Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

[David G. Healy]

Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions

Question #14

Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend

the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two

semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the

xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most

of the 'answers'.

*reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...*

But first, an important note:

**********************************************************************

Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's

only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message

threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.

These trolls include (but are not limited to):

**22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh

Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply

deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or

simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill

files.

source: alt.conspiracy.jfk

**********************************************************************

14. Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the

statements they wanted? Dave Powers, for example, or Tomlinson? Why do LNT'ers

refuse to admit this simple historical fact of FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?

(Toddy, for example, has been running from this since 2005... even though he

*requested* the supporting evidence - simply do a Google Groups search for "FBI

Intimidation")

"Most private citizens who had cooperated with newsmen reporting the crime have

refused to give further help after being interviewed by agents of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation." - New York Times, 6Dec63.

Is there any *non* conspiratorial explanation for this pattern of FBI

intimidation?

eof

Edited April 27, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Tim Gratz]

Is there a "non-conspiratorial" explanation for the FBI conduct?

It depends upon what you mean by "non-conspiratorial".

If you mean that the FBI's intimidation of e.g. Powers means the FBI was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK, the answer of course is no. If you mean was the FBI engaging in a scheme to cover up and conceal the true facts the answer of course is yes.

The reasons for the cover-up were different than the reasons for the assassination, and different people who participated had different reasons. I am convinced a major reason for the cover up was to conceal discovery of the fact that our government had plotted the murders of foreign heads of state.

IMO the chances are about as great as a snowball surviving an hour in hades that Powers and O'Donnell did not tell RFK that they thought shots came from the front. And per "Brothers" Walter Sheridan had discovered evidence of a Hoffa payout to Ruby which he reported to RFK. Yet RFK wrote, as we all know, a letter to the WC stating he was aware of no facts suggesting a conspiracy. RFK clearly feared damage to his brother's reputation if the CIA-Mafia plots came out, or if his brother's relationship to Judith Campbell came out. You will remember that the Church Committee attempted to shield the president's reputation by not disclosing JC's gender, but its revelation that JFK shared "a friend" with the head of the Chicago Mafia was damaging even absent the sex part.

[David G. Healy]

Is there a "non-conspiratorial" explanation for the FBI conduct?

It depends upon what you mean by "non-conspiratorial".

If you mean that the FBI's intimidation of e.g. Powers means the FBI was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK, the answer of course is no. If you mean was the FBI engaging in a scheme to cover up and conceal the true facts the answer of course is yes.

The reasons for the cover-up were different than the reasons for the assassination, and different people who participated had different reasons. I am convinced a major reason for the cover up was to conceal discovery of the fact that our government had plotted the murders of foreign heads of state.

IMO the chances are about as great as a snowball surviving an hour in hades that Powers and O'Donnell did not tell RFK that they thought shots came from the front. And per "Brothers" Walter Sheridan had discovered evidence of a Hoffa payout to Ruby which he reported to RFK. Yet RFK wrote, as we all know, a letter to the WC stating he was aware of no facts suggesting a conspiracy. RFK clearly feared damage to his brother's reputation if the CIA-Mafia plots came out, or if his brother's relationship to Judith Campbell came out. You will remember that the Church Committee attempted to shield the president's reputation by not disclosing JC's gender, but its revelation that JFK shared "a friend" with the head of the Chicago Mafia was damaging even absent the sex part.

sorry for the delay Tim, forwarded to Ben Holmes for a response, which I'll post here (05.15.08)