Mark Stapleton

Christopher, I looked at the pictures with 'virgin eyes' and straight away saw the distortion in lines indicating that there is a gap/table just as you describe.

One reason I want to get more info on the room.

These early photographs, descriptions and drawings are just what I want. Without current interpretations to 'influence' me. I deliberately use this approach in the Kennedy assassination in order to minimise the effects of such things as auto suggestion as I find it greatly helps in noticing things others may miss. This is just how I choose to do it, not necessarily a recommendation for others.

I do have some additions to the scenario.

I speculate that the person wanted is not of great stature or strength. Just capable of sustained bursts of brutality which can overpower even stronger persons particularly if they are caught off balance.

If you look at the bed you will see that it's wobbly. This is understandable for a poor pro. Lots of vigorous use.

This is not good in a close neighbourhood. The neighbours would make her life hell unless she moves the bed head away from the wall.(keep this in mind and read on...)

Note that the bedlinen is bunched up by her left arm and that she lies ON TOP OF this bunching and that the bunched area is next to the table standing with its leg snug up against the bed.

OK. Picture this: (pre mortem) The bed head is away from the wall enough for it not to knock against the wall. It is positioned with the bedhead parallel to the wall. The right edge is parallel to the far wall and separated from it by a narrow bedside table placed at about the middle. In other words: premortem the bed is square to walls in the room

There is no table next to the bed on the beds left side(looking from bedhead to feet) This table is ELSEWHERE in the room.

Mary is not on the bed but either standing or being moved towards it.

The process of getting her on to the bed is a violent one. The bed is displaced with its far corner moving closer to the far wall. She connects with the bed at its middle (no table there) and is pushed/handled/dragged on to the bed so the linen bunches. At this point she is not struggling but is dead weight (npi). Therefore she is not carried as per firemans grip or in arms but is killed/knocked out while close to the bed and this drives her on to the bed where she is arranged into post mortem posture. OR she has been killed/knocked out away from the bed and (because of the bunching of linen) dragged/pushed on to the bed, and this effort displaces the bed, and for this to happen the person has to be not strong and not tall, not carried easily by a strong person or more than one persons.

This action has displaced the bed from its normal position. The person who did it is not strong,tall and/or not fastidious or is single minded/eager or feels pressed for time and does not drag the bed back to its normal position (were there any reports of witnesses mentioning knocking sounds that night?)

The table is moved to the bed, putting it snug up against it and square to the wall. (see how it's not square to the bed, but appears to be so to the wall.) This indicates intent and experience, The person knew 'he' would need a table there.

The person is therefore right handed.

Quite possibly there was necrophiliac activity, quite likely after, or during towards end of 'dissection'. At some time the person was crouched between Marys legs and possibly at the 'consummation' supported self on left arm, reached across diagonally for balance and scribbled/drew something on the bed head.

This person was a 'starved' individual in the sense of 'not having enough'. 'His' whole mind/body cried out for satisfaction on multiple levels. hence the extreme 'sloppiness', gorging on body fluid, body mass, prostitute, woman, cannibalism features.

Starved because of not being unrestrained, probably quite a placid person at times who moves unnoticed through society, but certainly with at least rudimentary anatomy knowledge such as that of an imaginative well read person or perhaps a medical/dental student or a butcher.

So a person with a position in society who is not overly strong or tall, capable of bursts of energy, probably has been noted for intense 'temper tantrums' at some time, has anatomical knowledge, has killed before in similar circumstances, not fastidious hence possibly lives alone or without any intimates to comment on stained clothing, or in a profession where such stains would be regarded as 'normal'. Or a person who knows 'he' is going to get down and dirty and carries a change of clothing or has an independent place apart from home where cleaning up facilities are in place.

This person is also right handed and not old and not young, agile and experienced.

Possibly the 'orgiastic' nature of the killing indicates some drug/alcohol influence but certainly not enough to dull some degree of preciscion and purpose.

__________

For these reasons and others I would like to have the bedhead material (wood type) identified so that the grain can be factored out of a condideration of writing on the bed head. Also is there any account to indicate if the bed is actually resting on what looks like a tin bath? Are there any accounts of dragmarks of any description in the room or outside of it?

As I live in Australia there are not many places where I can go and expect to see typical working class bedroom furniture from the period and on the net it's usually the expensive antiques in good conditions that are available.

All the best.

John,

Fascinating insights. I always thought MK lay on the bed willingly and then met Jack's knife but on reflection I like your ideas better. I also think you've profiled our Jack to a nicety. Your scenario re the placement of the bed, table, etc is very interesting indeed.

Based only on the eyewitness descriptions, some conflicting, I see Jack as a short man with obvious pent up feelings of hostility and inadequacy. This doesn't get us any closer to his identity of course, but for me it narrows the field. I wish there was a form guide listing the height and accurate description of all suspects. With some suspects, all you get is a drawing. Where was the paparazzi when we really needed them?

The police photograph of MK's remains is the most horrifying photograph I have ever seen.

Mark, any more news on this?

Steve,

Apologies for my tardy reply. No, I haven't come up with anything more about it--yet. I hope it doesn't just fizzle out. If they extracted a DNA fingerprint (they were confident) and it doesn't match any of the descendants of the known suspects, then I hope they publish the story. Either way, we may not be any closer to closure. It was always a longshot.

The Z film shows Mary Moorman on the grass. I believe that's where she was. But if she was in the street, and conspirators who altered the film put her on the grass, why would they do that? What damn difference would it make to the people who killed JFK if Mary Moorman was on the grass or in the street? Why wouldn't they just leave her alone?

But there's no need for anyone to answer these questions. They're rhetorical. I'm fairly sure that Mary Moorman was on the grass. One thing that I'm absolutely certain about is that Mary Moorman was a babe. I think that this photo proves it:

Some may disagree, but I don't care. There is nothing that will make me change my mind.

Ron,

It's only a notion I'm tossing up, but what if Moorman was put on the grass because when she was on the street, something incriminating was visible? Pure speculation but I can't resist rhetorical questions.

I nominate your post for "post of the year". Frankly, I hadn't realised Mary Moorman was such a babe. I knew this thread would be educational. I agree with your thoughts about certain aspects of the case. I think the film(s) were probably altered but it just reinforces what I already know ie. there was a conspiracy afoot. And on the issue of time to read all the material available, I unequivocally agree.

Bernice, thanks for the post. Very informative (Glen Bennett's testimony is strange (#21)).

Robin, great photos and posts (as always).

Interesting debate from all contributors and to all a happy new year and best wishes for 06.

In two thousand and six,

Let's nail those ######.

What an optimist.

Bill,

All very interesting stuff but I have some problems with some of it:

"This historical administrative record shows that the assassination was not the work of a lone nut nor renegade CIA-Mafia-Cuban intelligence network but a well planned, integrated, co-ordinated and official program--an inside job--coup d'etat by a domestic anti-Communist network active in the anti-Castro Cuban project"

How can you claim with such certainty that the administrative record shows this? Why would the conspirators leave a paper trail leading to their door? If anything, the conspirators are more likely to leave a paper trail leading to someone else.

While it's possible to trace Cuban operations back to their administrative origins, it's another thing to claim this provides a direct link to the assassination. While I agree it was well planned, integrated and an inside job, it doesn't automatically follow that the assassination was conducted from within the ranks of the anti-Cuban project.

Fascinating stuff, John. Thanks for the link.

It should be assumed that it will never be ordered or authorised by any U.S. Headquarters, though the latter may in rare circumstances agree to its execution by members of an associated foreign service.

