Personally I think the case for reopening

[John Dolva]

John Fitzegerald Kennedy in Texas, Dallas, in Dealey Plaza, on the twenty second of November in 1963 has been made; and reason after reason continues to pile on top that to reopen the investigation by the relevant Authorities is now beyond way beyond doubt.

Therefore I declare my full support for people such as William Kelly, Nathaniel Heidenheimer, and others, who are concentratimng on any avenue to make such an event a certainty (irrespective of our differences, or the outcome).

[William Kelly]

John Fitzegerald Kennedy in Texas, Dallas, in Dealey Plaza, on the twenty second of November in 1963 has been made; and reason after reason continues to pile on top that to reopen the investigation by the relevant Authorities is now beyond way beyond doubt.

Therefore I declare my full support for people such as William Kelly, Nathaniel Heidenheimer, and others, who are concentratimng on any avenue to make such an event a certainty (irrespective of our differences, or the outcome).

Hey John, Welcome to the Fray.

Don't forget Greg Parker:

http://reopenjfkcase.dockearth.com/?q=blog/4

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

http://www.politicalassassinations.com/

and

http://www.petitiononline.com/jfkgjury/petition.html

[Pamela Brown]

The JFK case does need to be re-opened. It needs to be done in such a manner that it cannot be sandbagged and weakened by the govt. In order to do this, a process needs to be in place that includes rating evidence and/or discrepancies in order to focus only on that which is truly important evidence that points to conspiracy and/or cover-up. We have seen the shenannigans used to suppress information during the WC and HSCA. We cannot go in unaware or unprepared for the worst.

[William Kelly]

The JFK case does need to be re-opened. It needs to be done in such a manner that it cannot be sandbagged and weakened by the govt. In order to do this, a process needs to be in place that includes rating evidence and/or discrepancies in order to focus only on that which is truly important evidence that points to conspiracy and/or cover-up. We have seen the shenannigans used to suppress information during the WC and HSCA. We cannot go in unaware or unprepared for the worst.

Hi Pam,

There are two legal routes that seem promising, Congressional oversight hearings on the JFK Act, which would be limited to the JFK assassination records, and a grand jury, either federal, or Texas local.

A grand jury would only be given the evidence of a crime related to the assassination, defense lawyers would not be permitted in the grand jury room, and exculpatory evidence would not be admitted, only the evidence of a crime, so there would be no arguments or cross examining of witnesses. Only the DA, asst DA or member of the grand jury would be permitted to question witnesses. And it would all be done in secret.

We have been preparing for both for years now, and should be ready.

BK

[John Dolva]

William, I mentioned you because you consistently post on it from many angles, and obviously are deeply involved in getting it happening, and Nathaniel for his continuous efforts to promote the Forum. Had I started to add names I wouldn't know where to stop and would inevitably leave someone out. So : ''and others''.

The issues raised by Pamela is of particular interest IMO, I'd like to read (or be linked to a previously posted pieces on the matter) elaborations on the issues raised by her, further thoughts et.c.. Are there surefire safguards in place to avoid a fruitless repetition? If not, is there anything one can do? Or is it lets trust they get it right this time, really suspecting, on the basis of past performance, they likely wont?

[Evan Burton]

John,

Could you summarise - and probably simplify - why should this happen? For someone who doesn't know any real detail about the whole matter?

Try it this way: I'm the person who has the power to order a new investigation (or whatever), and it's me you have to convince. The problem is I know only the basic details of the assassination... and I'm a busy man who really doesn't care all that much. Treat it as an executive summary of why there is reason to do this. Convince me.

If you feel it's pointless to try and summarise the evidence without losing the reason for it being significant, or simply do not have the time to detail what needs to be said, I will understand. It's that I don't know the details and - although normally a skeptic - am quite open to being convinced why there should be a new investigation.

I'd like to stress something, too: I asked something in a similar vein some time ago and the thread just developed into an argument between various JFK people. I want to avoid this again. I'd ask that John Dolva, and only John Dolva (or his nominated representative) answer my request. If you disagree with something that he has says in any summary, then PM me - please do NOT post your objection to the thread.

