John Simkin

Bill Kelly has posted an article on the Forum about the possibility of obtaining a grand jury in order to investigate the assassination of JFK. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5634 I have started a thread where I have asked researchers to put forward evidence that would justify the case being reopened. As a result of your own research, what evidence is currently available that suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the only one responsible for killing JFK? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5659

Bill Kelly has posted an article on the Forum about the possibility of obtaining a grand jury in order to investigate the assassination of JFK. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5634 I have started a thread where I have asked researchers to put forward evidence that would justify the case being reopened. As a result of your own research, what evidence is currently available that suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the only one responsible for killing JFK? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5659

Bill Kelly has posted an article on the Forum about the possibility of obtaining a grand jury in order to investigate the assassination of JFK. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5634 I have started a thread where I have asked researchers to put forward evidence that would justify the case being reopened. As a result of your own research, what evidence is currently available that suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the only one responsible for killing JFK? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5659

Bill Kelly has posted an article on the Forum about the possibility of obtaining a grand jury in order to investigate the assassination of JFK. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5634 I have started a thread where I have asked researchers to put forward evidence that would justify the case being reopened. As a result of your own research, what evidence is currently available that suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the only one responsible for killing JFK? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5659

Bill Kelly has posted an article on the Forum about the possibility of obtaining a grand jury in order to investigate the assassination of JFK. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5634 I have started a thread where I have asked researchers to put forward evidence that would justify the case being reopened. As a result of your own research, what evidence is currently available that suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the only one responsible for killing JFK? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5659

Bill Kelly has posted an article on the Forum about the possibility of obtaining a grand jury in order to investigate the assassination of JFK. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5634 I have started a thread where I have asked researchers to put forward evidence that would justify the case being reopened. As a result of your own research, what evidence is currently available that suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the only one responsible for killing JFK? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5659

Bill Kelly has posted an article on the Forum about the possibility of obtaining a grand jury in order to investigate the assassination of JFK. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5634 I have started a thread where I have asked researchers to put forward evidence that would justify the case being reopened. As a result of your own research, what evidence is currently available that suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the only one responsible for killing JFK? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5659