Could the JFK assassination be one of these rare circumstances?

According to the definitions cited, I would classify JFK's assassination as "lost", "guarded" and "terroristic".

Of all the volumes of information that have come out surrounding the assassination, the one I’ve heard the least about, and become most interested in, is the Secret Service. Their failure to follow even the most basic Secret Service protection codes in Dallas lays a large portion of the blame for the Presidents’ death at their doorstep. But I never understood how this situation came to be. As far as I’m aware, they had always served the President well prior to Dallas.

So how did it come to pass that they allowed the parade route to be changed to that highly vulnerable turn on Elm? And with the bubble top off no less. How is it that Secret Service agents, normally not allowed to drink while on protective duty, were out doing just that until the early hours of 11/22/63? And this while the President had to make do with only the protection of 1 or 2 Fort Worth firemen his last night in Texas. And how was it that no Secret Service agents were stationed on the rear of the Presidents’ car, as they would have been normally? As I also understand it, one or more Secret Service personnel normally assigned to protect the President, were replaced at the last minute with much less seasoned (and therefore presumably more “flexible” in how they carried out their duties) agents. How did the Secret Service become corrupted?

While I have no smoking gun, the one and only short answer I recently found unfortunately made all too much sense – Lyndon Johnson. A short single sentence stated that shortly prior to Dallas, Lyndon Johnson had assumed control of the Secret Service detail. Since I have found so little on the matter, I’m hoping some of you can add whatever info you have on this.

1) Is this really true? And if so, what evidence is there to support this?

2) I had always “assume”ed the Secret Service was more or less on auto-pilot regarding security matters – Eg: they planned and implemented their protective activities with little or no formal direction from the actual people they were protecting. And would certainly not be compromising parade routes, eliminating agents from the presidents detail etc, even at the behest of one of those being protected. What exactly is the nature of the interaction between LBJ and the Secret Service? Was this at all typical for him? Or was it a one time “special” – just for Dallas?

Greg,

Welcome to the Forum. The SS and their performance has been discussed at length on other threads recently. I'm very interested in your statement that LBJ had assumed control of the Secret Service prior to the Dallas trip. Can you tell me where you got this information?

SAIC Jerry Behn was on vacation at the time of the assassination, leaving ASAIC Floyd Boring in charge of the White House Detail. James Rowley was overall SS Chief, answerable to Secretary of the Treasury, C Douglas Dillon. Statements from agents on the ground in Dallas that day indicate that LBJ and his aides exercised significant influence and I've always considered this to be strong evidence of the VP's involvement in the crime. I don't doubt that LBJ put himself in the command loop. In Texas, apparently anything goes.

Len, you must be getting old; you're beginning to repeat yourself, all within the same post.

My belief is that the revelation, and Bush's "outrage," are simply a trial baloon to see what the American public will tolerate in the name of the "war on terror." If the public doesn't rise up and demand accountability from the president, that will be seen as the "green light" to proceed even further with the erosion of the freedoms of the average citizen.

Dubya is becoming a Mussolini type of leader; as the rights of the Italians under Mussolini were eroding, the popular saying was "at least he got the trains to run on time." In Bush's case, the response to the rollback of freedom is, "at least there hasn't been another attack on American soil."

What these people don't understand is that, to Bush and his cronies, the enemy IS the American people. As long as the American people have a free press, as long as the American people have the right to freely associate, to freely travel, to freely speak and think, the Bush administration sees a threat. But when we finally reach the place where citizens have to pass through checkpoints before they can travel from one state to another, when they have to have their ID papers "in order" to be allowed to travel, when their phone calls are monitored [and YES, WE ARE ALREADY THERE]...these were all hallmarks of the communist system that America fought so vehemently in the 1950's and 1960's. And while SOLIDARITY, the shipyard union in Gdansk, was hailed as being the sort of institution that brought down the Communist "boogeyman" in Poland, in America the right-wing government is busy showing us how BAD the unions are for America!!!

In just over 60 years, the Uniteds States of America is becoming the very sort of nations that the USA fought wars AGAINST. The principles of freedom that inspired generations of Americans are being taken away, more swiftly since 2001 than at any time in history. And those who conspire to TAKE AWAY our freedoms are being called "PATRIOTS," while those who would preserve them are called "TRAITORS."

Can a more Orwellian vision of America be imagined? I would sincerely hope not.

Great post.

Whatever Waggoner Carr said or meant back in 1963-64 has changed today, and then the..... Grand Jury suggestion seems like the only way to go at state level.

I still nominate the murder of Lee Oswald as the strongest basis for reopening the case. A Select Committee of Congress, for God's sake, has found that someone in the DPD assisted Jack Ruby, and no official agency, state or federal, has done a thing about it....It seems to me that Lee Oswald got a very raw deal on day one, and is still getting a very raw deal today ( I realize he is dead, but his widow, children and grandchildren are still very much alive)....If someone in the DPD assisted Ruby with knowledge of Ruby's intentions, then that person was Ruby's co-conspirator. If a murder conspiracy is successful, then each conspirator is as guilty of murder as the man who pulls the trigger. There is no Statute of Limitations on murder. No less a body than Congress has advised that someone in the DPD has been getting away with murder, and for all we know he may be still walking the streets. Is it not time something was done about that?

Hi guys,

From where I'm sitting, the investigations of the victims of Dallas - John F. Kennedy, John B. Connally, James Tague, J.D. Tippit, Lee Harvey Oswald, and if poisioned, Jack Ruby, each have to be approached differntly today.

While a local or a Texas state grand jury could investigate the Tippit murder, a civil suit could be brought against the city of Dallas for the murder of Oswald if Oswald's daughters cooperated, or a civil suit could be brought against the Unknown Subjects-Perpetuators who shot and wounded Tague or against the government for not finding the perpetuators of his injury.

A lawyer claiming to represent one of Oswald's daughters once contacted me to say that she supported our efforts wanted to know how she could help.

As with the LA RFK Grand Jury Request, targeting the cops is not what a local prosecutor would want to do, sicne he has to work with them on a daily basis.

I would like to see all legal avenues persued at once, a full court press, and go with the one(s) that seem to work best, and if one legal case is officially opened, then we've got a hardball game, yahoo.

Bill Kelly

A civil suit against the city of Dallas for the murder of Oswald (with the co-operation of his daughters). The question of funding this suit notwithstanding, I think that is a tremendous idea. It may not reveal JFK's killers, or even who helped Ruby but I like it anyway. Long overdue.

... ramifications resulting in the whole Dealey Plaza imbroglio with its rotting foundation of transparently odious deception being exposed at last ....

Wow. Can you do that again?

Duke,

LOL. Can't help jumping on that soap box now and then, I guess. . JFK shot like a dog. Two others shortly thereafter. An explanation from the US Government and the US media (fearless upholder of truth and justice) which I consider to be a personal insult. No wonder people get steamed. Plus it's hot here in Sydney, too.

I think the purpose to this exercise is not to provide a list of all the things that can't be proved or whose proof is in dispute (several people who are at least as expert as many of us here - and in many cases much more so - have, for example, provided seemingly sound rationales for why the SBT is at least possible, and the blowback out of the MC rifle that didn't show up on the paraffin tests of LHO's cheek may or may not "prove" that LHO didn't shoot that rifle that day, but exonerating LHO is not the name of the game here ... that will occur ipso facto if someone else is proved guilty), but rather to put together something significant enough that prosecutors will raise a very large eyebrow.