Thanks.

[John Dolva]

OK, Evan. Thank you for the opportunity.

Roughly (IMO) :

Post after post this year has led me to believe there is sufficient indication that there is >>reasonable doubt<< that surmounts any Party Politics.

The rapidity of which this accumulating indications evolves leads me to believe that should a concentrated effort be made, now, much more will, (much quicker), be revealed.

It's highly likely that the major players are no longer with us, and there is a reasonable likelyhood that someone under witness protection will break cover.

With the new administration, and its apparent push for some openess, it seems logical that they, without any loss of faith at all can instead restore faith in a troubled world.

It would show an inclusiveness that US democracy seems to have gradually done away with, and restore the position of the United States of America as a trusted member of the Global Community.

Therefore, now is approaching the best opportunity to lay this matter to rest for all concerned.

Greater Unity and Peace is what the world needs

Such a step would generate Goodwill.

[Pamela Brown]

William, I mentioned you because you consistently post on it from many angles, and obviously are deeply involved in getting it happening, and Nathaniel for his continuous efforts to promote the Forum. Had I started to add names I wouldn't know where to stop and would inevitably leave someone out. So : ''and others''.

The issues raised by Pamela is of particular interest IMO, I'd like to read (or be linked to a previously posted pieces on the matter) elaborations on the issues raised by her, further thoughts et.c.. Are there surefire safguards in place to avoid a fruitless repetition? If not, is there anything one can do? Or is it lets trust they get it right this time, really suspecting, on the basis of past performance, they likely wont?

I don't know if there has been much discussion yet of anti-sandbagging strategies. If the govt is participating in the ongoing cover-up, including supressing NARA documents that have not yet been gutted, then there can be no anticipation that anyone involved with them will be acting in the best interest of truth. That being the case, the govt can still be maneuvered into revealing information and/or defining their position, providing that those moving the case forward are aware of the minefields they will be encountering. Therefore, naivete or simply good intentions of any sort will lead to downfall. The other side knows that this is war; the CTs must too. Besides, if/when conspiracy is proven, WC apologists such as McAdams and Mack, and maybe even Barb J, could be out of work and looking for payback. Not a pretty picture.

[David Andrews]

I predict that any new government investigation will be brought on not by calls for truth, even from the presidential desk. There will have to be some prompting or motivating event coming from outside the research community, but possibly from the ranks of the conspirator community or the Kennedy family. The probability was indicated when Oliver Stone's "JFK" prompted the AARB.

Edited May 3, 2009 by David Andrews

[Pamela Brown]

I predict that any new government investigation will be brought on not by calls for truth, even from the presidential desk. There will have to be some prompting or motivating event coming from outside the research community, but possibly from the ranks of the conspirator community or the Kennedy family. The probability was indicated when Oliver Stone's "JFK" prompted the AARB.

It seems doubtful there would be any impetus coming from the Kennedy family. In fact, they seem to have done everything possible to tow the party line in public, apparently to try to keep themselves in the game for another run at the White House. There would have to be some unique charge or reason for re-opening the case that nobody even at the highest levels could refute.

[David Andrews]

I predict that any new government investigation will be brought on not by calls for truth, even from the presidential desk. There will have to be some prompting or motivating event coming from outside the research community, but possibly from the ranks of the conspirator community or the Kennedy family. The probability was indicated when Oliver Stone's "JFK" prompted the AARB.

It seems doubtful there would be any impetus coming from the Kennedy family. In fact, they seem to have done everything possible to tow the party line in public, apparently to try to keep themselves in the game for another run at the White House. There would have to be some unique charge or reason for re-opening the case that nobody even at the highest levels could refute.

Well, I put the Kennedys in to qualify the condition of "possibly." Really, there will have to be some unforseeable motivating event, and next time it won't be an award-winning director teaming up with a deep-pockets foreign producer and a liberal Hollywood star to produce a provocative docudrama. So that limits our possibilities, and I wanted to cover the few we have.