(1) In 1972, Cord Meyer, a senior official in the CIA became aware of your manuscript and made efforts to have the book withheld from publication. Could you tell us more about this story? (2) According to the Frank Church report (Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) published in 1976, the CIA arranged for books critical of the agency to receive bad reviews in the media. Did this happen to The Politics of Heroin? (3) On 12th December, 1986, Daniel Sheehan submitted to the court an affidavit detailing the involvement of a small group of CIA operatives that included Theodore Shackley, Thomas Clines and Richard Secord (they were called the Secret Team) in the drug trade. For example Sheehan said: Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines financed a highly intensified phase of the Phoenix project, in 1974 and 1975, by causing an intense flow of Vang Pao opium money to be secretly brought into Vietnam for this purpose. This Vang Pao opium money was administered for Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines by a US Navy official based in Saigon's US office of Naval Operations by the name of Richard Armitage. However, because Theodore Shackley, Thomas Clines and Richard Armitage knew that their secret anti-communist extermination program was going to be shut down in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand in the very near future, they, in 1973, began a highly secret non-CIA authorized program. Thus, from late 1973 until April of 1975, Theodore Shackley, Thomas Clines and Richard Armitage disbursed, from the secret, Laotian-based, Vang Pao opium fund, vastly more money than was required to finance even the highly intensified Phoenix Project in Vietnam. The money in excess of that used in Vietnam was secretly smuggled out of Vietnam in large suitcases, by Richard Secord and Thomas Clines and carried into Australia, where it was deposited in a secret, personal bank account (privately accessible to Theodore Shackley, Thomas Clines and Richard Secord). During this same period of time between 1973 and 1975, Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines caused thousands of tons of US weapons, ammunition, and explosives to be secretly taken from Vietnam and stored at a secret "cache" hidden inside Thailand. The "liaison officer" to Shackley and Clines and the Phoenix Project in Vietnam, during this 1973 to 1975 period, from the "40 Committee" in the Nixon White House was one Eric Von Arbod, an Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs. Von Arbod shared his information about the Phoenix Project directly with his supervisor Henry Kissinger. Saigon fell to the Vietnamese in April of 1975. The Vietnam War was over. Immediately upon the conclusion of the evacuation of U.S. personnel from Vietnam, Richard Armitage was dispatched, by Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines, from Vietnam to Tehran, Iran. In Iran, Armitage, the "bursar" for the Vang Pao opium money for Shackley and Clines' planned "Secret Team" covert operations program, between May and August of 1975, set up a secret "financial conduit" inside Iran, into which secret Vang Pao drug funds could be deposited from Southeast Asia. The purpose of this conduit was to serve as the vehicle for secret funding by Shackley's "Secret Team," of a private, non-CIA authorized "Black" operations inside Iran, disposed to seek out, identify, and assassinate socialist and communist sympathizers, who were viewed by Shackley and his "Secret Team" members to be "potential terrorists" against the Shah of Iran`s government in Iran. In late 1975 and early 1976, Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines retained Edwin Wilson to travel to Tehran, Iran to head up the "Secret Team" covert "anti-terrorist" assassination program in Iran. This was not a U.S. government authorized operation. This was a private operations supervised, directed and participated in by Shackley, Clines, Secord and Armitage in their purely private capacities. At the end of 1975, Richard Armitage took the post of a "Special Consultant" to the U.S. Department of Defense regarding American military personnel Missing In Action (MIAs) in Southeast Asia. In this capacity, Armitage was posted in the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand. There Armitage had top responsibility for locating and retrieving American MIA's in Southeast Asia. He worked at the Embassy with an associate, one Jerry O. Daniels. From 1975 to 1977, Armitage held this post in Thailand. However, he did not perform the duties of this office. Instead, Armitage continued to function as the "bursar" for Theodore Shackley's "Secret Team," seeing to it that secret Vang Pao opium funds were conducted from Laos, through Armitage in Thailand to both Tehran and the secret Shackley bank account in Australia at the Nugen-Hand Bank. The monies conducted by Armitage to Tehran were to fund Edwin Wilson's secret anti-terrorist "seek and destroy" operation on behalf of Theodore Shackely. Armitage also devoted a portion of his time between 1975 and 1977, in Bangkok, facilitating the escape from Laos, Cambodia and Thailand and the relocation elsewhere in the world, of numbers of the secret Meo tribesmen group which had carried out the covert political assassination program for Theodore Shackley in Southeast Asia between 1966 and 1975. Assisting Richard Armitage in this operation was Jerry O. Daniels. Indeed, Jerry O. Daniels was a "bag-man" for Richard Armitage, assisting Armitage by physically transporting out of Thailand millions of dollars of Vang Pao's secret opium money to finance the relocation of Theodore Shackley's Meo tribesmen and to supply funds to Theodore Shackley's "Secret Team" operations. At the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, Richard Armitage also supervised the removal of arms, ammunition and explosives from the secret Shackley/Clines cache of munitions hidden inside Thailand between 1973 and 1975, for