Duke, find me this "seemingly sound rationale for why the SBT is at least possible" and I'll sell you some swampland in Florida. The SBT CAN be weakened to the point of invisibility, where no one but the blind could see it as a reasonable possibility. I've attempted to do just that in my presentation, and I believe I've succeeded...

As far as re-opening Tippit, I think that would be a serious mistake. The evidence against Oswald in that case is a lot stronger than in the shooting of the President. The eyewitness testimony is much stronger. The ballistics evidence is stronger (he had the purported murder weapon on his person). And there is a motive (his escape).

We mustn't pull a Belin and see the Tippit slaying as "the Rosetta stone" of the assassination. Oswald may very well have killed Tippit AND been innocent of killing Kennedy.

Pat,

While I would rather see the JFK murder reopened than the Tippett murder, I doubt if there is much chance of a reinvestigation of Tippitt's murder resulting in the finger of blame pointing in LHO's direction. The opposite would occur, IMO. The evidence against LHO in regard to Tippitt is very weak. Consider:

1. Benavides couldn't ID LHO as the killer, consequently the DPD never took him to a lineup. "We needed identification real quickly", Captain Fritz said.

2. According to Mark Lane, Helen Markham told him the killer was short, heavy and had bushy hair. This ties in with Acquila Clemons' description of the murderer. (Of course the WC acted as if Clemons never existed). Markham then changed her story after being "called to Washington".

3. There's many other inconsistencies. From which direction did the killer approach? Did he really lean into an open window of the police car when two witnesses and a photograph indicate it was closed? And what was the exact time of Tippit's death? All the evidence points to 1.06 (give or take a minute or so) but the WC stretched the evidence beyond believability to bring it up to 1.16 so LHO could make it to the scene on time. It's all too much.

Also, if LHO didn't murder JFK, why would he murder a cop? Even if their paths did cross, Oswald knew what would happen to a cop killer--he wasn't stupid. LHO was in a hurry to meet someone, but since he didn't kill JFK, I don't see why he would kill anyone trying to prevent that meeting--especially a cop.

If the Tippitt case is re-opened, seriously re-opened, the case against LHO would unravel in no time. It could have wider ramifications, resulting in the whole Dealey Plaza imbroglio with its rotting foundation of transparently odious deception being exposed at last. Just my opinion, of course.

Dave Perry has sent the following message:

John, Why can't Dave Perry post his own comments?

An attempt was made to convene a Grand Jury back in 1992 by the late Joe West. And West's "basis for legal action" was much more succinct and to the point than Kelly's.

DAVE, NOW I KNOW I'M ONTO SOMETHING WHEN I GET YOUR ATTENTION. MY BASIS FOR LEGAL ACTION HAS YET TO MAKE ANY POINTS - I DIDN'T GET THERE YET. THERE'S MUCH MORE TO COME, THAT'S JUST ME SAYING HELLO.

The District Attorney is the one responsible for submitting the evidence to the Grand Jury that is made up of ordinary citizens. If they feel the evidence warrants an indictment they will issue one. West's petition was filed in the Dallas County District Court and handled by Thomas Keever - Assistant District Attorney for Dallas County. See No. 92-10500-H Joe H. West v. Dr. Jeffrey J. Barnard in his official capacity as a Dallas County Medical Examiner.

JOE WEST IS DEAD. HE GAVE IT A GOOD SHOT. I GUESS IF THE PETITON WAS HANDED OVER TO DR. BERNARD, THEN IT CONCERNED THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE. THAT IS ONLY A SMALL PART OF OUR PETITION-REQUEST - THOUGH AN IMPORATNT ONE THAT WILL RESULT IN NEW FORENSIC AUTOPSIES.

The petition failed in part because claiming one is a "researcher"

WHAT DOES CLAIMING ONE IS A RESEARCHER HAVE TO DO WITH IT? WHY WOULD ANYONE CLAIM TO BE A RESEARCHER?

with appropriate evidence

APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE

and proving it are two different things. Barnard countered by denying each and every allegation contained in West's 11 page petition. Barnard demanded "strict proof thereof" and West could not provide it.

I GUESS THEY NEED STRICT PROOF THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED AT ALL.

WELL I'M GLAD I'M NOT DEPENDING ON JOE WEST OR DR. BARNARD FOR ANYTHING. WILL DAVE PERRY OR SOMEONE WITH COPY PLEASE POST WEST'S 11 PAGE PETITION SO WE CAN SEE WHAT SUCCINCT IS?

WE HAVE A TEAM OF A HALF-DOZEN - AND GROWING LAWYERS AND PROSECUTORS WHO WILL ENSURE THAT THE PETITION IS LEGAL, FACTUAL AND ACCEPTED, IF NOT IN DALLAS OR TEXAS, THEN IN FEDERAL COURT, OR IN NEW ORLEANS, OR SOME OTHER JURISDICTION WHERE TRUTH AND JUSTICE WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

THE GRAND JURY PROJECT HAS BEEN IN PROGRESS FOR YEARS, AND IS NOT JUST A BUNCH OF 'RESEARCHERS' SITTING AROUND A CAMP FIRE SAYING, HEY, LET'S DO THIS, RAH RAH.

IN FACT, THE GRAND JURY PROJECT IS JUST ONE OF A NUMBER OF LEGAL AVENUES WE ARE PURSING WITH THE GOAL OF OBTAINING MORE AND NEW WITNESS TESTIMONY UNDER OATH - INCLUDING CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ON CLASSIFIED RECORDS ISSUES, A CIVIL SUIT, RICO ALA CHRISTIC INSTITUTE, AND A FEW OTHERS THAT I DON'T WANT TO TIP OUR HAND SO THAT WIM, PERRY AND THE DEBUNKERS CAN RUN INTERFERENCE.

ONE AVENUE IS THE MOCK GRAND JURY - WHICH WE WERE GOING TO DO IN DC BUT MAYBE WE'LL DO IT IN DALLAS - AND SHOW THE FOLKS THERE WHAT A REAL GRAND JURY CAN DO - HOW IT WORKS AND WHAT THE REAL EVIDENCE IS.

I DO LIKE jOE WEST AND DUKE'S APPROACH HOWEVER - IDENTIFYING AN ASSISTANT DA AND CONVINCING ONE PERSON FIRST - BUT IT WON'T HAPPEN IN TX UNTIL IT HAPPENS SOMEWHERE ELSE, THEN THE TEXICANS WILL START BELLYACHING ABOUT THEIR JURISTICTION.

ONE OF THE BEST THINGS ABOUT A GRAND JURY IS THAT IT ONLY ACCEPTS EVIDENCE OF CRIME AND NOT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE - OR CROSS EXAMINATION - WHICH LEAVES DAVE AND THE DEBUNKERS ON THE SIDELINES UNTIL THE ACTION SHIFTS TO REGULAR COURT OF LAW.

BILL KELLY

BKJFK3@YAHOO.COM

I'm with you, Bill. Well said.

One query re the Dave Perry message. When he states, "Barnard demanded strict proof thereof and West could not provide it" does that mean the evidence accepted by the Grand Jury will be subject to high standards of proof?.

Bill,

Forgive my ignorance as I'm not trained in law, especially the American kind, but there's a few things I don't understand--don't get me wrong, if it's a possible way of leading to a prosecution in this case and ultimately discovering the truth then I'm all for it.

Does the DA determine whether the petition leads to the formation of the Grand Jury? If not who does?

Has this avenue been explored in the past?

