Mervyn Hagger

Richard, I am not twisting anything. You are here and this Forum is filled with accusations and counter accusations. I am a freelance investigative journalist and a published contributor to academic journals. So I began this thread in a very modest and open and straightforward manner, and you chose to join in, Fair enough and I welcome your input. I am merely bringing this topic down from cloud nine to earth and looking at it as any sane judge would do, and any open minded jury would do. It is the job of the prosecutor to accuse and get a conviction of guilt. It is the job of the defense to prove no guilt. That is all, and this thread is like any other thread on this Forum only this thread is shoving aside wild speculation. I liked Joe Friday who wanted "just the facts". So what are the facts other than the death of JFK in a Dallas street at High Noon?

Richard, you contradict yourself. You are here posting away on this Forum, but why if it is a waste of time? Then you state "they got away with it" = but who is "THEY" and what did "they" get away with? What was "their" MOTIVE? If "THEY" got away with something, and if whatever "they" got away with has not been stopped and prosecuted as the spoils of a crime (murder of JFK), then the criminal activity continues today. If that is the case then this case is by no means "cold".

Richard, a crime was committed. The crime is murder and the victim was JFK. Are we agreed so far? The Official Version as it stands says the LHO was the lone gunman. Are we agreed on that (irrespective of whether you think that he was/wasn't totally/partially involved.) If we are agreed on those basics, then we can progress. If you tell me that JFK did not die or what not even shot, then we can't go anywhere. As to the books, I don't disparage them, I have many of them and that includes Larry Hancock's excellent 'Shadow Warfare' and the detailed research of Gary Murr who I am in correspondence with outside of this Forum. But those books are not the issue here. The basic facts are the issue. If we can't discuss this from what is actually known and set aside ideas that a Martian in an invisible craft spirited JFK away and left a dummy in his place, then there is no point. But I assume we both are grounded in reality.

Richard, read the topic. I am tackling this from the point of view of law enforcement trying to assist a Prosecutor to prosecute for the unlawful killing of JFK. Chris is the unfortunate Prosecutor and he is trying to wriggle out of doing his job (lol). No one is defending anyone, yet. Do you want to take on that role? The official version says that LHO did it on his own. So I guess LHO is your client, unless Chris is going to charge other people as part of a conspiracy or as the real actors in this crime. I am not the jury, just the judge ruling for order in the court.

Chris, take a look at this main thread and all of the related main threads, but especially this one because it is alive, while others on this Forum are either dead or dying. But this thread is alive with all manner of conspiracy discussions. All manner of finger pointing. As far as I can tell, none of the people posting have the qualifications you refer to. How about the avalanche of books, magazine and newspaper articles? Most are opinionated pieces. So let's begin at the beginning since I did not bring you here, you came here of your own free will. You commented on matters relating to the murder of JFK. Now I am saying let's deal with this topic as though we are in a court room. The victim of unlawful killing is JFK. Now, are you prosecuting LHO as a sole gunman or part of a conspiracy with others to kill JFK. If so, who are these other people and what is your evidence?

Chris, that is not how cases are presented to courts. 1. Do we have a crime? - Yes, the crime of murder. 2. Do we have a victim? - Yes, JFK. 3. Do we have an alleged perp.? - Yes, LHO. Only now can you get to the bit about linking LHO to JFK. That is where evidence comes in. But, if you are going to claim that LHO was either a) not involved or b) was not the shooter or c) not the lone shooter, then you have to name the person or persons who committed the crime of murder.

Chris, how can "the chain of evidence be broken", if we don't know what the real evidence is? Murder does not have a time limitation for prosecution. It may be a cold case and maybe most of the participants are deceased. On the other hand, maybe not. Think poopoo war crimes. So, we begin with 'WHO' and look at what the case file currently says. There was no trial. The accused was shot to death in Police HQ in front of the press (!) - which is almost as bad as the underlying crime - the murder of JFK. So before we can ask 'Who Else' (but LHO)? - we need to know WHY? Why was JFK murdered? Neither one of these issues has ever been properly addressed. Using In Limine to restrict the case file and narrow it down to WHO and WHY, we can immediately start throwing a lot of books and magazines and newspapers and recorded interviews out of the door to our cyber court room because they are not evidence. Speculation is not wanted: "Just the facts" as Joe Friday used to say on TV, but what are the facts? You play Prosecutor and present your case ...

