Tim Gratz

Very interesting article in April 2008 Smithstonian magazine re collection of St George photographs in Yale University:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-arch...tro-200804.html

From Wikipedia on "the Pinkerton doctrine":

The Supreme Court took a different view. It noted the facts showed a continuous conspiracy with no evidence that Daniel attempted to withdraw from it. Therefore, he continued to offend. So long as the partnership in crime continues, the partners act for each other in carrying it forward, and an overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement specifically directed to that act. The criminal intent to do an illegal act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the unlawful project is established by the formation of the conspiracy. Each conspirator instigates the commission of the crime. The unlawful agreement contemplated what was done in the substantive acts, the substantive crimes were performed in the execution of the enterprise.

Similar to the rule of aiding and abetting, the overt acts of one partner in a conspiracy is attributable to all partners. The court concluded that if an overt act, which is an essential ingredient to a conspiracy, can be supplied by one conspirator, then likewise the same or other acts in furtherance of the conspiracy should be attributable to the others for the purpose of holding them responsible for the substantive offense(s).

Daniel agreed to enter a criminal conspiracy and there was no evidence he ever attempted to withdraw from it.

Clearly the Pinkerton Doctrine does not stand for the proposition for which Bill contended. He owes me an apology.

Here is where he is confused. What the Pinkerton Doctrine has been used for is to indict for instance the getaway driver, obviously a witting member of a conspiracy to rob a bank, for the murder of a teller or customer committed in the course of the robber or attempted robbery even if the driver argues that the plan never contemplated the commission of a murder. When the driver wittingly entered the conspiracy, he can be held vicariously liable for whatever other felonious acts may be committed by his fellow conspirators, even if he did not agree to them.

Unless the Paines knew LHO was going to commit a criminal act, they could never have been indicted for ANYTHING, Bill. Sorry to disabuse you. Perhaps in the future before you post your legal theories you ought to at least check them in Wikipedia.

Bill's post remninds me of the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I pointed out to him that because of the doctrine of "means rea", The full Latin term is "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea", which (per Wikipedia) "means that 'the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty'. Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence).

Bill had suggested that the Paines could have been prosecuted as accessories for giving aid and comfort to Oswald even if they were "unwitting" which means they had no knowledge that LHO was going to commit the crime (if he did).

I am convinced that BK is absolutely wrong that a person can be convicted of murder if he commits an act in furtherance of a criminal action without knowing it. I am convinced he misunderstood what the assistant federal prosecutor told him.

I will add more in a subsequent post.

BK wrote:

Ruth and Micahel Paine, having provided aid and comfort, room and board and transprotation to the assassin and his family, could have been prosecuted as accessories to the crime (even if unwitting), but instead they were coddled and protected, as Gerald Ford himself takes note in his Profile of the Assassin.

There is a legal concept called mens rea. It essentially means guilty knowledge. If the Paines had no knowledge that Oswald was going to kill Kennedy (assuming of course that he did) there is no way that they could have been prosecuted as accessories even though they let him stay with Marina on the weekends or did anything else to "comfort him".

Bill has what can only be considered a very expansive interpretation of the criminal law.

And by the way, Bill, do I interpret from this post that you believe that Oswald was part of the conspiracy?

Pat, the point you made is an excellent one but I submit it also proves my point that any officer in the CIA who was participating in a planned assassination of the POTUS would never have committed any details to writing.

It would not surprise me if somewhere there may exist a single document (maybe two) that links Oswald to the CIA for the reasons you suggest and that may very well explain why the CIA brought Joannides in to be the liason (ha!) with the HSCA. But Pat, do you really think that even if CIA officers had planned the assassination anything about tHAT would have been committed to writing?

Dawn, as usual, appears to have missed my entire point. By the very reason that Pat cites, if the CIA was going to do the assassination and frame a patsy the LAST person it would have considered as a patsy was someone whom, if the right document might somehow slip through the cracks (or if some one in the Company "talked") could be linked to the Agency. It is for that reason that I have always believed that if Oswald was, as so many believe and has now been proved (if Leake and Kurtz are both truth-tellers) employed or affiliated with the CIA, then no halfway-intelligent CIA officer would have used HIM as a patsy (and obviously whoever did plan the assassination was more than "halfway-intelligent). On the other hand, Oswald would become the "perfect patsy" for someone not connected to the CIA (or even possibly a "rogue agent") because that person knew that a cover-up would be ASSURED if any Agency-affiliated person was made the patsy.

John wrote:

This analysis is very close to that of G. Robert Blakey and Richard Billings and is largely based on the HSCA investigation. However, a study of these documents can result to different conclusions. For example, Gaeton Fonzi, the HSCA’s investigator, took the view that the CIA was indeed involved in the assassination. Fonzi’s conclusions have been given credence by the revelation that George Joannides, DRE’s principal case officer in 1963, was the CIA’s liaison with the HSCA.