Why didn't Garrison use it or was he prevented from doing this by some legal technicality?

Does the Grand Jury consist of all those on the petition and if not who determines its makeup? Thanks in advance.

Hi Mark, In answer to your questions, Yes, the District Attorney in each jurisdiction determines if the petition will be presented to a grand jury.

This avenue has been explored in the past on the RFK assassination, and was used by Garrison in New Orleans, a grand jury that voted to indict Clay Shaw and ordered him to stand trial. When Harry Connick took over the NO DA office from Garrison he ordered the grand jury records destroyed, but the clerk responsible kept them and turned them over to the ARRB and NARA, and the entire proceedings are now available on line [ I think they are at Historymatters.com ]

Those who sign the petition that is presented to the District Attorney become part of the official record if the petition is accepted, the request is granted and the grand jury conviened, and are informed of the progress of the grand jury but are not a part of it. The grand jury proceedings are secret.

To sign on the petition see: [ http://www.petitiononline.com/jfkgjury/petition.html ], which is addressed to the Federal Attorneys in three relevant jurisdictions - North Texas, La. and DC, and will be presented to them, one at a time, when the requests and convincing briefs and attachments are ready.

The grand jury is chosen by the court like ordinary jurors are chosen, except there are 23 jurors and 23 alternates, all ordinary citizens selected from among the district's voter and driver registraiton records, with a jury foreman chosen by them from among their ranks. Their term last 18 months, and they meet periodically, usually two or three times a week.

Although there are local - Dallas - County - State and Federal Grand Juries - in three jurisdictions - that makes at least nine to twelve possible jurisdictions - and while some continue to argue that it wasn't a federal crime to kill the pres in 1963, it WAS a Federal Crime to CONSPIRE to kill a federal employee, whether a postman or a president, and conspiracy can be established. A Special Federal Grand Jury would be conviened just for this one case - The JFK Assassination and related crimes - similar to the grand juries that were conveined for the assassination of the former Chilian Ambassador to US, the CIA Leak and I am sure, the Chicago mob investigation now going on.

If you or anyone would like to sign on to the petition or assist in compiling the Request Brief - you can become familiar with the grand juries you can read the excellent site at the University of Dayton School of Law by Susan Brenner, who has agreed to assist us as a counselor.

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Thanks for that info, Bill. I'm a bit surprised that more Forum members aren't on it but FWIW, I'll sign on.

It's a nice idea but hasn't history shown that an uncooperative Government can stymie official investigations whether they are held in a courtroom or even if they are legally constituted Commissions held in closed sessions?

The Government won't co-operate. They only answer to their corporate sponsors. They're the ones who finance the parties, aren't they?

Mark,

The whole idea of getting a grand jury inquiry is an end run around the Congress, FBI and all others who could run interference. Once the procedure is started, it won't be easy to stop. We don't need the government's permission - other than one Asst. District Attorney to get a grand jury of ordinary citizens asking questions of witness under oath and investigating crimes related to the assassination.

Thanks to all who are interested, and those who responded seriously. More to come.

Bill Kelly

GRAND JURY INFO FROM SUSAN BRENER

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAW

This article explains why grand juries will be used in these investigations. It also seeks to demystify the grand jury, the least understood and most secretive component of the American justice system. And it outlines some of the challenges involved in conducting an international investigation.

Why use a grand jury? Why can’t federal agents just conduct the investigation?

Federal grand juries do two things: They investigate to determine if federal crimes have been committed; and they indict, or bring criminal charges against, those whom the grand jury believes committed federal crimes. To indict, the grand jurors must have probable cause to believe the persons indicted did violate federal criminal law.

Grand juries offer prosecutors several advantages in conducting a criminal investigation, especially a high-profile, factually complicated investigation. For one thing, grand juries operate in secret; this not only gives prosecutors the ability to shield the evidence they are gathering from disclosure to the press and others, it can also encourage people to cooperate with a grand jury. Unless a witness reveals that he or she testified before a federal grand jury, no one ever needs to know that occurred, and since the transcripts of grand jury testimony are secret, no one will know what the witness said. This can be an advantage in an investigation, such as an investigation into terrorism, where witnesses may be afraid of retaliation if they cooperate with investigators.

Grand juries also give prosecutors the power to subpoena witnesses and evidence from around the country and, in some circumstances, from other countries, as well. (Getting evidence from abroad is discussed below.) If federal agents want to interview someone, the person can refuse to speak to them; this is true even if the person is arrested as a material witness, because persons who are arrested can invoke the Miranda rights to silence and to an attorney. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, however, that the Miranda rights are not available to witnesses subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. Unlike someone being interrogated by federal agents, a grand jury witness not only has not right to silence or counsel, he or she is required to answer questions posed by the prosecutor working with the grand jury and by the grand jurors. A grand jury witness can refuse to answer if he or she can invoke the Fifth Amendment as to a question, but the privilege must be claimed as to each question and the prosecutor can challenge a witness' ability to invoke the privilege.

And even if a witness shows that he or she is entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege, a prosecutor can deprive the witness of that right by giving the person immunity. Once the person has been given immunity, he or she has to answer the grand jury’s questions; if the witness still refuses to answer, the person will be incarcerated for civil contempt until he or she complies. People have been served up to eight years for refusing to speak when ordered to; Susan McDougall, who was subpoenaed by the White Water grand jury, served 18 months for civil contempt when she refused to cooperate with that grand jury.

Grand juries also certain advantages in regard to gathering documents and other types of physical evidence. Assume agents want to obtain bank records that may provide evidence about the activities of the World Trade Center terrorists. To get a search warrant for the records, the agents have to convince a magistrate that they have probable cause to believe the records are evidence of the commission of a federal crime; while the agents may be able to do this, gathering the information they need to present to the magistrate and completing a warrant application take time. A grand jury, on the other hand, can issue an evidence subpoena (called a subpoena duces tecum) for records or other evidence whenever it likes; the grand jury does not have to show probable cause or, indeed, establish any other evidentiary standard to issue subpoenas for documents, computers, blood samples or any other type of physical evidence. Grand juries are given wide latitude in conducting their investigations, so they can cast a wide net in issuing subpoenas for witnesses and for evidence.

Finally, grand juries can hear evidence that is not admissible in court. They can consider hearsay evidence which would not be allowed at trial and evidence obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment.

Whom may a grand jury subpoena? Does the location of a witness make a difference?

A federal grand jury has the power to serve a subpoena on any person within the United States. Thus, both U.S. citizens and visitors to the U.S. may be compelled to testify and/or provide physical evidence. A federal grand jury also has the authority to subpoena U.S. citizens and residents abroad. Federal law currently does not grant grand juries the power to subpoena non U.S. citizens and residents abroad. However, in the wake of the attacks of September 11 and the fear of further attacks, every possibility exists that Congress will elect to extend the reach of grand jury subpoenas.

The question of whether aliens outside the United States could use the U.S. Constitution as a shield against testifying remains open. Many commentators believe that Fifth Amendment Due Process rights do not extend to aliens outside U.S. territory. Further, even if such rights exist, they would not be violated if prosecutors can show that a nexus exists between the witness and the United States such that it would not be unfair to submit him or her to the power of U.S. courts. Such a nexus exists if a transaction was aimed at causing criminal acts within the U.S. Ironically, this standard was most recently articulated in United States v. Bin Laden, a case involving the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

May the U.S. use force to apprehend grand jury targets or material witnesses and bring them to the United States?