use by Shackley's "Secret Team". Assisting Armitage in this latter operations was one Daniel Arnold, the CIA Chief of Station in Thailand, who joined Shackley's "Secret Team" in his purely private capacity. One of the officers in the U.S. Embassy in Thailand, one Abranowitz came to know of Armitage's involvement in the secret handling of Vang Pao opium funds and caused to be initiated an internal State Department heroin smuggling investigations directed against Richard Armitage. Armitage was the target of Embassy personnel complaints to the effect that he was utterly failing to perform his duties on behalf of American MIAs, and he reluctantly resigned as the D.O.D. Special Consultant on MIA's at the end of 1977. From 1977 until 1979, Armitage remained in Bangkok opening and operating a business named The Far East Trading Company. This company had offices only in Bangkok and in Washington, D.C. This company was, in fact, from 1977 to 1979, merely a "front" for Armitage's secret operations conducting Vang Pao opium money out of Southeast Asia to Tehran and the Nugen-Hand Bank in Australia to fund the ultra right-wing, private anti-communist "anti-terrorist" assassination program and "unconventional warfare" operation of Theodore Shackley's and Thomas Cline's "Secret Team". During this period, between 1975 and 1979, in Bangkok, Richard Armitage lived in the home of Hynnie Aderholdt, the former Air Wing Commander of Shackley`s "Special Operations Group" in Laos, who, between 1966 and 1968, had served as the immediate superior to Richard Secord, the Deputy Air Wing Commander of MAG SOG. Secord, in 1975, was transferred from Vietnam to Tehran, Iran. In 1976, Richard Secord moved to Tehran, Iran and became the Deputy Assistant Secretary of defense in Iran, in charge of the Middle Eastern Division of the Defense Security Assistance Administration. In this capacity, Secord functioned as the chief operations officer for the U.S. Defense Department in the Middle East in charge of foreign military sales of U.S. aircraft, weapons and military equipment to Middle Eastern nations allied to the U.S. Secord's immediate superior was Eric Van Marbad, the former 40 Committee liaison officer to Theodore Shackley's Phoenix program in Vietnam from 1973 to 1975. It later emerged that the two main sources for this story was Carl Jenkins, a senior official in the CIA and Gene Wheaton, a man who had worked for the CIA on a freelance basis. During your research, did you discover if Carl Jenkins was involved in the drug trade? In an interview given in 2005, Wheaton claimed that Jenkins was involved in training this CIA team of assassins. He also added that Jenkins turned this team against JFK. During your research, did you discover any information on this CIA assassination team? (4) In your book, The Politics of Heroin, you look at the possible involvement of Ted Shackley in the drug trade. What do you make of this passage from Ted Shackley’s autobiography, Spymaster: My Life in the CIA, that was published earlier this year? By 1966 the dimensions of the opium problem in Southeast Asia were widely known. The files that I read before going to Vientiane, my discussions with officers who had served there, and a review of the open-source literature all brought the issue home to me. In brief, Laos was not going to be at all like Florida. In Miami the dragon was outside the wall, and my task had been to keep him there. In Laos, on the other hand, he was already inside the perimeter, and I was going to have coexist with him without being seared by his breath. I can already hear the howls of outrage: "Coexist with narcotics traffickers! Just as we always thought! He should have been wiping them out." Well, only rogue elephants charge at everything in their path, and the CIA was never such an animal. The critics' point of view is a respectable one, perhaps even reasonable, if you leave out of consideration the fact that the CIA takes its orders from higher authority and that nowhere in these orders at the time under discussion now a generation ago-was there any mention of narcotics. The mission that had been handed me was to fight a war in northern Laos against the Pathet Lao and the NVA and to interdict, along the Laotian part of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the flow of military manpower and materiel from North Vietnam to the battlefields of South Vietnam. My plate was full. In addition to this, the cultivation of poppy and the medicinal use of opium formed part of the economic and social fabric of the area I would be working in. The CIA inspector general, reporting in September 1972 on the drug situation in Southeast Asia, said that when the United States arrived in the region, "Opium was as much a part of the agricultural infrastructure of this area as was rice, one suitable for the hills, the other for the valleys."' This generalization was as true for Laos as it was for the rest of Southeast Asia, but it tends to obscure the fact that this common agricultural infrastructure supported and was supported by a multiethnic society. Among the Laotian hill tribes alone there were the Hmong, the Yao, the Lao Thung, and the Lu, just to identify a few, and the Hmong were further subdivided into the Red Hmong, the Striped Hmong, and the Black Hmong. These tribes and subtribes all shared a common culture in which the cultivation and use of opium played a part, but each had put its own individual twist on it. Subjecting all these groupings to a standard set of mores is a job I would not wish on any social engineer. I did have to ensure that the guerrilla units we were supporting were not trading or using opium and to minimize the prospects that Air America or Continental Air Services aircraft were being used for opium-smuggling tasks while under contract to us... The fantasy that the CIA was smuggling opium for its own profit has been examined and dismissed as the nonsense it is by a select committee of the United States Senate.