Respectfully, as excellent an investigator as he was, Fonzi's conclusions were often mere "leaps" toward a conclusion he wanted to reach. He based a lot of his theory of CIA involvement on the alleged association of Lee Harvey Oswald with a CIA agent he knew as Maurice Bishop. Of course the conventional wisdom is that Bishop was David Atlee Phillips. But whether Bishop was Phillips or another CIA officer is really beside the point. There are really two questions to be considered: (1) Did Veciana actually see Bishop with Oswald in Dallas? and (2) if Veciana did see Oswald with Bishop. what does that mean as it relates to the assassination?

With respect to the first question it must be noted that there were some valid questions re Veciana's story, questions the members of the HSCA felt significant. But even if Veciana did witness the encounter he claimed, what does it mean?

All that can be concluded from the Veciana story is the following:

(1) Oswald clearly did have a relationship with the CIA--and with Bishop.

(The recent disclosures in Kurtz's "The Assassination Debates" would confirm that relationship if Leake told

Kurtz the truth.)

(2) The CIA lied (repeatedly) about its lack of a relationship with Oswald. (And per Leake destroyed documents from NO re that relationship.)

Now how do we get from the "facts" that Oswald was working for the CIA and the CIA lied about that fact to the sensational conclusion that CIA officers helped plan the assassination? IMO there is no necessary nexus there and in fact Veciana's story of an association between Bishop and Oswald that he witnesses exculpates Bishop.

As Lamar Waldron argues (persuasively I think) if Bishop was involved in assassination planning the absolute LAST thing in the world he would permit would be to be seen with Oswald by one of the few persons who could identify him. Thus, the Veciana observation in Dallas exculpates Bishop. This analysis would be true even if one assumes LHO was not the shooter but only the CIA's designated patsy.

The only argument would be that someone in the CIA other than Bishop knew Oswald's relationship with the CIA and employed Oswald as the assassin or patsy. But that is rank speculation.

A far more logical scenario is that someone used LHO as a patsy knowing of his relationship with the CIA and knowing that such relationship would GUARANTEE a cover-up at the highest levels. IMO if the CIA actually had wanted to kill JFK it would have found a patsy with no previous CIA association. Why risk the destruction of the entire Agency by employing a patsy who as Sen Schweiker said "had the fingerprints of intelligence all around him"?

What if Leake or some other CIA official had testified to that relationship years earlier?

Re Joannides, all that suggests is that the CIA needed a reliable person to ensure that the HSCA did not uncover its relationship with Oswald.

John wrote:

Is it not possible that Joannides and the CIA only released documents that implicated the Mafia but withheld those that showed that the agency was closely associated with the assassination?

Again, there is no evidence I suggest to link CIA officers with the assassination. It strains credulity to even contemplate that had any officers of the CIA planned the assassination they would put any such planning in document form and-- in the extremely unlikely event any such documents existed that they would be around in the 1970s. Again, remember that Hunter Leake allegedly told Prof Kurtz that immediately after the assassination Helms ordered documents destroyed that merely showed a CIA relationship with Oswald. Does anyone SERIOUSLY think Helms would destroy those documents but leave in the files for possible discovery years later documents that linked the CIA to the assassination?

Again, I think we can reasonably be confident that:

(a) if CIA officers planned the assassination, the chance that any documents had ever been prepared that showed that would be no more than one in a million. ( If the one in a million chance did exist, the possibility that any such documents still existed on December 1, 1963 is absolutely ZERO.

Dear Ms. Ray:

I noticed you never replied to my question in another thread you started on Files re how Files, if he had actually been there as he claimed, would place No Name Key in the Florida Everglades, which are over 100 miles away from No Name Key. Hemming and his Interpen group did first hold camp in the Everglades but in spring of 1961 they moved to No Name Key. It seems clear to all who do not have a vested interest in promoting the Files story that he constructed at least that part of the story based on his readings and that he never set foot on No Name Key. No one wjo has ever been to No Name would place it in the Everglades.

I had also asked you to identify any members of Interpen he claimed to have met when he was at No Name Key. I noted that Hemming, the leader of Interpen, told me (and others too I suspect) that Files was never at No Name Key.

Like the Warren Report, the Files story IMO belongs in the fiction section of the library.

If one wants to divide everyone in to one of two binary groups, I guess that's as good a methodology as any!

All three U. S. presidential candidates fall, of course, into the same category but then there are I guess degreees of support for the free enterprise system.

But Dulles' quotation does seem inartful particularly if it was meant to imply that all Christians support the free enterprise system. Christianity is not of course dependent on one's allegiance to a branch of economic theory.

Robert, there is of course not one tiny scintilla of evidence linking Hargis, Bradley or McIntyre to the assassination. None, nada, zip. zilch. Sorry.