Yes. In the past the Supreme Court has upheld the indictment and conviction of defendants who were literally kidnapped by U.S. forces and brought to the United States. Once a person is within U.S. territory, service of a subpoena is no longer a problem. Although these cases involved grand jury targets, rather than mere witnesses, at least one U.S. Court of Appeals has concluded that the principle of these cases also applies to material witnesses. Material witnesses are persons whom federal authorities have probable cause to believe have crucial information pertaining to the crime at issue.

Where can I find out more about federal grand juries?

You can learn more about federal, and state, grand juries and share your experiences with grand juries at this web site: http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur.

Bill,

Forgive my ignorance as I'm not trained in law, especially the American kind, but there's a few things I don't understand--don't get me wrong, if it's a possible way of leading to a prosecution in this case and ultimately discovering the truth then I'm all for it.

Does the DA determine whether the petition leads to the formation of the Grand Jury? If not who does? Has this avenue been explored in the past? Why didn't Garrison use it or was he prevented from doing this by some legal technicality? Does the Grand Jury consist of all those on the petition and if not who determines its makeup? Thanks in advance.

It's a nice idea but hasn't history shown that an uncooperative Government can stymie official investigations whether they are held in a courtroom or even if they are legally constituted Commissions held in closed sessions?

The Government won't co-operate. They only answer to their corporate sponsors. They're the ones who finance the parties, aren't they?

Great post, Lee. A very plausible scenario, IMO. Interestingly, Gatlin and Bannister both die shortly after the assassination. There's no reason at all why JFK wouldn't have been one of the group's targets. He was against most of what they stood for, and he stood for what they were against.

The International mercenary idea is a strong argument, too. I've never been able to accept the notion that the snipers were American.

I agree. Great article. I've read most of this before but it nicely illustrates how the elites have managed to create their own Government within the American system, regardless of which party is in power. It's not a democratic Republic--it's a corporate oligarchy. And where is the free press--democracy's watchdog whose role is to expose any erosion of democracy?

It's owned by the elites, of course.

Yes, the CIA did great work--and still does.

Al and Gerry,

Hate to intrude on this "love in", but seriously, isn't your explanation just a high falutin' crock?

Maybe I'm not sufficiently well versed in "protection speak" but my interpretation is that you feel that because "eliminating the target is almost assured" and "no protection plan can diminish it's success" then the serious deficiency in security in Dallas was irrelevant.

Ridiculous. It was carefully planned down to the smallest detail. The planners can't undertake such a high stakes gambit without a comprehensive plan. Presidential security was the first thing they would have discussed. The assassination wasn't a wild gamble undertaken without consideration of the Presidential security arrangements. Protection plans for the President had to be made "favorable" for the conspirators otherwise they wouldn't have risked it. A failed attempt would have increased the risk of exposure. Why? Because you've failed to get your man in the White House. You can't depend on enquiries being scuttled. It's a very uncertain outcome.

Security in Dallas was compromised. Face it. They weren't playing for pennies so why leave anything to chance? It's illogical.

The same argument could be used to explain away the DPD's performance in protecting Oswald. "We couldn't have protected him--he was going to die anyway". It's the same as saying, "tie him to a tree and we'll use him for target practise".

Mark,

First of all, I find your "love in" comment offensive to say the least. You do not know me or Hemming and your rude behavior is uncalled for. I have earned my status through getting dirty and trying to educate and add to forum issues. This crap is one of the reasons I am hesitant to even post. I have been in law enforcement for almost 23 years and have worked more protective service details than you have likely read about. If I were to write a book on military operations of the early eighties, you would probably consider it fiction because you could not comprehend reality of what is going on in your own government.

If you would like to be civil and give me the respect of a stranger on the street, I will be happy to address your issues. Actually, I will bring you into reality that apparently from your posts you cannot conceive. Consider a slow moving open limo along a stretch of four to six deep onlookers with high buildings on each side and then say that the president was not at risk from the beginning. If you cannot fathom this, then I have nothing more to say to you. DP was an excellent killing zone not for the fact that it made the hit fairly easy, but it accomodated the plan of success and allowing all assassins to walk away, while still setting up the patsy.

If you think DPD was lax in security, get an in with a USSS Agent and ask him/her what kind of assistance they get on the average from local LE. The answer will scare you.

I have wasted enough time on this and still have not heard specific issues. Only generic and broad ramblings about the corrupt DPD and how they blew it. Get real and look at it from beginning to end. If that is possible.

Al

Al,

Sorry for any offense regarding my "love in" comment. I wasn't implying anything like that. (although you must admit Gerry's quite a handsome devil--JOKING, JOKING. I'm still trying to recover from Mark's amusing word picture).

My problem with your argument is that you seem to be stating what is already self-evident. DP was incredibly insecure, and provided for easy access and egress, but as Duke pointed out, this was all part of the Presidential security scenario which the DPD and USSS should have been cognizant. My own belief is that the selection of the route (and hairpin turn past the TSBD) constitutes a security failure in itself, which must be sheeted home to the DPD and USSS. As one who has experience in these matters, what do you think?

I believe you or Gerry mentioned the fact that previous motorcades passed through similar "unsafe" zones. You've got a point there. Makes me think about the possibility that DP was the intended endgame in a sequence of public appearances designed to give the Presidential entourage a false sense of "security". The assassination plan might have been in the works much longer than researchers believe. Just a thought.

Gotta fly. I'm checking other threads for unauthorised "love-ins".

I think the FBI in the 1990s may very well have been different than Hoover's FBI. Moreover, in the 1990s Clinton was president and controlled the DOJ so he could have gone to AG Reno.

You've got to be kidding. The FBI of Waco, Ruby Ridge, Filegate, Oklahoma City, and the Foster corpse with its magic car keys?

Clinton and Reno "controlled" the DOJ all right. They were two of the biggest crooks in the history of crooked government, and can take credit for bringing the corruption and politicization of the DOJ/FBI to full fruition.

Ron I have to agree with you on those two. I think you forgot Ron Brown and TWA 800. Regarding Foster, at least we had the Park Police step in and do a serious investigation while the FBI was undergoing "reorganization". I was hoping for much better from Bush, but have been deeply disappointed.

Nick and Ron,

Don't tell me TWA 800 was a conspiracy too. When will it ever end?

Dealy Plaza was an ideal kill zone if one was looking for a military sniper hit. Nobody was in November of '63.

I thought that a military-type sniper hit was on most people's minds in November 1963. There were the OAS plots against deGaulle (Day of the Jackal scenario), and Kennedy himself had described precisely this type of assassination that very morning in Forth Worth.

T.C.

Tim,

Again you are looking at it in hindsight and puting history into perspective with real time of November of '63. Did any of the previous USSS protection details consider such a hit? If you look at them they did not or they would not have utilized an open limo. Kennedy referred to a nut with a rifle, not a professional military hit team. To this day, if professionals are called in and deployed at lets say an airfield or at a speaking engagement arrival, the chance of succeeding in a hit is pretty high.

Al

-----------------------------------

Lt. Carrier KNOWS of what he speaks. He is NOT defending the USSS, DPD, DCSO, MI, US Army CIC, or the YMCA; nor anybody else who has been blatantly accused of complicity in the JFK "Hit" !!

The current campaign to have the Barrett .50 calibre "Long-Range Sniper Rifle" included in new rule-making

proceedings by the BATF component of the Dept. of Homeland Security speaks volumes.

