interest rose sharply after the convention and he participated to a greater extent in the work of the Commission.

Mr. DODD - I presume he was not elected then?

Mr. LIBELER - No....

....Mr. CORNWELL - May we mark for identification, Mr. Chairman, one page out of a book marked "Inquest," as exhibit 33. I show you what has been marked as exhibit 33, being a photocopy of one page of the book "Inquest." That publication purports to quote you in connection with the work of the Warren Commission. I might state that that particular segment of the book relates to the Commission members work as opposed to staff work. It states, "Wesley Liebeler, when asked what the Commission did replied in one word 'nothing.'" Let me ask you two questions. Does the book quote you accurately and if so what was the meaning of the statement?

Mr. LIBELER - I have no recollection making the statement to Mr. Epstein but I don't deny that I made it.

Mr. CORNWELL - What was the nature of the Warren Commission's work as you perceived it and viewed it during your tenure as staff counsel?

Mr. LIBELER - I think Mr. Willen's characterization on this same page is a more accurate characterization. What I had intended to convey to Mr. Epstein was the idea that in terms of developing the investigation, the direction in particular of the investigation, and in drafting the report, the Commissioners themselves were not directly involved, and they were not.

Mr. CORNWELL - So, your general view then would be that similar to what is reported in the document Mr. Willens said and that is that the Commissioners were not in touch with the investigation all times?

Mr. LIBELER - As further explained in my previous testimony, yes...."

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1d.html

Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives

Page 259

"......The committee also discovered certain basic deficiencies in the capacity of the Commission to investigate effectively the murder of a President. In the words of a Commission assistant counsel: "The style of the Commission's own staff ...was not one of criminal investigators."(21) The committee found, further, that the Commission consciously decided not to form its own staff of professional investigators, choosing instead to rely on an analysis by its lawyers of the investigative reports of Federal agencies, principally the FBI and CIA. (22) And even though its staff was composed primarily of lawyers, the Commission did not take advantage of all the legal tools available to it. An assistant counsel (Burt W. Griffin) told the committee:"The Commission itself failed to utilize the instruments of immunity from prosecution and prosecution for perjury with respect to witnesses whose veracity it doubted."(23) While the Commission did go beyond the expected role of traditional fact-finding panels serving a President, its inability to break out of the mold of such blue-ribbon bodies severely restricted its effectiveness in investigating the assassination of the President and the murders of Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald.

The committee also found fault with the manner in which the conclusions of the Warren Commission were stated, although the committee recognized how time and resource limitations might have come into Page 260 play."

The Warren Commission and the Fourth Shot: A Reflection on the Fundamentals of Forensic Fact-finding

Paul L. Freese

New York University Law Review, Vol. 40, May 1965, pp. 424–465

"...The Commission is without rival in its display of investigative energy. It gathered a prodigious amount of evidence. Its design and program as a fact-finder, however, not only entailed direct involvement in the formulation of investigative hypotheses, which by itself is a major advantage, but also called for involvement in developing the facts to test the hypotheses and responsibility for critically examining the facts it developed. If there were gaps in its approach to the truth, if it failed to develop methodical approaches in exploring the approaches taken, or if it failed to be sufficiently critical of evidence it developed, the errors or omissions might go unnoted until after it reported its task complete.

Assuming, as it appears, that the Warren Commission confronted the same inherent susceptibility to error through “bias” that thwarts, or impairs, the ability of any fact-finder to achieve its ideal objective, could its methodology, and therefore the stature of its work product, have been enhanced by an eclectic resort to the principles of more mature structures? It can be granted that the common law machinery, per se, is completely unsuitable to a task of the type given to the Warren Commission and that it was a blessing not to have exclusionary rules of evidence and disruptive displays by opposing counsel blocking the Commission from its goal. But are the essential principles of common law procedure—cross-examination, critical comment and challenge, separation of functions, cross-sectional perspective and detached review—unsuitable products of accidental historical development? They may well reflect the forces of inarticulate reason and sound judgment shaping the fact-finding process through centuries of clinical experience. A considerable knowledge of human nature, its strengths and weaknesses, has been captured in our adjudicative system and its basic principles of function should not be discarded indiscriminately.