A group which detested JFK and had demonstrated its willingness to commit political murders and ought NOT be ruled out is the KKK, of course.

Speaking of the Southern racists, does anyone recall who suggested that at some future period the civilized races of man "will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races"?

Pamela, No Name Key is about thirty miles north of Key West whereas the Everglades are on the mainland over 150 miles to the North.

If Files was ever really at No Name Key, how could he say No Name Key was in the Everglades?

If he was at No Name Key, which of the Interpen men did he meet? Hemming never saw him!

Well, Zapruder himself was on the knoll and he testified to the WC on July 22, 1964 that he thought the shots came from behind him!

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

Dawn wrote:

I assume you mean interview the jurors? Absolutely interview them, to find out what they thought was both weak and strong about the state's case. It is SOP. I cannot speak for what the law in PA is but in TX. after the trial is over the judge cannot prevent those who wish to speak from doing so. Some have done so here, so I am assuming the law is the same in PA.

And of course that was my point about the FBI interviews of the former jurors. I assume the FBI was acting on behalf of the U.S. attorney. Does anyone know exactly what the FBI was asking the jurors?

BK wrote:

In addition, as previous trials have shown, retrails of cases with hung juries (ie Medgar Evers/Beckwith 2 hung juries before conviction), usually end the same unless new evidence and witnesses are presented.

I would like to see empirical rather than merely anecdotal evidence to support Bill's point. I spent about twenty minutes on the Internet and found no data on this point. I think a good argument can be made that prosecutors can do better at a retrial since they then know the defendant's case (which the defendant is not obligated to disclose at the first trial; the state is entitled to very limited discovery in a criminal case).

So Dawn do you suggest that Dr. Wecht's lawyers should represent him at the new trial without interviewing the witnesses who voted against him to attempt to evaluate the weaknesses of their case? I suggest to do so would represent legal malpractice. By the same token the prosecutors ought to interview the jurors who voted to acquit so they can assess the strengths and weaknesses of their case. I would think this would be SOP in a case like this provided the judge permits such interviews.

So Jim is it your position that it was LHO who shot JFK?

What a non sequitur, Peter.

The murder of MM was intended to be a sexual assassination of the Kennedys? Why then did no one ever at the time advance the proof of the Kennedys' involvement with MM? Apparently Bernard Spindel had tapes of the Kennedys with MM but the tapes were never made public. Clearly, someone was protecting the Kennedys.

I regret that Chris Hall, who I had the pleasure of meeting a few months ago, has picked up the mantra that the Wecht trial constitutes "malicious prosecution".

Chris, can you advise members of the necessary elements of "malicious prosecution" and what evidence exists to support that claim?

Can we agree at least that it is morally indefensible to create a false invoice for a limousince ride? And probably illegal as well--particularly when a county employee is used in the process.

I would agree however that the case ought not be retried.

To Carl:

Sutherland's character was called "X" but he was based on Col. Fletcher Prouty, a rather strange character with strange ideas about a lot of things.

That someone may have benefitted from the death of JFK is of course no evidence that he, she or they participated in it. And of course, the person who benefitted the most was Fidel Castro, followed by members of the Mafia.

And it is clear that RFK personally participated in the cover-up, including writing a false statement to the WC. Clearly, all persons involved in the cover-up were not necessarily involved in the murder. In fact it is possible that no one who participated in the murder played ANY role in the cover-up.

To Bill:

I agree with you. Errors in the pro- and anti-conspiracy literature should both be exposed.

There are several on-line essays about the errors in Posner. I will try to get a link to them.

To Don Jeffries:

Of course Rowland said first he saw a man on the second floor and later he said he saw two men, I know he later claimed he tried to tell the FBI that he saw two men but in one of my posts above I noted that his wife testified that he never told HER that he had seen two men. I find that rather curious.

I will (if I have not already done so) post the exact quotes from "Crossfire" and "High Treason" but believe me they saw explicitly that Mrs. Rowland saw the two men, in direct opposition to her testimony. As I see it, there are only two explanations: a) they wrote that statement without even reading her testimony; or they read her testimony and deliberately made a false statement. IMO the statements indicate they are either sloppy & lazy ot liars. I see no more charitable explanation.

And it is errors like that that give ammunition to critics of the assassination research community.

Re Groden placing Oswald on the second floor at 42 seconds after the shooting, how in the world can you claim he was using Mrs. Reid's testimony? I know you know the case better than that. Truly and Baker encountered Oswald approximately 90 seconds after the shooting, and Mrs. Reid saw him as he was leaving the building, two minutes after the shooting. I bet almost every member is aware of that time sequence.

So how does Groden get by saying Oswald was seen a mere 42 seconds after the shooting stopped? Groden never even says who supposedly saw him in such a time frame. He can't, because no one did. So is this is deliberate misstatement of fact? I hope someone might communicate this to Mr. Groden to see if he can offer an explanation.