[see: "The Federal Administrative Procedures Act" - annotated Rulemaking Cases, Administrative Law Reports & the C.F.R. - http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html (Code of Federal Regulations)]

The first Hollywood film that showed the unique effectiveness of the "Barrett" was: "Navy Seals", and starred Charlie Sheen, Biehn, et al. !! "60-Minutes" and some other programs have hysterically focused their "sights" against this weapon; as have some Democrat politicians and "Gun Control" activists.

One TV segment showed a politician standing near Pennsylvania and Constitution, and with the Capitol Building at his back, he expounded upon the reality that: A shooter could easily hit a target sited at either end or even the middle of said streets, and target that building or the White House !!

However, and whether it be a Barrett of 2005 -- or a "National Match" M-14 (NATO 7.62 mm) of 1963; there is absolutely NO defense against a "well-trained military sniper". The skills necessary for hide-site selection, angles of fire, lighting, windage, mirage, parallax, tracking, etc. are NOT those readily acquired by an amateur "Rifleman".

[Take note of exactly how many times a rifle has been used in ANY assassination (or attempt) in the history of the World ??!!]

The bald allegations and accusations of complicity by USSS or other law enforcement entities goes beyond the pale. That some "wing-nuts" have pointed the finger at Kellerman and Greer is scandalous, to say the least. That some "Puke" scribbled a worthless & gossipy "book?" -- about the accidental discharge of one SS agent's "M-16" (in a "tailback" vehicle); that having caused any of JFK's wounds is outrageous.

Too many "self-styled" researchers/investigators?? are nothing more than filthy rumor-mongers; who have absolutely NO regard for the personal reputations or integrity of ANY alleged "suspects?" nor their families !!

[ALL that is required is: That "NEW" names surface concurrent with one newly emerging event of note; such as -- "Watergate", or the "Soviet Agitprop Christic RICO lawsuit", etc., and etc. -- ad nauseum !!]

That said, I would NOT be shocked to find that: There indeed were one or more persons, who, previously having been "highly placed" in government circles, opted (or was coerced) into giving an assist to the those shooters who participated in the "MULTIPLE" assassination schemes during that November of 1963.

Anyone who is de minimus conversant with tradecraft -- would have immediately noticed the "professional" skills exhibited with the selection of Dealey Plaza, the TSBD, and its environs. The same professional criteria is obvious with the selection of Oswald "safe-houses in the Dallas suburds. It is quite obvious that this was done "for" LHO, and NOT by Oswald.

Red Flags went up over 40+ years ago, when experts perused the very obvious "signatures" left by the Intel operator(s) selections: The necessities of a rear entrance or a side alley; a nearby park or semi-forested area; a nearby library (needed for "dead-drops"); that the front of the house is situated with an intersection wich precludes "spotter vehicles" from any casual/routine parking for stake-outs; etc., and etc. !!

As Lt. Carrier so "politely" attempts to tutor: NO assist by law enforcement (nor Intel) is necessary. What is necessary for targeting by a "skilled" rifleman? -- his "personal" plan.

The "Sponsor" provides ALL that which is needed in order to place the target within a prescribed "killing zone" !!

Once the target enters ANY of the previously selected "MULTIPLE KILLING ZONES/WINDOWS" -- THAT TARGET IS DEAD MEAT !!

ENOUGH of this hundreds of "suspects?"bullxxxx disinformation spiel, ranting ever onward with all of this crap about "faces-in-the-crowd", "traitors-from-within" !! Oliver Stone hired us to "Plan" the assassination of an executive target, and we crawled all over EVERY building in the area; showing Stone and his crew exactly what goes into the kill zone-selection, hide-site(s) selection, and "E & E" Plan.

Uppermost in the planning of "non-Kamikaze" assassins is: The 'E & E" Plan. "Escape and Evasion" seems to be a critical factor in one's surviving long enough to collect one's rewards.

LHO didn't "bring a knife to a gunfight" -- he didn't bring anything at all !! Had he wanted to commit "suicide-by-cop", he wouldn't have left his snub-nose revolver at home. I have strong doubts that he ever possessed any weapon whatsoever. And rarest of the rare -- he risks self-defeating the singular opportunity at "15 Centuries-of-Fame"; by DENYING THE WHOLE GODDAMN THING ??!!

That he would even contemplate the use of an "EYETIE" throw-down & surrender rifle, or a worthless piece of xxxx "2 inch barreled" revolver, especially when for & $7 more, he could have purchased a semi-auto pistol -- and one very similar to the Colt .45 cal. pistol we Marines are ALL trained with at 'Boot Camp" !!

Once again, we have that most unique of alleged "fanatical assassins". One who fails to make the "head-on" shot [because the "sniper's nest" is a wet-dream]; then carries the still loaded rifle all the way across the "6th Floor??", taking TIME to hide it, runs down the stairway (and now unarmed), calmly exits the TSBD from the FRONT door, catches a bus, and then a taxi -- back to his "safe-house". He then allegedly takes a circuitous/deviated/detour (walking?) route from there to the site of later arrest -- a "THEATER" !!

Will somebody please grow some brains, and get off of the current disinformation campaign, every skilled in this research recognizes it as a continuation of the very same scheme -- which began even LONG before JFK's arrival in Texas.

Chairs,

GPH

__________________________

Mr. Patrick,

Although we are at odds at many issues of the sixties, you have nailed it down as well as it could be. You obviously know me and your respect to my posting is appreciated. I could not have worded it any better than you have.

My question to you is were you ever affiliated or have knowlege of the activities of AKA Bobby Leon'?

Also, in my posting to Tosh and the photos taken at the Americana Hotel at Puerto Limon in '81, do you know the identity of the anglo?

I will support your posting 100% that if the perps in the assault knows the agenda of the target, the likelihood of suceeding in eliminating the target is almost assured, and the escape of the assassins is equally assured. The target allows the ease of the success and escape. This is old school and no protective paln can diminish it's success.

Al

Al and Gerry,

Hate to intrude on this "love in", but seriously, isn't your explanation just a high falutin' crock?

Maybe I'm not sufficiently well versed in "protection speak" but my interpretation is that you feel that because "eliminating the target is almost assured" and "no protection plan can diminish it's success" then the serious deficiency in security in Dallas was irrelevant.

Ridiculous. It was carefully planned down to the smallest detail. The planners can't undertake such a high stakes gambit without a comprehensive plan. Presidential security was the first thing they would have discussed. The assassination wasn't a wild gamble undertaken without consideration of the Presidential security arrangements. Protection plans for the President had to be made "favorable" for the conspirators otherwise they wouldn't have risked it. A failed attempt would have increased the risk of exposure. Why? Because you've failed to get your man in the White House. You can't depend on enquiries being scuttled. It's a very uncertain outcome.

Security in Dallas was compromised. Face it. They weren't playing for pennies so why leave anything to chance? It's illogical.

The same argument could be used to explain away the DPD's performance in protecting Oswald. "We couldn't have protected him--he was going to die anyway". It's the same as saying, "tie him to a tree and we'll use him for target practise".

Duke,

The use of the term second and third stringers might be somewhat derogatory, but it is the best way to describe the fact that the "A" team wasn't on the ground that day. I feel very sorry for the late Roy Kellerman. It seems he was dropped by others into a most unfortunate situation over which he had little control. To his credit, he told the WC that a "flurry of shots" were endured by the Presidential limo, rather than only three shots being claimed by those rigidly following the script.