[Pamela Brown]

I predict that any new government investigation will be brought on not by calls for truth, even from the presidential desk. There will have to be some prompting or motivating event coming from outside the research community, but possibly from the ranks of the conspirator community or the Kennedy family. The probability was indicated when Oliver Stone's "JFK" prompted the AARB.

It seems doubtful there would be any impetus coming from the Kennedy family. In fact, they seem to have done everything possible to tow the party line in public, apparently to try to keep themselves in the game for another run at the White House. There would have to be some unique charge or reason for re-opening the case that nobody even at the highest levels could refute.

Well, I put the Kennedys in to qualify the condition of "possibly." Really, there will have to be some unforseeable motivating event, and next time it won't be an award-winning director teaming up with a deep-pockets foreign producer and a liberal Hollywood star to produce a provocative docudrama. So that limits our possibilities, and I wanted to cover the few we have.

You're probably right. Perhaps if sufficient new information was brought to the light, and/or presented in such a way as to demonstrate the sham of the WCR for what it is, there might be sufficient impetus. As long as the WCR is considered to have any validity the govt will cling to it, no matter how flimsy it is.

Or, perhaps, something could be deemed unconstitutional and forced upward on that merit. In Europe, for example, it is in some countries illegal to deny the Holocaust. It ought to be illegal to use any of the inferences or conclusions of the WCR on the basis that they attempted to blame the assassination on someone who was deceased. We are presumably permitted a presumption of innocence until convicted by due process. This of course did not happen with LHO. Even better, if it could be proven that the govt knowingly let LHO be murdered, and the WCR is simply the coverup of that crime, a path to move forward might be made.

Another route might be if someone like Marina were to sue the govt on behalf of her daughters because their father had been denied his rights by due process and judged by the faux court of the WC, there might be impetus for nudging a door open.

[Greg Parker]

Perhaps if sufficient new information was brought to the light, and/or presented in such a way as to demonstrate the sham of the WCR for what it is, there might be sufficient impetus.

Pam,

a lot of new information has come to light over the years by people to numerous to name, but including your good self.

And it just keeps coming on forums such as this and the oft maligned McAdams forum. As you probably gather, I'm an advocate of Jim Olmstead's research over there. But there are others. Even now, some great work is being presented there on Oswald's movements during the lethal time-frame which demonstrates beyond any doubt, Oswald was on the ground floor when the bullets flew.

A sample of what I have at my site also, I think, adds new material of the type that cries for deeper investigation at an official level. Some samples follow:

John Pic worked for the Port Security Unit when LHO lived with him. PSU worked with ONI and FBI and a network of informants on the ports.

Pic noted mileage from AFB to Robert's house for thanksgiving meeting with Lee & Marina. Admitted this was noted in book he used to record mileage. Notebooks like this are usually kept to claim gas on taxes for work related trips. Most of that notebook did not make it into the WC records. Was that trip work-related for the purposes of a debrief?

Richard Snyder was a spotter for the CIA at Harvard - recruiting students for travel to the US as part of Operation Redskin. One of those recruits was in Snyder's office at the time of Oswald's alleged attempt to "defect". He was later kicked out of the Soviet Union as a spy. Snyder neglected to mention this student in his testimony.

The identity of the colonel who attended meetings with Ruby in '61 has been identified with a high degree of certainty as being L Robert Castorr. Castorr was Army Intel and would later become involved in recruiting during the arms-Iran-hostage saga with a Republican dirty tricks operative.

The Oxnard phone call was made by a someone involved in right wing cults.

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

I will also soon be showing that although Albert Osborne lied about a lot of things, he was - as far as he knew - telling the truth when he claimed it was a Mexican who sat beside him on the bus - and that this person was actually a US citizen of Mexican heritage working undercover for a US govt agency.