Is it significant whether Mrs. Rowland had seen two men in the sixth floor window? Why of course it is. As it is the ONLY person who so testified was Mr. Rowland. Had any other person, including a relative of Mr. Rowland, seen the two men he claims he saw, it would have been significant corroboration for his testimony. Of course I doubt whether it would have changed the minds of the WC but it would be significant. If it is as meaningless as you claim, Marrs and Groden & Livingstone would not have mentioned it, would they?

Can you now point out a clear factual error in the WC? I would more characterize the WC as ignoring evidence contrary to its position rather than misstating facts, although for those who are not familiar with it I would point out that when the WC published the face sheet of the autopsy protocol for some reason it does not include the notation: "Verified /s/ George Burkeley."

JF: And I was at No Name Key in the Everglades.

Keeping in mind the old adage about great minds, when I mentioned that in an e-mail to Larry Hancock, he had the very same thought! I think he said to the effect, "What did Bradlee know that we don't?"

I mean surely Ben Bradlee knew the date of his friend's death.

But here's one David Lifton would enjoy. In "Conversations" Bradlee wrote that he knew JFK's body was to be brought to Bethesda for "the final autopsy". How's that again?

Well, since both Oliver Stone and Wikipedia claim that LBJ did it, it simply MUST be true.

Carl, I suggest you search the Internet and read several articles re critical thinking.

You wrote:

It's still there. Look under David Morales. They mention Cord Meyer too. John Simkin is mentioned also.

Now surely John is not mentioned by Wikipedia as a potential SUSPECT! I am not aware of any evidence linking John to either Morales or Meyer although there was once some discussion on this Forum whether he was CIA in deep, deep cover.

More to Don:

Mrs. Rowland gave a statement to the DPD on November 22, 1963. It is located in Vol 19 of the WC 26 Volumes at 493.

She also gave a statement to the FBI to the FBI on November 22, 1963. That is found in Vol 26 at page 168.

Her actual testimony is in Volume 6.

Three times she told authorities she never saw anyone on the sixth floor. But "Crossfire" and "High Treason" claim she said she had seen the men her husband saw (or claimed to see).

In my opinion, there is no way to excuse a book that so clearly misstates the evidence. What other conclusion can there be that the author is either extremely sloppy at best or dishonest at worst? (As I stated, I think part of this error may be explained because the authors never bothered to read her testimony but rather relied on s statement in "Conspiracy" that they misinterpreted.)

But how does one explain Groden's statement in "The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald" that Oswald was seen on the second floor only forty-two seconds after the last shot was fired? Did Groden merely manufacture this statement to bolster his theory that Oswald was innocent? I do not want to accuse Mr. Groden of deliberately inserting a lie in his book but I would certainly be interested in his source for that information--that I have seen in no other assassination book. If someone indeed saw Oswald on the second floor 42 seconds after the last shot I suspect that information would be found in EVERY conspiracy book!

He looksa lot more like Tom Selleck than G. Gordon Liddy!

To Don:

How do you explain that Marrs (and Groden and Livingstone) wrote that Mrs. Rowland saw two men on the sixth floor at 12:15 p.m. when that is directly contrary to her WC testimony? That mistake cannot be explained, as you seem to suggest, because Marrs and Groden and Livingstone lacked subpoena power or access to classified information.

Similarly, how can you explain the assertion by Groden that Oswald was seen on thne second floor forty-two seconds after the shooting stopped? As far as I can tell, that statement is simply a flat-out falsehood.

Neither of these examples are minor errors, as you know. They cannot be explained because Marrs and Groden lacked subpoena power or access to classified documents, nor because they were working under adverse working conditions.

I see no way to excuse these errors and they are neither minor nor inconsequential nor are they nit-picking. (It is nit-picking to point out that Mrs. Rowland stated she never saw anyone on the sixth floor and Marrs (and Groden and Livingstone) says she did?)

How about Marrs (and Stone) claiming that Oswald had to descend five flights of stairs to get from the sixth floor to the second floor? Does one need access to classified information to subtract two from six? Or is it because they lacked the power to subpoena a third grade student to do the math for them?

I do not think a single error that I pointed out can be explained because the author (a) lacked subpoena power; ( lacked access to classified information; or © was working under less than ideal working arrangements.

If the assassination research community fails to "police itself" it leaves itself open to criticism by WC apologists e.g, Posner and Bugliosi. That Posner's book and Bugliosi's books contain errors do not excuse the errors in Marrs, Groden, etc. I deplore errors in the books by pro- and anti- conspiracy writers.

I do think it is worthwhile for all to be aware of the books that contain these errors. I for one am uncomfortable with a book in which I cannot trust the author to accurately paraphrase the information in the primary source documents he or she cites.