Do you know anything of Tom Shipman, the USSS limo driver who died, reportedly of a heart attack, on October 14, 1963 while on protection duty at Camp David, Maryland? Nothing overtly suspicious about that. However, Palamara stated that while researching more information about this, he discovered that the Secret Service had destroyed the Presidential survey reports and travel logs pertaining to this matter in January 1995, at the same time as the ARRB was drafting a request for additional information.

Tim and Al,

You're getting sidetracked. It's not about whether or not it was a military hit or even if the SS expected that kind of hit.

It's about placing second and third stringers in Dallas that day, ordering Rybka off the limo, Greer stopping twice and looking back, changing the motorcade route, changing the normal motorcade order, ordering agents to hold back before the final shot, greatly reducing the number of flanking motorcycles and apparently having no protection plan for the return trip.

How many mistakes can professional agents make in a day?

Taken individually, these issues might appear to some as nit-picking, but when they're put together they amount to a substantial argument--whether you look at it from forty years ago or now.

--------------------------

Mark:

You no doubt missed the Secret Service "Report" [uSSS/PR Post-Incident Analysis -1964] wherein the driving instructors ["Executive/Security/Protective-Research" Offensive/Defensive Course of Instruction] at MCB Quantico, VA (now at Glynco, GA) stated:

ALL "Executive Protection" drivers were taught to drive with both hands in a specific position, and place their left foot "lightly" on the brake pedal; while simultaneously using their right foot to control the pressure on the accelerator pedal.

During the subsequent series of intense testing, it was found that when a driver "turned" (or "shifted") his body [in order to observe something to the rear, and over his RIGHT shoulder]; this caused an automatic reflex straightening and stiffening of the LEFT leg; which immediately applied a positive pressure on the brake pedal.

The more the "turning/shifting" of the upper torso by the driver, was the resultant and corrresponding increase in the brake pedal pressure. During every test, with ALL vehicles and drivers tested; it was observed that: This amount of brake pedal pressure either "Slowed" the vehicle dramatically and/or brought the vehicle to a sudden, and unanticipated "STOP" !!

Fortunately, one of our UK researchers made a copy of said report before it was pulled from the N.A.R.A. box, and "re-classified" !!

Chairs,

GPH

__________________________

Gerry,

What does the manual say the driver should do when faced with a volley of shots from an unknown source?

---------------------------------

The S.O.P. during "1963" (and thoroughly revised since) was that:

[1] All vehicle-borne agents would insure that the "Executive(s)" would be immediately rushed out of the "Threat-Zone", and thereupon they would be tasked to run interference for the "Primary", guaranteeing his arrival at a pre-designated "Rally-Point". [said Rally-point would be a safe distance from the "event" or the "threat" -- and usually was a pre-secured series of buildings along the route of travel.];

[2] NO vehicle-borne agents were permitted to return fire, or engage in a fire-fight, nor dismount from the vehicles to apprehend suspects, or even "actual shooters";

[3] NO vehicle borne agents were permitted to fire upon an actual shooter, that is: until said shooter (after firing) had already gained close proximity to the "Executive(s)", and there existed no other recourse;

[4] Since ALL crowd control police officers are instructed to always face away from a motorcade, the only time the order would be given to "take-out" a uniformed shooter (actual or police imposter), would again be: Only if the shooter gained close proximity to the "Executive(s)"; and,

[5] Since 1963 (and the passage of the 25th Amendment) the Vice-President is taken to a separate and secure "Rally- Point" -- as are the President "Pro Tem" of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House; wherever they might be located at the time of the attack !!

When we were involved in private agency "Executive Protection" (and the rare Diplomat protection) we were always armed with suppressed/silenced weapons. Moreover, when we trained foreign nation protective agents, we began our course of instruction thus:

[A] If the "good guys" are making (unsilenced) loud noises by discharging their weapons in defense, then it is usually very difficult to target the "bad guy's" shooting positions;

The "Customer(s)" (and their accompanying children and/or families) tend to get upset if the "good guys" are blasting off rounds right next to their ears -- and sometimes this causes folks to panic, and run away from the safety of either vehiles -- or pre-designated shelters; and,

[C] Absent hostile bullets impacting near the "Customer(s), there have been instances where the "Executive(s)" remained ignorant of having been involved in a fire-fight -- and actually complained about their being pushed and shoved to those very points of safety or the vehicles !!

Chairs,

GPH

___________________________

Gerry,

Thanks for that. It seems that Bill Greer didn't follow the manual's instructions too well. The Executives(s) weren't immediately rushed out of the threat zone. The key word being "immediately". Roy Kellerman ordered him to do this but he delayed--only for a second or two--but that was all it took.

This doesn't necessarily mean he was part of any conspiracy--whether or not he could have prevented JFK from recieving the head shot is a matter for conjecture--but his performance was poor. That's a fact.

Tim and Al,

You're getting sidetracked. It's not about whether or not it was a military hit or even if the SS expected that kind of hit.

It's about placing second and third stringers in Dallas that day, ordering Rybka off the limo, Greer stopping twice and looking back, changing the motorcade route, changing the normal motorcade order, ordering agents to hold back before the final shot, greatly reducing the number of flanking motorcycles and apparently having no protection plan for the return trip.

How many mistakes can professional agents make in a day?

Taken individually, these issues might appear to some as nit-picking, but when they're put together they amount to a substantial argument--whether you look at it from forty years ago or now.

--------------------------

Mark:

You no doubt missed the Secret Service "Report" [uSSS/PR Post-Incident Analysis -1964] wherein the driving instructors ["Executive/Security/Protective-Research" Offensive/Defensive Course of Instruction] at MCB Quantico, VA (now at Glynco, GA) stated:

ALL "Executive Protection" drivers were taught to drive with both hands in a specific position, and place their left foot "lightly" on the brake pedal; while simultaneously using their right foot to control the pressure on the accelerator pedal.

During the subsequent series of intense testing, it was found that when a driver "turned" (or "shifted") his body [in order to observe something to the rear, and over his RIGHT shoulder]; this caused an automatic reflex straightening and stiffening of the LEFT leg; which immediately applied a positive pressure on the brake pedal.

The more the "turning/shifting" of the upper torso by the driver, was the resultant and corrresponding increase in the brake pedal pressure. During every test, with ALL vehicles and drivers tested; it was observed that: This amount of brake pedal pressure either "Slowed" the vehicle dramatically and/or brought the vehicle to a sudden, and unanticipated "STOP" !!

Fortunately, one of our UK researchers made a copy of said report before it was pulled from the N.A.R.A. box, and "re-classified" !!

Chairs,

GPH

__________________________

Gerry,

What does the manual say the driver should do when faced with a volley of shots from an unknown source?

Listening to George Bush making a speech is torture.

Dealy Plaza was an ideal kill zone if one was looking for a military sniper hit. Nobody was in November of '63.

I thought that a military-type sniper hit was on most people's minds in November 1963. There were the OAS plots against deGaulle (Day of the Jackal scenario), and Kennedy himself had described precisely this type of assassination that very morning in Forth Worth.

T.C.

Tim,

Again you are looking at it in hindsight and puting history into perspective with real time of November of '63. Did any of the previous USSS protection details consider such a hit? If you look at them they did not or they would not have utilized an open limo. Kennedy referred to a nut with a rifle, not a professional military hit team. To this day, if professionals are called in and deployed at lets say an airfield or at a speaking engagement arrival, the chance of succeeding in a hit is pretty high.

Al

-----------------------------------

Lt. Carrier KNOWS of what he speaks. He is NOT defending the USSS, DPD, DCSO, MI, US Army CIC, or the YMCA; nor anybody else who has been blatantly accused of complicity in the JFK "Hit" !!