Before determining their adaptability to the Commission, let us recall their essential values and purposes:

The Critical Examiner: Perhaps the paramount principle of the common law procedure is the principle of cross-examination. As Wigmore, its articulate champion, states:

Not even the abuses, the mishandlings, and the puerilities which are so often found associated with cross-examination have availed to nullify its value. It may be that in more than one sense it takes the place in our system which torture occupied in the medieval system of the civilians. Nevertheless, it is beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine even invented for the discovery of truth. However difficult it may be for the layman, the scientist, or the foreign jurist to appreciate this its wonderful power, there has probably never been a moment’s doubt upon this point in the mind of a lawyer of experience…. If we omit political considerations of broader range, then cross-examination, not trial by jury, is the great and permanent contribution of the Anglo-American system of law to improved methods of trial-procedure.[160]

Whenever testimonial evidence is significant, the quality of the witness and his knowledge must be made known to the fact-finder if testimony is to be given proper weight. Contrary to common impression, it is not generally the testimony of the insincere person that is reduced to truth by cross-examination. The typical witness is basically honest, but his perception may be faulty, his opportunity to observe may be limited, his inability to articulate his impressions may cause misimpressions. Within the boundaries of pure honesty set by each person, facts may be colored, editorialized, or rationalized and thereby distorted. The cumulative effect of such testimony alone, or perhaps with other slanted versions, may lead to a completely erroneous finding of fact without entailing perjury or even bad faith on the part of any witness.[161] The cross-examiner has his main value in taking the color or editorial content out of the testimony. Inadequate observations, defects in perceptive ability, the degree or certainty of true recollection—these factors are made known.

The much maligned hearsay rule is primarily a recognition of the value placed in cross-examination by fact-finders through the ages. It compels production of the witness so his testimonial credentials can be checked.[162] Consider the statements given by Mrs. “K” concerning Jack Ruby.[163] The discrepancy in dates concerning Ruby’s business activities apparently led to the retraction of her first two statements. Suppose such an obvious flaw had not existed. The fact that she was a “stripper” (revealed in the statement) might have devalued her statement, but, without a personal appearance, her declarations might have become an acceptable part of the historical record, there to lurk and mislead tomorrow’s historians. How many of the volumes of statements in the official record share similar faults? A statement, without a witness, does not convey the personality, character traits, or general competency of a witness. The problem is aggravated when the statements are collected by investigators schooled in the same method. The systematic sameness of written reports can make an archangel sound like a classmate of Mrs. “K.”[164]

The Separation of Function—Appearance and Apparatus of Objectivity: The division of functions in the fact-finding process is a feature of the common law procedure illustrated by the varying roles played by investigator, attorney, judge and jury. If nothing more, the involvement of many separate agencies or parties in the process tends to shelter the fact-finders from the paranoid criticism of the conspiratorial mentality.[165] Judge and prosecutor and police may be associated with government but at least there is a private attorney and twelve jurors not on the government payroll who are given respect and dignity to go with their serious responsibility in fact-finding.

This separation of function gives the common law tribunal the appearance of an objective machinery. Separation also provides an apparatus for objectivity. The critical evaluation of evidence is not entrusted to one side or party. As a result there is a more critical examination of all evidence by investigator and proponent. The proponent knows that other evidence, indeed, the integrity of his whole profession, may suffer if he is careless in screening and proffering tenuous proofs, for he also knows that it will be screened hypercritically by his opponent. Thus, the trier of fact at the outset confronts evidence of better quality and is relieved of the investigator’s task of discriminating between credible and fairly valueless data. As noted by one critic, the mere amassing of data may obscure obvious truths and this frustrate the very purpose of the fact-finding process.[166] In the adversary proceeding, data is screened at the time of initial presentation, and later when all the evidence is in, the value of the evidentiary facts, alone, or in conjunction, is given further critical scrutiny and comment.[167] Theoretically, both judge and jury have been sheltered from the confusing influence of irrelevant data and know relatively little about the case other than from the admitted evidence....."