Why has all this new information failed to have the desired impact? I think you are partly right in suggesting presentation is a key. The right presentation comes from strategic planning and a coordinated effort, targeting the right people. As it is, we are a rabble - a thousand lone voices all struggling to be heard above the din.

On a related note, I recently read a document which outlined a ploy in the psywar against Cuba: perform a seemingly motiveless action and do not explain the action to anyone. The idea was simply to encourage speculation surrounding the action.

Was this another idea transplanted from Cuba ops to Dealey Plaza?

Edited May 6, 2009 by Greg Parker

[Pamela Brown]

Perhaps if sufficient new information was brought to the light, and/or presented in such a way as to demonstrate the sham of the WCR for what it is, there might be sufficient impetus.

Pam,

a lot of new information has come to light over the years by people to numerous to name, but including your good self.

And it just keeps coming on forums such as this and the oft maligned McAdams forum. As you probably gather, I'm an advocate of Jim Olmstead's research over there. But there are others. Even now, some great work is being presented there on Oswald's movements during the lethal time-frame which demonstrates beyond any doubt, Oswald was on the ground floor when the bullets flew.

A sample of what I have at my site also, I think, adds new material of the type that cries for deeper investigation at an official level. Some samples follow:

John Pic worked for the Port Security Unit when LHO lived with him. PSU worked with ONI and FBI and a network of informants on the ports.

Pic noted mileage from AFB to Robert's house for thanksgiving meeting with Lee & Marina. Admitted this was noted in book he used to record mileage. Notebooks like this are usually kept to claim gas on taxes for work related trips. Most of that notebook did not make it into the WC records. Was that trip work-related for the purposes of a debrief?

Richard Snyder was a spotter for the CIA at Harvard - recruiting students for travel to the US as part of Operation Redskin. One of those recruits was in Snyder's office at the time of Oswald's alleged attempt to "defect". He was later kicked out of the Soviet Union as a spy. Snyder neglected to mention this student in his testimony.

The identity of the colonel who attended meetings with Ruby in '61 has been identified with a high degree of certainty as being L Robert Castorr. Castorr was Army Intel and would later become involved in recruiting during the arms-Iran-hostage saga with a Republican dirty tricks operative.

The Oxnard phone call was made by a someone involved in right wing cults.

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

I will also soon be showing that although Albert Osborne lied about a lot of things, he was - as far as he knew - telling the truth when he claimed it was a Mexican who sat beside him on the bus - and that this person was actually a US citizen of Mexican heritage working undercover for a US govt agency.

Why has all this new information failed to have the desired impact? I think you are partly right in suggesting presentation is a key. The right presentation comes from strategic planning and a coordinated effort, targeting the right people. As it is, we are a rabble - a thousand lone voices all struggling to be heard above the din.

On a related note, I recently read a document which outlined a ploy in the psywar against Cuba: perform a seemingly motiveless action and do not explain the action to anyone. The idea was simply to encourage speculation surrounding the action.

Was this another idea transplanted from Cuba ops to Dealey Plaza?

Greg,

I appreciate all that you are doing to move things forward, and Bill Kelly too. The leads you are discussing are valuable. They point to the fact that LHO was surrounded by intelligence and yet nobody followed through on any of the connections. Instead, in order to maintain the fantasy that LHO was an assassin who acted alone they turn everything into a 'game' he was playing.

Being able to organize the new information and prioritize it will help to create the largest impact. So much is diluted and/or diverted on aaj; some, such as Barb J, seem positioned to make huge issues out of non-issues and create strawmen for anything of significance.

Ironically, the WCR may serve purposes other than simply calming the public at a time of national crisis. It may be covering up serious issues that have not yet come to the public eye.

One may be JFK's remains; as, if they are intact and he was not cremated prior to the re-enterment, they could provide evidence of what actually happened, if a proper forensic autopsy could still be done.

Another may be the fact that having LHO killed was only way Marina could come forth to testify against him. Were this the case, the door would be opened to her being a sleeper agent, and a few in the govt, such as JJA, knowing this prior to the assassination.