Chris, try using that as an argument in a court of law or even an academic article. It will go right into the waste paper or deleted cyber basket. Now answer the question: who murdered JFK and why? You are in a court of law as the prosecuting attorney. WHO (name) are you prosecuting? WHAT was the MOTIVE for the murder? (Actually, you don't need a motive per se, but it helps in PROVING that the accused YOU NAMED is guilty!) Skip all the encyclopedic mythology - because at the moment that is all that it is. ANSWER the questions that you would have to tell the court in your opening argument - for which you will have submit proven evidence to back it up. Step forward and address the court Mr Barnard ... (YOU'RE ON!)

Sorry Steve, but that is just a pile of words. Answer the question: Who killed JFK and why? Airy-fairy musings don't fund killers, fund things as big as this, or even have an objective. Who gained from killing JFK and where is the evidence in cash. As they say in Texas: Money talks and bullshit walks.

Hi Greg. All of that brings us back to the basic question: Who killed JFK and why? Put another way, for all the promoters of the LHO was not alone or not even the assassin crowd: Which came first, the organization to kill JFK, or JFK giving birth to his organizational killers? The latter make no sense. Think Chicago in the Thirties (or anywhere else since then). Gangs had bosses who controlled members who brought in money. Gang bosses rubbed out other gang bosses to get more money by takeover. (Think legit business corporations today.) So the organization came first and JFK got in the way of its business model. Name that gang.

Jeff, this is what I object to because it defies logic and commonsense. You dispute the words "huge operation", but to mount the kind of operation you are discussing - which includes (maybe) two Oswalds and the cover-up afterwards, all costs money and high level planning. If LHO did it on his own for his own reasons, that is a small operation and bungling explains the cover-up. I don't buy the simple explanation that a deranged LHO did it all by himself because there are too many unexplained issues surrounding LHO. This brings us to the stark question: who wanted JFK dead, if it was not just a deranged LHO acting on the spur of the moment? Gangs kill to protect turf which represents money. There were many reasons to kill Hitler, but no one succeeded in doing so. So who wanted JFK dead, and WHY? What would his death accomplish? What did it accomplish? So far you have added more woolly explanations which is why MLK and RFK are thrown into the mix in order to further obfuscate the BIG question: Who killed JFK and WHY?

Jeff, on the one hand you claim that killing Kennedy in broad daylight was the work of a huge operation, which means an expensive operation involving a lot of people, while at the same time you can't state a motive for killing him. By motive I mean a reason that could be presented to this huge team you describe who were so full of hate for JFK that they all agreed that JFK had to die, and die in broad daylight to humiliate the huge US government that would never be able to solve this crime. Jeff, that does not make sense and it is the reason why I posed the question.

Thanks Chris, the trouble I have with JFK and his brother is that they were two-faced - meaning that they lied about the CIA and the Bay of Pigs. As for a moot court examining the hard evidence and then trying that evidence in a real court, I think that too many here who pretend to be interested are merely drive-by rubber necks looking for a thrill.

I honestly don't know. As for my interest, it has come in via the 'back door' following a series of McLendon threads.

Heerema. By the way Paul, some time ago you asked if I knew who Brandy is/was. I didn't then, now I have his biography.