Quote

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6436.0

Rob Caprio June 08, 2012, 05:21:42 PM

As most will know who have researched this case Mark Lane was hired by LHO's mother, Marguerite Oswald, to defend her son's interest during the WC hearings. However, the WC saw fit to provide the deceased alleged assassin with another lawyer for the record to serve his interests, they wrote:

Quote on

In all fairness to the ALLEGED (LNers take note of this word) 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 whether in his opinion the proceedings conformed to the basic principles of American justice. Mr. Craig accepted this assignment and participated fully and without 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. (WCR, xiv-xv)

Quote off

Further endorsement would come from Gerald Ford who would call him the "ethical conscience of the American Bar" and the NY Post would say, "The Warren Commission's appointment of the president of the American Bar Assn. to represent the INTERESTS of Lee Harvey Oswald, President Kennedy's accused assassin, is a welcome development."

The NY Post continued with "His willingness to undertake the assignment is consistent with a long legal traditon of which men of conservative backgrounds have entered the arena of controversy and undertaken to defend the least popular causes." (NY Post, February 27, 1964)

What did Craig have to say about this assignment? "We are NOT counsel for Lee Harvey Oswald", he told the Commission. He said he would participate in the hearings to see that "all facts pertaining to the INVOLVEMENT of Lee Harvey Oswald with the assassination of President Kennedy are FULLY investigated and fairly presented." The "bar's ethical conscience" seemed to lack the knowledge of our system of "innocent UNTIL proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" as much as the LNers on this board.

So how did this all work out? Well there is NO record in the WCR or its 26 volumes of Mr. Craig or his associates EVER recalling a witness. There is NO record of a witness being listed as a prospective witness by Mr. Craig or his associates. IF they presented a name of a new witness it is not mentioned in the WCR. IF Mr. Craig or his associates ever attended one of the 25,000 interviews, there is NO record of it in the WCR. In fact, beyond the section above Mr. Craig appears NOWHERE in the WCR, the 26 volumes or the index. Mr. Craig and his associates NEVER participated in cross-examinations, beyond an occasional question or two on a rare occasion, and these were of minor importance or to fasten guilt to LHO more firmly.

The WC would state "The Commission has functioned neither as a court presiding over an adversary proceeding nor as a prosecutor determined to prove a case, but as a fact-finding agency committed to the ascertainment of the truth." (WCR, xiv) Sure, and the Pope isn't Catholic either. Here is their outline for their "fact-finding" investigation:

I. Oswald's activities on November 22;

II. Oswald's background;

III. Oswald's career in the Marine Corps and his stay in the

Soviet Union;

IV. Oswald's murder in the Dallas police station;

V. Ruby's background;

VI. The procedures employed to protect President Kennedy

Sounds like they left NO stone uncovered. Unquote

The Bleating Won't Stop Until the Truth Overwhelms It:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20158&page=14entry273849

Paul Trejo, on 16 May 2013 - 5:35 PM, said:

Quote

Pat, I see your logic, and I agree with most of it. Yet I think that you're reaching a tad. .....

...........

Those who call Marina a xxxx tend to be vocal and relentless. Yet there are plenty of high-powered, respected JFK researchers and authors in this Forum who have interviewed Marina Oswald Porter and have concluded that she is eminently believable.

..............Given that -- and finding no value in the question of wife beating to the issue of JFK's murder -- why even bother with challenging her story that Lee Oswald beat her?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo Unquote

Edited May 21, 2013 by Tom Scully

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Tom you appear to be amongst a growing band of rhetoricians appearing on this forum.

They are easily identified by their honest, truthful and considered approach to research.

Your logical approach appears worthy of embrace, you are a serious researcher...so I have to ask why you cannot agree with Paul Trejo that the Warren Commission was not a legal court?

Do you also agree that there was no form of cross-examination of witnesses?

As Paul said, and I paraphrase, to not agree would be just absurd!

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

That there was no cross-examination is simple to check.

None of the lawyers cited as cousel to represent Oswald's interests ever rose to ask a single question.

The game is given away by the status accorded by the Commission to these lawyers. When any of them was in attendance, which was sporadically at best, they were decribed for the record as "present" or as "observers." Not "defense counsel" or even particpants, mind - which one would be had one asked a single question - but mere observers of what transpired during the hearings.