Welcome to the Forum. I am sorry if I or other members have made factual mistakes about your involvement in the Watergate scandal. I have started a thread where you can point out these mistakes. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5670

Alfred C. Baldwin has joined the Forum. He has complained that inaccurate statements have been made about him on this Forum and on my webpage on him. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbaldwinA.htm I have started this thread so that these issues can be addressed.

(1) Does Florence Pritchett’s son object to his mother being named as the long-time mistress of JFK or by the suggestion that she might have been one of Kilgallen’s sources? (2) In your book you do not mention that Pritchett was JFK’s mistress. Is that because you did not know or was it a case of you protecting her privacy? (3) You do not mention that Pritchett was married to Earl E. T. Smith, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Cuba (1957-59). Did you know that at the time you wrote the book? Is it not possible that Pritchett passed on information to Kilgallen as a result of her relationship with her husband and JFK? (4) In your book you make a lot of Kilgallen’s relationship with the man you call the "Out-of-Towner". In fact, you imply that he was in some way involved in her death. Is it correct that the man’s name is really Ron Pataky? (5) Did you find any evidence that Ron Pataky was working for the CIA? (6) Do you believe that Ron Pataky murdered Dorothy Kilgallen?

This message has been posted before. Like last time I asked questions that were not answered. Maybe I will have better luck this time. (1) Does Florence Pritchett’s son object to his mother being named as the long-time mistress of JFK or by the suggestion that she might have been one of Kilgallen’s sources? (2) In your book you do not mention that Pritchett was JFK’s mistress. Is that because you did not know or was it a case of you protecting her privacy? (3) You do not mention that Pritchett was married to Earl E. T. Smith, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Cuba (1957-59). Did you know that at the time you wrote the book? Is it not possible that Pritchett passed on information to Kilgallen as a result of her relationship with her husband and JFK? (4) In your book you make a lot of Kilgallen’s relationship with the man you call the "Out-of-Towner". In fact, you imply that he was in some way involved in her death. Is it correct that the man’s name is really Ron Pataky? (5) Did you find any evidence that Ron Pataky was working for the CIA? (6) Do you believe that Ron Pataky murdered Dorothy Kilgallen?

There is an old saying that "when the United States sneezes, the British catch a cold.” The UK did not follow the US example when JFK was assassinated. We continued to remove our leaders by democratic means. When LBJ sent large number of troops into Vietnam, Harold Wilson, the British Prime Minister, despite the threat of economic consequences, refused to follow the US example. When Richard Nixon ordered members of Operation Gemstone and Operation Sandwedge to break the law in order to sabotage his opponents attempts to gain power, we continued to rely on the democratic process. However, this has all changed under Tony Blair. Unlike previous prime ministers, he has sacrificed our independence in order to slavishly follow the instructions of George Bush’s masters. Blair, like Bush, has used the fear of terrorism to restrict the rights of UK citizens. Recently, politicians have blocked measures proposed by Blair to hold citizens for 90 days without charge. Yet polls suggest that around 80% of the UK supported Blair’s proposals. The reason being is that the public have been persuaded that this measure is vital in the fight against terrorism. I suppose the key factor is that the British people do not think this measure could be applied to them. They think, I am not a Muslim so the police will not think I am a terrorist. Therefore, I am safe from being arrested without trial. However, there are two pieces of legislation that Blair has got through Parliament. For example, Maya Evans was arrested for reading the names of civilians and soldiers killed in Iraq outside the gates of 10 Downing Street. She was charged under the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act (2005). This act makes it illegal to protest within 1km of Parliament Square without police authorisation. Currently we have 20 cases awaiting trial for this offence. John Catt, an 80 year old RAF veteran was recently arrested under the Terrorism Act (2000). His offence, according to the charge sheet was that he was “carrying a placard” and “wearing a T-shirt with anti-Blair info”. A recent radio phone-in suggested that this is happening all the time. At the last Labour Party conference, Walter Wolfgang, 82, a veteran party member who fled Nazi Germany, was bundled out of the conference hall after shouting “nonsense” as Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, defended Britain’s role in Iraq”. When he tried to re-enter, he was stopped and detained under the Terrorism Act. At virtually every political demonstration that takes place in the UK, people are detained under the Terrorism Act. Isabelle Ellis-Cockcroft was only 11 when she was stopped and searched when she took part in a demonstration outside Fairford air base in Gloucestershire. Others were forced back on their coaches by the police and the drivers were forced to drive back to London. Another 120 protestors were detained for nearly 3 hours without arrest (a breach of the Human Rights Act). In May of this year, Lindis Percy, a 61 year old veteran of the peace movement, was electronically tagged and ordered to stay indoors in the evenings under another new piece of Blair legislation, the Anti-Social Behaviour Act. This was all done to make sure Lindis did not hold protests outside US military bases. Another piece of proposed legislation concerns the “glorification” of terrorism. It has not been made clear what this actually means. Another proposal is to make it illegal to “ridicule religion”. I suppose it is only a matter of time before we follow the examples of Hitler and Stalin and make it illegal to ridicule political leaders. Under the Public Order Act the police are forced to investigate anyone who says something that a member of the public objects to. If found guilty, the person is forced to apologise and to undergo “training”. Recently a woman was questioned by the police under this act after claiming on the radio that it was a bad idea to place boys for adoption with two homosexual men. Tony Blair is a dead man walking. It is only a matter of time before he is removed from office. The question is, how much permanent damage will he do to our basic freedoms before he goes.