I was born in England lived half my life there and then half in Texas with a smattering of other States and Canada too. I now have well over a score of years in that other country called Scotland. Having been an investigator, including one into the murder of my daughter, as well as into corporate issues, what I am referring to on this thread is a text book, inch by inch, laying of foundational groundwork, first in a moot court to try the issues, then taking that case before a real court as a Class Action suit. It can be done. But, if the reactions by some on this Forum are anything to go by regarding the Election case brought by Texas before the USSC, which was NOT heard, clearly a lot of people on this Forum don't understand why facts and not their opinions count. The currently blocked Texas case is in fact similar to an issue that I co-authored several years ago - see: http://foundthreads.com/04.html A case involving JFK evidence would have to follow procedure and lay down a series of interlocking foundations, but the hypothesis constantly thrown up here on this Forum by some, just go around and around in circles, year after year. There are some dedicated researchers here, but not many. Too many have "opinions", but since they are not Justices on the USSC, their "opinions" are worthless.

Hi Chris, What I am referring to is the constant business of creating conjecture - it could be this or it could be that. Too much hard evidence has already been accumulated and it will be possible, using court room standards of evidence, to 'try' the evidence and permanently knock out the rubbish. The trouble is too many people have opinions but no facts and no knowledge how the legal system works. For instance a lot of ballyhoo is being made of the USSC refusing to take the Texas case relating to the Election. But that case in the way it was filed -lacked Standing - meaning that no one from inside one of those States was a Plaintiff to the suit. Also, the issue of Laches came into play. The case could have been brought months ago by someone in one of those States, when the Election procedure was changed. So Laches (or Timing) also came to be another deciding issue. But the US Constitutional issues in that Texas suit have not been heard, although the mass media try to imply that "Trump Lost the Suit". But he was not the Plaintiff, and the suit was never heard by the US Supreme Court! So it it is with the JFK murder. Who did it and why? There is nothing on the record as such relating to the accumulation of hard evidence now available. It would not be that difficult to find a venue, find a retired judge, a prosecuting attorney and a defending attorney and a qualified jury to hear the evidence - all the evidence. The rubbish could be labeled rubbish and flushed down the toilet. The hard, factual and provable evidence could then be brought before a US Federal Court as a Class Action suit against one of the parties who have benefited from claiming that LHO did it and the Warren Report was correct. Damages to the parties would be the harm inflicted upon the USA of which the Plaintiffs would be citizens, as well as harm performed by the education system upon individuals who have been fed false propaganda which they had to pay for. But before getting to that stage all the speculation needs to be removed and a case stated as to who killed JFK and why. There could even be a series of interlocking trials judging the hard evidence. It's not impossible to achieve but a lot of the 'tin hat' brigade need to be shown the door first! This is for serious researchers who have sought out the facts, and only the facts.

All kinds of daft "I think this" and "I thought that" answers to that question have been pumped out for decades. For decades. Not one of them is fit for a court room verdict, just a talk show promotion or a conference to sell more "I think that ..." books. So what is the definitive answer backed by accepted proof that will stand up in a court room and be agreed to by a jury of the most informed and enlightened minds that exist?

Now I know that we are all working at cross-purposes, if our intention is to discover what happened and conclusively prove what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Aside from repetitive threads (lol), there is no attempt to create a court room style accepted evidence timeline established by strict proof. Instead there seems to be a lot of speculation. If the parties interested in proving what is factual and what is fiction could ever agree on an agenda, progress towards enlightenment might be the result instead of more and more books and conferences to sell more and more books ....

I just got an email from a contributor with very helpful information about his own research which overlaps my own. Isn't it a shame that everyone here is not working on a central theme to conclusively prove once and for all what really happened on November 22, 1963. Instead I see repetitive threads being started that ask the same questions over and over again, and get nowhere at all.