Here's the rigorous level of "cross examinaton" that Paul Trejo compares to a court proceeding, as explained by one of the fill-ins for Craig, et al, who were rarely present.

Lewis E. Powell, Jr

Vol. II - Page 294

Mr. Powell.
Mr. Chairman, I think I might say just this: I am here representing Mr. Walter Craig, as I think the Commission understands. I have been here the last two days. In a conversation with Mr. Rankin yesterday morning we agreed that rather than my asking questions directly of witnesses, I would make suggestions to Mr. Ball or to one of his associates, and I have been following that practice yesterday and today, after consulting with Mr. Murray who is also here for Mr. Craig, and Mr. Ball and his associates have followed up these suggestions that we have made.

Representative Ford.
The suggestions you have made have been transmitted to Mr. Ball or his associates and have been asked of the various witnesses?

Mr. Powell.
That is correct.

Representative Ford.
Any other questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Whaley.


So, the fact is that the so-called defense "cross-examination" was conducted by the prosecution, should Oswald's "appointed" "counsel" bother itself to "suggest" a question. Evidence of which is conspicuous by its absence.

It is time-consuming to impart information to Paul Trejo given that there is so much he does not know, a process made all the more painful by his evasive alibis and repeated refusal to acknowledge how little he actually knows and understands about these things.

Can we just start a thread called "Things That Paul Trejo Should Know, But Doesn't?" And disallow Paul Trejo to post in that thread? That way, we can just dump our explanations there without having to endure all the speculative conjecture - invariably incorrect - that arises in response.

[Greg Burnham]

Can we just start a thread called "Things That Paul Trejo Should Know, But Doesn't?" And disallow Paul Trejo to post in that thread? That way, we can just dump our explanations there without having to endure all the speculative conjecture - invariably incorrect - that arises in response.

ROFLMAO! If I still had stitches I'm sure they would have popped open when I read that one! Eloquently irreverent, as usual...

[Michael Hogan]

Can we just start a thread called "Things That Paul Trejo Should Know, But Doesn't?" And disallow Paul Trejo to post in that thread? That way, we can just dump our explanations there without having to endure all the speculative conjecture - invariably incorrect - that arises in response.

ROFLMAO! If I still had stitches I'm sure they would have popped open when I read that one! Eloquently irreverent, as usual...

Hi Greg,

Just the other day I wondered how you were doing. Much better I trust..

Just like with RC-D, I always enjoy reading your posts.

[Ian Kingsbury]

This is clever stuff it all went over my head and I was standing on a chair whilst reading it.

[Greg Burnham]

Can we just start a thread called "Things That Paul Trejo Should Know, But Doesn't?" And disallow Paul Trejo to post in that thread? That way, we can just dump our explanations there without having to endure all the speculative conjecture - invariably incorrect - that arises in response.

ROFLMAO! If I still had stitches I'm sure they would have popped open when I read that one! Eloquently irreverent, as usual...

Hi Greg,

Just the other day I wondered how you were doing. Much better I trust..

Just like with RC-D, I always enjoy reading your posts.

Hi Michael,

Yes, I'm finally feeling much better. Thanks for asking. I don't want to go too far off

topic here, but suffice it to say that the recovery time from this surgery is typically

one of the longest. Everything was a success and I should be back full force post

haste.

[Paul Trejo]

...Can we just start a thread called "Things That Paul Trejo Should Know, But Doesn't?" And disallow Paul Trejo to post in that thread? That way, we can just dump our explanations there without having to endure all the speculative conjecture - invariably incorrect - that arises in response.

Cute, very cute. Still, only a totally biased reader would attempt to ignore the fact that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1964 was also the head of the Warren Commission in 1964.

The historical profundity of the fact is obvious to the casual observer.

Yes -- I fully acknowledge the issues: (1) J. Edgar Hoover stated the verdict before Oswald was killed; (2) LBJ approved the verdict and created a Commission to approve what Hoover had already concluded; and (3) Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was obliged (with tears in his eyes, according to Jim Garrison) to be the head of the President's Commission, thereafter to be called the Warren Commission.

All that is well known and need not be belabored further.