It is true I am not an American. However, I take these developments very seriously. When you live in the shadow of a superpower you take a keen interest on political developments in the United States. We have a saying in the UK that when the United States sneezes, the British catch a cold.” The UK did not follow the US example when JFK was assassinated. We continued to remove our leaders by democratic means. When LBJ sent large number of troops into Vietnam, Harold Wilson, the British Prime Minister, despite the threat of economic consequences, refused to follow the US example. When Richard Nixon ordered members of Operation Gemstone and Operation Sandwedge to break the law in order to sabotage his opponents attempts to gain power, we continued to rely on the democratic process. However, this has all changed under Tony Blair. Unlike previous prime ministers, he has sacrificed our independence in order to slavishly follow the instructions of George Bush’s masters. Blair, like Bush, has used the fear of terrorism to restrict the rights of UK citizens. Recently, politicians have blocked measures proposed by Blair to hold citizens for 90 days without charge. Yet polls suggest that around 80% of the UK supported Blair’s proposals. The reason being is that the public have been persuaded that this measure is vital in the fight against terrorism. I suppose the key factor is that the British people do not think this measure could be applied to them. They think, I am not a Muslim so the police will not think I am a terrorist. Therefore, I am safe from being arrested without trial. However, there are two pieces of legislation that Blair has got through Parliament. For example, Maya Evans was arrested for reading the names of civilians and soldiers killed in Iraq outside the gates of 10 Downing Street. She was charged under the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act (2005). This act makes it illegal to protest within 1km of Parliament Square without police authorisation. Currently we have 20 cases awaiting trial for this offence. John Catt, an 80 year old RAF veteran was recently arrested under the Terrorism Act (2000). His offence, according to the charge sheet was that he was “carrying a placard” and “wearing a T-shirt with anti-Blair info”. A recent radio phone-in suggested that this is happening all the time. At the last Labour Party conference, Walter Wolfgang, 82, a veteran party member who fled Nazi Germany, was bundled out of the conference hall after shouting “nonsense” as Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, defended Britain’s role in Iraq”. When he tried to re-enter, he was stopped and detained under the Terrorism Act. At virtually every political demonstration that takes place in the UK, people are detained under the Terrorism Act. Isabelle Ellis-Cockcroft was only 11 when she was stopped and searched when she took part in a demonstration outside Fairford air base in Gloucestershire. Others were forced back on their coaches by the police and the drivers were forced to drive back to London. Another 120 protestors were detained for nearly 3 hours without arrest (a breach of the Human Rights Act). In May of this year, Lindis Percy, a 61 year old veteran of the peace movement, was electronically tagged and ordered to stay indoors in the evenings under another new piece of Blair legislation, the Anti-Social Behaviour Act. This was all done to make sure Lindis did not hold protests outside US military bases. Another piece of proposed legislation concerns the “glorification” of terrorism. It has not been made clear what this actually means. Another proposal is to make it illegal to “ridicule religion”. I suppose it is only a matter of time before we follow the examples of Hitler and Stalin and make it illegal to ridicule political leaders. Under the Public Order Act the police are forced to investigate anyone who says something that a member of the public objects to. If found guilty, the person is forced to apologise and to undergo “training”. Recently a woman was questioned by the police under this act after claiming on the radio that it was a bad idea to place boys for adoption with two homosexual men. Tony Blair is a dead man walking. It is only a matter of time before he is removed from office. The question is, how much permanent damage will he do to our basic freedoms before he goes.

Alfred W. McCoy, the author of The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, has joined the Forum. Hopefully he will contribute to this thread. He is also willing to discuss his new book, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror (it will be published in January, 2006).