Some years ago a friend of mine in Norway raised a strange question about a recorded interview that I conducted in 1985 with Don Pierson of Eastland, Texas. It wasn't about something that Don said, but something that he did not say, and then his reaction to me which prompted my friend's asking question. I asked Don, whom I had known for some time as a friend, but who I initially contacted back in 1967 when I was living in England, a question that he did not like. He used a dramatic hand gesture to stop the tape - which I did. He told me that if I asked that question again, or one like it, that it would kill our friendship. As it was he gifted me his legal and financial archives regarding his offshore broadcasting ventures in the Sixties which used a ship called 'Olga Patricia'. It was my friend in Norway who kept asking me what Don was afraid of, and I kept answering that I did not know. He asked so many times that I eventually began to investigate and many years after the fact, this same friend heard from Gary Murr regarding my friend's web sites about the 'Olga Patricia'. It seems that Gary was following a different investigation and he had then run across the 'Olga Patricia', and apparently Larry Hancock in 'Shadow Warfare' had then relied upon input from Garry to included some of this information in his book. I had given my friend in Norway the mortgage papers for 'Olga Patricia' (and many other items of information), that initially came from the Don Pierson archives. I then discovered a lot of contemporary information relating to the 'Olga Patricia' which does not seem to be a part of Gary's research. On top of this a senior employee of Gordon McLendon who I once met around 1979 in Texas, had written a book about another ship; Gordon McLendon and the assassination of JFK. He is now deceased, but his daughter has been sending me his original manuscripts which are different from the book. Both incorporate input from Jones Harris who I have also spoken to quite recently by phone. Then a former BBC radio engineer advised me to buy a book called 'PsyWar on Cuba' which had been published in Australia. Its threads overlap those pursued by Gary, but for different reasons. I have then pursued all of these threads as part of a larger agenda that I outlined on this Forum a few days ago. What a pity it is that everyone is not working together in common cause to test and try all submitted evidence, discarding that which is obviously unfounded speculation and thus creating a proven account of what happened on November 22, 1963. Instead, it seems that individuals are constantly going around and around in circles over the same material.

These theories seem to begin with prejudicial political beliefs, and not with an open academic mind willing to try the evidence as if it was being placed before a jury to decide. While miscarriages of justice do take place where a judge or member of a jury has been bribed or blackmailed, by and large the system works. But not so with cases that remain 'unsolved' due to vested interests not wanting a final verdict to be rendered. The JFK-LHO-JR instance is one such case. It could be solved quite easily and a final verdict rendered, but until everyone is deceased and their children are deceased, that probably is not going to happen.