It still remains historically profound that the head of the Supreme Court presided over the testimony of ~200 witnesses for ~8 months (all under oath) in order to achieve this prejudiced result.

The outcome (that Oswald was a lone-nut assassin) was a lie -- and everybody in charge knew it was a lie. Yet the best lies aren't the most outrageous lies (Third Reich to the contrary), rather, the best lies are those comprised of 99% TRUTH. These sorts of lies will stand the test of TIME.

So, the Warren Commission proceeded to use the power of the head of the Supreme Court to extract evidence from ~200 witnesses under oath (through biased questioning, and off-the-record discussions) to obtain 99% TRUTH and the 1% LIE.

Tracing such a LIE should be like finding a needle in a haystack, and should take at least 50 years. It was a successful strategy.

So -- is there any justification for LYING to the American Public? Of course there is, and everybody knows it -- it's called National Security.

These great men -- LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles, guided the Warren Commission through its paces to blame Lee Harvey Oswald and him alone for the assassination of JFK for one very good reason -- National Security, i.e. (IMHO) to prevent Civil War in the USA during the Cold War which would have quickly led to World War 3.

Since LBJ avoided World War 3 in his administration, I believe history will be generous with him, and show him to be one of the greatest Presidents in US History. And if this is correct, then it stands to reason that history will also be generious with J. Edgar Hoover, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 23, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Tom you appear to be amongst a growing band of rhetoricians appearing on this forum.

They are easily identified by their honest, truthful and considered approach to research.

Your logical approach appears worthy of embrace, you are a serious researcher...so I have to ask why you cannot agree with Paul Trejo that the Warren Commission was not a legal court?

Do you also agree that there was no form of cross-examination of witnesses?

As Paul said, and I paraphrase, to not agree would be just absurd!

Gary, your sense of irony is classic. As for Tom Scully, I find it oxymoronic that anybody with the title of moderator could show himself to be so one-sided and biased.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

As for Tom Scully, I find it oxymoronic that anybody with the title of moderator could show himself to be so one-sided and biased.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Apparently you haven't read many of Evan Burton's posts, then.

[Paul Trejo]

Anyway, getting back to the theme of the JFK assassination -- my top ten innovations in the past year on this Forum have been:

(1) the theory that the JFK assassination plotters were totally different than the JFK assassination cover-up plotters;

(2) the theory that the funders are less important to the solution of the JFK assassation than the ground-crew;

(3) the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald had and knew his accomplices in both the General Walker shooting and the JFK shooting;

(4) the theory that resigned General Edwin Walker found out about Oswald's 10 April 1963 shooting, and hired Guy Banister to help him exact revenge;

(5) the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald's fake FPCC chapter in New Orleans was conceived by Guy Banister, Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler;

(6) the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald's futile trip to Mexico to use his fake FPCC credentials to fake his way into Cuba was planned by Guy Banister;

(7) the theory that Silvia Odio's account of Loran Hall's involvement with Lee Harvey Oswald matches Harry Dean's account fully;

(8) the theory that the New Orleans team of the Walker plot to patsify Lee Harvey Oswald, handed Oswald over to the Dallas team in Mexico City;

(9) the theory that Interpen worked closely with ex-General Walker in Dallas, e.g. Gerry Patrick Hemming convinced Oswald to bring his rifle to the TSBD on 22 November 1963; and

(10) the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald personally knew all the people who framed him and who killed JFK, and only realized he had been framed in the last 48 hours of his life.

* It has long been claimed by others that Interpen was involved -- but Walker's central role was omitted from those accounts.

** Also, it has long been noted by others that Jack Ruby told Earl Warren that the central parties responsible for killing JFK were "General Walker" and the "John Birch Society," however, Jack Ruby was not asked to elaborate, and he volunteered nothing further on that topic.

*** Harry Dean foresaw #7 above, albeit with less detail.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 24, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Guest Tom Scully]

Paul, your record speaks for itself, and it ain't pretty.

http://wikipedia.atpedia.com/en/articles/p/e/t/User_talk~Petrejo_7164.html

....... Nietzsche request

Also, I have noticed that you seem to sign your comments by typing the name and date yourself. It is much more preferable to sign by typing four tildes (~~~~)after your comment. — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

........