I plan to take a look at different aspect of Jack Anderson's career over the next couple of days. First of all I want to look at his wartime experiences. In 1943 Anderson enrolled in the Merchant Marine officers training school. After seven months he persuaded the Deseret News to accredit him as a foreign correspondent in China. Acccording to Anderson he was supposed to write "stories about hometown heroes gone to war". He disliked this work and managed to get involved with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). The OSS sent Anderson to contact a band of Chinese Nationalist guerrillas fighting the Japanese Army (photograph below). Soon afterwards Anderson met Chou En-lai and wrote about his activities for the Associated Press. In 1945 Anderson joined the United States Army in Chunking. He first served in the Quartermaster Corps and then wrote for Stars and Stripes. He also did some reporting for the Armed Forces Radio. According to Anderson (Confessions of a Muckraker) he thinks it was Spencer Moosa of the Associated Press in 1947 who suggested that Anderson should try and get a job with Drew Pearson, who at the time worked for the Washington Post. Sure enough, Pearson gave Anderson a job as his assistant. However, Anderson soon became an important source of information for Pearson (more about that later). However, was it really Spencer Moosa who suggested that there might be a job with America’s leading investigative journalist? Is it just a coincidence that Phil Graham became the leading figure at the Washington Post in 1946 (appointed by his father-in-law, Eugene Meyer). Graham was of course also in the OSS in South-East Asia during the war. It was in the OSS when he met Frank Wisner who went onto to establish Operation Mockingbird. Graham was the key media figure in Mockingbird. Was it Graham who recruited Anderson? It is interesting that most of the early stories that Anderson brought to Drew Pearson concerned military intelligence.

A version of this article with photos and illustrations can be found here: http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/The%20Wound...%20Connally.htm

The problem is that what Bush has done is illegal. See this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5658

Bill Kelly has started a very important thread on establishing a JFK Grand Jury. To quote Bill: Unsolved cold cases, especially homicides, are reviewed every few years, sometimes by a new detective who looks over old evidence to see if there is anything that has been overlooked, or if there is any previously unknown evidence or witnesses, or recently developed scientific tools that could be used to help solve the crime. There is no statute of limitations on murder, under the rules of criminal procedure homicide is given precedence over all other crimes, and once accumulated, the evidence in a homicide is presented to a grand jury Independent researchers, journalists and ordinary citizens can identify evidence, uncover conspiracies and witness crimes, but if there is no case, no grand jury, no place to present the evidence, then there is no justice. As Mr. Civiletti explained to the HSCA, the DOJ “seldom turns down exploring at least, or reviewing a petition or reasonable request…” Towards the development of a legal case, the grand jury Petition-Request is a citizen’s petition to a District Attorney responsible for prosecuting offenders to request a grand jury be convened to review the facts of a case and determine if there is enough evidence to indict someone for a crime. A grand jury is asked to decide, not guilt or innocence, but whether there is enough evidence to have a person brought to trial for a crime. The grand jury only hears evidence of guilt, but does not render a verdict. Its decision is whether to indict, which is merely an accusation, or not to indict. Guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law; where the rules of evidence preclude hearsay evidence and allows the defense attorney the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Hearsay is allowed, and witnesses must testify before a grand jury without counsel, as all attorneys other than the prosecutor are not permitted in the grand jury room. If the grand jury determines there is enough evidence, they vote a “True Bill” and indict someone for a crime. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5634 I suggest we use this thread to accumulate the evidence.

Richard makes a very important point. To be successful it needs to concentrate on the evidence produced by respectable researchers. I have started a thread where we can start placing evidence that supports the reopening of the case. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5659

There has been a lot of new evidence released/discovered over the last few years. See for example, Larry Hancock’s Someone Would Have Talked (2003). Wait for the revised edition that will come out in April/May. I would also take a look at Gerald McKnight’s Breach of Trust (2005) and Lamar Waldron’s Ultimate Sacrifice (2005). Larry, Gerald and Lamar are all members and are willing to discuss their research on the Forum.