The current campaign to have the Barrett .50 calibre "Long-Range Sniper Rifle" included in new rule-making

proceedings by the BATF component of the Dept. of Homeland Security speaks volumes.

[see: "The Federal Administrative Procedures Act" - annotated Rulemaking Cases, Administrative Law Reports & the C.F.R. - http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html (Code of Federal Regulations)]

The first Hollywood film that showed the unique effectiveness of the "Barrett" was: "Navy Seals", and starred Charlie Sheen, Biehn, et al. !! "60-Minutes" and some other programs have hysterically focused their "sights" against this weapon; as have some Democrat politicians and "Gun Control" activists.

One TV segment showed a politician standing near Pennsylvania and Constitution, and with the Capitol Building at his back, he expounded upon the reality that: A shooter could easily hit a target sited at either end or even the middle of said streets, and target that building or the White House !!

However, and whether it be a Barrett of 2005 -- or a "National Match" M-14 (NATO 7.62 mm) of 1963; there is absolutely NO defense against a "well-trained military sniper". The skills necessary for hide-site selection, angles of fire, lighting, windage, mirage, parallax, tracking, etc. are NOT those readily acquired by an amateur "Rifleman".

[Take note of exactly how many times a rifle has been used in ANY assassination (or attempt) in the history of the World ??!!]

The bald allegations and accusations of complicity by USSS or other law enforcement entities goes beyond the pale. That some "wing-nuts" have pointed the finger at Kellerman and Greer is scandalous, to say the least. That some "Puke" scribbled a worthless & gossipy "book?" -- about the accidental discharge of one SS agent's "M-16" (in a "tailback" vehicle); that having caused any of JFK's wounds is outrageous.

Too many "self-styled" researchers/investigators?? are nothing more than filthy rumor-mongers; who have absolutely NO regard for the personal reputations or integrity of ANY alleged "suspects?" nor their families !!

[ALL that is required is: That "NEW" names surface concurrent with one newly emerging event of note; such as -- "Watergate", or the "Soviet Agitprop Christic RICO lawsuit", etc., and etc. -- ad nauseum !!]

That said, I would NOT be shocked to find that: There indeed were one or more persons, who, previously having been "highly placed" in government circles, opted (or was coerced) into giving an assist to the those shooters who participated in the "MULTIPLE" assassination schemes during that November of 1963.

Anyone who is de minimus conversant with tradecraft -- would have immediately noticed the "professional" skills exhibited with the selection of Dealey Plaza, the TSBD, and its environs. The same professional criteria is obvious with the selection of Oswald "safe-houses in the Dallas suburds. It is quite obvious that this was done "for" LHO, and NOT by Oswald.

Red Flags went up over 40+ years ago, when experts perused the very obvious "signatures" left by the Intel operator(s) selections: The necessities of a rear entrance or a side alley; a nearby park or semi-forested area; a nearby library (needed for "dead-drops"); that the front of the house is situated with an intersection wich precludes "spotter vehicles" from any casual/routine parking for stake-outs; etc., and etc. !!

As Lt. Carrier so "politely" attempts to tutor: NO assist by law enforcement (nor Intel) is necessary. What is necessary for targeting by a "skilled" rifleman? -- his "personal" plan.

The "Sponsor" provides ALL that which is needed in order to place the target within a prescribed "killing zone" !!

Once the target enters ANY of the previously selected "MULTIPLE KILLING ZONES/WINDOWS" -- THAT TARGET IS DEAD MEAT !!

ENOUGH of this hundreds of "suspects?"bullxxxx disinformation spiel, ranting ever onward with all of this crap about "faces-in-the-crowd", "traitors-from-within" !! Oliver Stone hired us to "Plan" the assassination of an executive target, and we crawled all over EVERY building in the area; showing Stone and his crew exactly what goes into the kill zone-selection, hide-site(s) selection, and "E & E" Plan.

Uppermost in the planning of "non-Kamikaze" assassins is: The 'E & E" Plan. "Escape and Evasion" seems to be a critical factor in one's surviving long enough to collect one's rewards.

LHO didn't "bring a knife to a gunfight" -- he didn't bring anything at all !! Had he wanted to commit "suicide-by-cop", he wouldn't have left his snub-nose revolver at home. I have strong doubts that he ever possessed any weapon whatsoever. And rarest of the rare -- he risks self-defeating the singular opportunity at "15 Centuries-of-Fame"; by DENYING THE WHOLE GODDAMN THING ??!!

That he would even contemplate the use of an "EYETIE" throw-down & surrender rifle, or a worthless piece of xxxx "2 inch barreled" revolver, especially when for & $7 more, he could have purchased a semi-auto pistol -- and one very similar to the Colt .45 cal. pistol we Marines are ALL trained with at 'Boot Camp" !!

Once again, we have that most unique of alleged "fanatical assassins". One who fails to make the "head-on" shot [because the "sniper's nest" is a wet-dream]; then carries the still loaded rifle all the way across the "6th Floor??", taking TIME to hide it, runs down the stairway (and now unarmed), calmly exits the TSBD from the FRONT door, catches a bus, and then a taxi -- back to his "safe-house". He then allegedly takes a circuitous/deviated/detour (walking?) route from there to the site of later arrest -- a "THEATER" !!

Will somebody please grow some brains, and get off of the current disinformation campaign, every skilled in this research recognizes it as a continuation of the very same scheme -- which began even LONG before JFK's arrival in Texas.

Chairs,

GPH

__________________________

There's no disinformation campaign. The discussion is about whether security was adequate not who gets hung, drawn and quartered. When analysing this, the names of those responsible for security on the day will be mentioned. Do you want us to call them Mr.X and Mr.Y ?

Moreover, the evaluation of the SS and DPD's performance might result in criticism of some. Personally, I thought Bill Greer's performance was poor. I saw the Z-film. Whether it was fear, surprise or something else, he had a shocker.

As for the lofty speech about filthy rumor mongers and pukes scribbling gossipy books, I don't understand what you're blowing up about. It's an historical event, an unsolved crime and an official investigation judged the scene as "uniquely insecure". It's been discussed for over forty years and will probably be discussed for another hundred years.

This post is to answer the question re how "habeas corpus" applies to the removal of President Kennedy's body from Dallas.

"Habeas corpus" means in Latin: "you have the body". Here is a good explanation of the "writ of habeas corpus:

Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.

You see the body always refers to the live body of a prisoner seeking release by filing a writ.

"Habeas corpus" has nothing to do with the body of a murder victim.

As I understand the law, normally the body of a decedent "belongs to" the next of kin who can decide where and how it is buried (remember the Terry Schiavo case). Clearly, if a person was murdered or died under suspicious circumstances, the next of kin can be prevented from removing the body from the county in which the death occured at least until an autopsy is performed.

I am quite certain that there was no legal precedent for requiring that JFK have a "military autopsy" merely because he was the president (or a retired naval officer for that matter). I am sure we all rememer that there was almost a physical fight between the federal officials and the local coroner over this matter, but the local coroner was out-gunnned.

Of course, those who posit that the assassination was an internal coup suspect that the removal of the body from Dallas was part of the plot. I do not believe the conspiracy was so massive and even if there was a "large conspiracy" it is hard to presume the autoposy doctors were part of it. Pat's seminar presentation explains quite well that most if not all of the concerns over the medical evidence can be explained by incompetence.

Tim,

Thanks for that.