All right, let me try that. Petrejo 04:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Cool!

Anyone skimming through your "exchanges" on the page linked in the quote box above would probably come away with the conclusions that you are perpetually in over your head and you've not been influenced since 2006 to change your SOP in the slightest,

This was a thread about your ridiculous assertions related to the Warren Commission and the Supreme Court, but you have broadened it into a treatise on your able researcher, deep thinker, victimized by jealous critics, schtick. It is getting stale, Paul.

http://wikipedia.atpedia.com/en/articles/p/e/t/User_talk~Petrejo_7164.html

.....Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. R.E. Freak 07:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The process as it stands allows two editors to gang up on a single editor. I've discussed this on the Talk pages, and those who delete my contributions are merely emotional in their POV. They won't edit my contribution, which consists only of *quotations* from the subject of Wikipedia article, they simply keep erasing it -- 34 times already. What limits *their* POV? Please advise. --PETREJO TUE23MAY06

....

Here's the deal, plain and simple: You need to knock it off with the hostility on Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche. I don't care who started it, but you're continuing it and it needs to stop now. If necessary I'll be happy to contact other editors who are furthering the conflict, or to start formal mediation procedures, if you think that will help, but you need to make some effort to knock this crap off. It is childish, it is disruptive, and it is likely to get you banned from editing.

The other thing I wanted to contact you about was to make sure you understand the point of gathering sources on that page, since your comments seem to suggest that you don't. The purpose is to gather together different POVs on Nietzsche so that they can all be included in the article, and referenced to various sources, not to prove that one or the other is right. I think there is a general consensus that the Nietzsche-as-proto-Nazi POV needs to be represented in the article, not as true, but as one among many readings. -Smahoney 21:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So, this ten-against-one scenario is somehow OK, and no matter how many insults they cast at me, I'm supposed to take it, but not respond at all? Because, Smahoney, I'm not hostile. What do you call hostility? Where was I hostile? The topic is heated, granted, but I'm not casting insults -- if I am, please tell me. I'm being objective; making every effort. It is very difficult in the ten-against-one scenario, and I've wondered if you're doing all you can to bring NPOV and objectivity to the scene. Is it possible that we need another dispute resolver, Smahoney? What about mediation? I don't see that I'm being unreasonable -- frankly, and I'm working very hard to do whatever is asked of me. It seems to me that I work very hard -- for weeks -- and others simply are allowed to insult me and mock my efforts and erase what I contribute. So, it is difficult, and yes, I may be defensive now and again. But hostile? I don't think so. Please tell me where I've been hostile so that I can see what you mean. Thanks. Petrejo 23:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

.........

Reading further down the page, the same passive / aggressive pattern exists on threads you are active in on this forum. The push, puzzled reaction to "push back" (yes....apparently it is sincere, endless cluelessness) the victim card, contrition, and back to "the push". I would not be surprised if he has persisted similarly for decades.

http://wikipedia.atpedia.com/en/articles/p/e/t/User_talk~Petrejo_7164.html#Warning

.....Warning

.....
All right, that's three deletions in a little over an hour. How can we get YOU blocked for 24 hours now? --PETREJO SAT20MAY06 (7:15am CST)

Dude, I have not reverted 3 times within 24 hours in a long, long time. The problem you are experiencing is that several editors are reverting your POV edits to Friedrich Nietzsche, hence none of us are violating this policy. I would love there to be another way, but you seem resistant to discussion. mgekelly 17:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

......

Edited May 24, 2013 by Tom Scully

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, your record speaks for itself, and it ain't pretty.

http://wikipedia.atpedia.com/en/articles/p/e/t/User_talk~Petrejo_7164.html

....... Nietzsche request

Also, I have noticed that you seem to sign your comments by typing the name and date yourself. It is much more preferable to sign by typing four tildes (~~~~)after your comment. — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

........

All right, let me try that. Petrejo 04:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Cool!

Anyone skimming through your "exchanges" on the page linked in the quote box above would probably come away with the conclusions that you are perpetually in over your head and you've not been influenced since 2006 to change your SOP in the slightest,

This was a thread about your ridiculous assertions related to the Warren Commission and the Supreme Court, but you have broadened it into a treatise on your able researcher, deep thinker, victimized by jealous critics, schtick. It is getting stale, Paul.