BBC Report: President George W Bush has admitted he authorised secret monitoring of communications within the United States in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks. The monitoring was of "people with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organisations", he said. He said the programme was reviewed every 45 days, and he made clear he did not plan to halt the eavesdropping. He also rebuked senators who blocked the renewal of his major anti-terror law, the Patriot Act, on Friday. By preventing the extension of the act, due to expire on 31 December, they had, he said, acted irresponsibly and were endangering the lives of US citizens. The president, who was visibly angry, also suggested that a New York Times report which had revealed the monitoring on Friday had been irresponsible. America's enemies had "learned information they should not have", he said in his weekly radio address, which was delivered live from the White House after a pre-recorded version was scrapped. Senators from both Mr Bush's Republican party and the opposition Democrats expressed concerns about the monitoring programme on Friday. Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said there was no doubt it was "inappropriate", adding that Senate hearings would be held early next year as "a very, very high priority". "This is Big Brother run amok," was the reaction of Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy. Senator Russell Feingold, another Democrat, called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American". But in his address on Saturday, Mr Bush said the programme was "critical to saving American lives". The president said some of the 11 September hijackers inside the US had communicated with associates outside before the attacks - but the US had not known that until it was too late. "The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and our civil liberties," he said. Monitoring was, he said, a "vital tool in our war against the terrorists". He said Congressional leaders had been briefed on the programme, which he has already renewed more than 30 times. Mr Bush harshly criticised the leak that had made the programme public. "Revealing classified information is illegal. It alerts our enemies," he said. The New York Times reported on Friday that Mr Bush had signed a secret presidential order following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the National Security Agency to track the international telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral to the courts. Previously, surveillance on American soil was generally limited to foreign embassies. American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil. What do Americans think about this development?

BBC Report: President George W Bush has admitted he authorised secret monitoring of communications within the United States in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks. The monitoring was of "people with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organisations", he said. He said the programme was reviewed every 45 days, and he made clear he did not plan to halt the eavesdropping. He also rebuked senators who blocked the renewal of his major anti-terror law, the Patriot Act, on Friday. By preventing the extension of the act, due to expire on 31 December, they had, he said, acted irresponsibly and were endangering the lives of US citizens. The president, who was visibly angry, also suggested that a New York Times report which had revealed the monitoring on Friday had been irresponsible. America's enemies had "learned information they should not have", he said in his weekly radio address, which was delivered live from the White House after a pre-recorded version was scrapped. Senators from both Mr Bush's Republican party and the opposition Democrats expressed concerns about the monitoring programme on Friday. Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said there was no doubt it was "inappropriate", adding that Senate hearings would be held early next year as "a very, very high priority". "This is Big Brother run amok," was the reaction of Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy. Senator Russell Feingold, another Democrat, called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American". But in his address on Saturday, Mr Bush said the programme was "critical to saving American lives". The president said some of the 11 September hijackers inside the US had communicated with associates outside before the attacks - but the US had not known that until it was too late. "The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and our civil liberties," he said. Monitoring was, he said, a "vital tool in our war against the terrorists". He said Congressional leaders had been briefed on the programme, which he has already renewed more than 30 times. 'Illegal leak' Mr Bush harshly criticised the leak that had made the programme public. "Revealing classified information is illegal. It alerts our enemies," he said. The New York Times reported on Friday that Mr Bush had signed a secret presidential order following the attacks on 11 September 2001, allowing the National Security Agency to track the international telephone calls and e-mails of hundreds of people without referral to the courts. Previously, surveillance on American soil was generally limited to foreign embassies. American law usually requires a secret court, known as a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to give permission before intelligence officers can conduct surveillance on US soil. What do Americans think about this development?

I see that John Prescott today has revealed that he believes that Labour’s proposed new Education Act will bring an end to Comprehensive Education. Prescott, a man who failed his 11+, is someone who still believes in comprehensive schools. Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly, two people who experienced private education, have probably never understood, yet alone supported, comprehensive education. Eton educated David Cameron is very keen on Ruth Kelly’s bill. He has promised to use his new power as leader of the Tory Party to get it passed in Parliament. So far 72 Labour MPs have signed a document stating their opposition to the Education Act. As Labour has only a 66 majority in the House of Commons, the government will need the Tories to get it passed.

The incidence of obesity among adult men has nearly doubled in just over ten years (13.2% in 1993 to 23.6% in 2004). For women it has increased from 16.4% to 23.8%. The real problem is with children. A recent study shows that one in three 11 to 15 year olds are obese. This has resulted in a large increase in type 2 diabetes. We are heading for an epidemic similar to that in the US. The long-term effects of diabetes can include blindness, amputations, kidney disease, heart conditions and stroke.