Thank you Cory, that is exactly what I am trying to do. I began researching the origins of British commercial broadcasting which all trailed back to Gordon McLendon in Dallas, but then that trail led me to Charles Weaver who supervised sales on all of the McLendon stations. He also managed KILT in Houston and a ship named Mi Amigo docked in Galveston which had been anchored off Stockholm, Sweden as Radio Nord. Weaver claimed that it had been a CIA 'front' station serving as a listening post in the Baltic Sea. It began and ended while Lee Harvey Oswald was at work in Minsk. Also running through the backbone of our investigation was a Jewish lawyer named Stanley R. Rader. He ran the Christian organization fronted by Herbert W. Armstrong whose polemical monologues appeared on many CIA 'front' stations (including Radio Americas ex-Radio Swan). Armstrong's 'The World Tomorrow' with its 'prescient' warnings beginning in the 1950s over Radio Luxembourg and then all of the main British 'pop pirates' of the Sixties, concerned 'Climate Change' and 'Brexit', and that was long before these issues ever came to the attention of most people alive today. As I continued to investigate (my first half page feature in a UK paper appeared in 1966), my travels took me to Texas where I personally met William Colby who was by then an attorney assisting the founder of the largest 'pop pirate' stations of the Sixties. His name is Don Pierson and he eventually turned over his archives to me. Pierson was a Texan mentored by Gordon McLendon, and Pierson's offshore radio stations caused the Crown to shut them down with a draconian censorship law. The Crown then forced the BBC to create a clone of Pierson's Radio London with BBC Radio One, sans Herbert W. Armstrong. McLendon's Radio Nord off Sweden in the Baltic Sea was financed by Clint Murchison Jr and run by Robert F. Thompson, with Bill Weaver cleaning up the mess. After Radio Nord closed down, its ship was sent to Galveston in March 1963, and then on to England where it became Radio Atlanta. (McLendon went to High School in Atlanta, Texas and practiced his craft over a stadium loudspeaker system during high school sports.) But the trail then led me to focus upon REM island, an offshore home to Dutch radio and television stations which had been built on a modified Venezuelan oil platform by Brown and Root (Haliburton), with the help of a former German SS officer. So I have kept on digging and publishing our exploits by writing for various journals. (See http://foundthreads.com). Now the trail has led me to discover the real cause of all of these activities: The UN Law of the Sea and national implementation by member governments. In the early Sixties, Britain's 'quality press' came very close to publishing the real story behind the so-called 'pirate' offshore stations of the 'Swinging Sixties'. The first of these offshore stations (Radio Caroline) was initially designed to test British reaction, because behind the scenes was an elaborate plan to stage Wild West type undersea grabs of the continental shelves upon which West European nations resided. The goal was to claim the wealth of natural gas and then oil. As it turned out, the West European nations tolerated the radio ships, but REM island attached to the sea floor led to a raid by Dutch air and sea special forces to close it down! The oil capital was Houston, Texas and all lines point back from North Sea gas and oil to Houston. There is a very interesting case to be made about the constant Armstrong-style warnings of 'Climate Change' (sans the cloak of religion), which has now taken hold of mainstream media, because it appears to be but a part of a huge political and monetary war to shift the power base of the USA from Texas to California with so-called 'renewable energy'. To do this gas and oil have to be killed off so that Silicon Valley can replace Houston, Texas which originally shot to importance with the help from the 'Duke of Duval' (County), in order to create the rigged first election of Lyndon Baines Johnson. This was the cause that the 'Good Ole Boys' in Room 8F began to champion as a means of turning Houston into not only the oil capital of the USA, but into its real political power base as well. Houston controlled Washington DC. It all began in WWII when Churchill brought in a super secret team of Texans to drill for oil in England (which they did successfully.) The UK oil and gas fields stretched offshore, but in those days there was no way to reach and exploit them. Then, after WWII cheap gas from Texas, Persia, Saudi Arabia, etc., flooded the world market. Churchill (who is half-American and half-English), was a champion of the British Empire, and long before he became Prime Minister he was championing the notion that the Illuminati were behind the overthrow of the Russian monarch. There were, wrote Churchill, "good Jews" (nationalists like Disraeli), and "bad Jews (internationalists like the founders of the communist USSR). Yes, before Joe McCarthy was Winston Churchill, and Edward R. Murrow would go on to officially head up US Propaganda dissemination. The yesterday everyone thinks that they can recall, never happened. Eric Blair sitting in his lonely farmhouse on the island of Jura was right: memories are often fake because they have been falsely engineered. The eponymous but fictitious Winston of '1984' came to learn that lesson the hard way, thanks to Mr Orwell. Among our own writings we published this document some years ago: http://foundthreads.com/04.html It is called 'Citizen or Subject', and the issue now being brought before the US Supreme Court relating to the last US Election (Trump v Biden) seems to be a child of this same reasoning, and for our own enlightenment we owe our own insight to NY attorney Francis X. Hennessy. It will be very interesting to see if this (Trump v Biden) case results in another version of the Twenty-First Amendment writ large. The bottom line for me is that by following just the facts; not the conjectures or the prejudices of some, I am discovering where the truth about 'yesterday' really resides, because it is surely time for questions about November 22, 1963 to be finally laid to rest. The 'fake' news of today is but yesterday's news retold with a deliberately tarnished obfuscation, part true and part fiction. This is why I am interested in the book 'Murder Most Foul' because of the questions it once raised, and now raised once again by its republication with publicity from Bob Dylan.

Thank you James.

James, what is your opinion of the book and especially Chapter 14 in which the author details his conclusion regarding a conspiracy? Do you agree with all of it, some of it, and exactly what and why?