Tom, you went back seven years to the Wikipedia entry on Friedrich Nietzsche to try to find dirt on me? I'm flattered. Of course, the fans of Friedrich Nietzsche were upset with me because I dared to criticize their darling poet from a Hegelian vantage -- according to Hegel's process of elimination for the history of philosophy, Friedrich Nietzsche doesn't qualify as a philosopher at all.

They were very closed-minded and prejudiced about their views, and were not at all interested in hearing new ideas. They tried to ban me for pointing out new and fresh ideas. It's an old story -- it doesn't phase me a bit.

Also, I'm happy to change my viewpoint -- I openly invite people to convince me of a new view of things. But they need to have better ideas, and not simply closed minds and loud voices.

Hint: simply repeating yourself in another color is not a convincing argument.

If you'd like to convince me of something, Tom, then you're well-advised to do so using well-formed arguments. Intimidation, insults, emotional outbursts and bossiness don't have much of an effect on me, as you may have seen.

Reason, reason and only reason can convince me to change my mind. It's not that hard -- if somebody really tries.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 25, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Hogan]

If you'd like to convince me of something, Tom, then you're well-advised to do so using well-formed arguments. Intimidation, insults, emotional outbursts and bossiness don't have much of an effect on me, as you may have seen.

Reason, reason and only reason can convince me to change my mind. It's not that hard -- if somebody really tries.

The posts of countless Forum members, and Paul's responses to those posts, tell an entirely different story.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Michael Hogan

[Paul Trejo]

ANYWAY - let's get back to the purpose of this Forum, shall we, namely, the JFK assassination. I was talking about the present state of JFK research after 50 years, and the pitiful state that it finds itself wandering within.

Too many researchers are willing to take pot-shots at President LBJ, at Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, at FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, and at former CIA Director Allen Dulles -- with nothing more than vague suspicions and sarcastic tones.

The notion that the Warren Commission -- supervised by the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren -- should be respected with the title of a 'Legal Court' is regarded by a few loud members on this Forum to be a negative thing to say!

Therefore we have this thread, dedicated to the mockery of this idea in JFK research.

The idea that LBJ, Hoover, Warren and Dulles are great American heroes of the Cold War, because by means of the Warren Commission they sidestepped World War III, is also regarded by these same few loud members to be a negative thing to say!

Yet these few, loud members are among those who have regarded accepted the 50 year-old prejudice that those who murdered JFK were also the same ones who covered up the murder! Well, this may be the very reason that they've spun their wheels for 50 long years!

My theory, separates those two groups. My theory regards the killers of JFK to be the true criminals, the race segregationists led by ex-General Edwin Walker, Guy Banister and the John Birch Society, the White Citizens' Councils, the State Sovereignty Commissions, the States Rights Parties, the paramilitary Minutemen and the KKK. This group was obsessed with the idea that the USA should impeach Earl Warren, segregate public schools, invade Cuba and KILL FIDEL.

My theory regards those who covered up the truth about the murder of JFK to be wholly separate from the JFK killers. Instead, those who covered up the truth, i.e. all those involved in the selection and management of the Warren Commision, were actually great heroes, because their goal was National Security. By their sacrifice of credibility, they used their authority to avoid a Civil War in the USA, during the Cold War, which would have led to World War III.

Different people, different goals.

Now, this is a new and fresh approach to JFK research -- after 50 years of wheel spinning. One might think that this creative solution to the murder of JFK might be met with some constructive discussion -- BUT NO.

Instead, there has been a flurry of mockery, jeering, sarcasm, and threads like this one -- evidently terrified of new ideas. But I've only begun to share my new and fresh ideas -- I think we should ask a much wider array of readers on this Forum if they really want to censor people who insist upon rational argument and material evidence.

If anything, my detractors only stimulate me to take advantage of the publicity -- because after all, my ideas are based on reason, logic, material evidence and reason. As Freud once said, "the voice of reason is weak, but it does not rest until it gains a hearing."

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited May 25, 2013 by Paul Trejo