Why we will never find out the truth about the death of JFK

[William Kelly]

I have come to the conclusion that we will never discover the truth about the people behind the assassination of JFK. I think in time, probably in about 2063, the US government will appoint a respected historian to examine the classified documents related to the case. They will then report that a conspiracy and a cover-up did take place but the available evidence makes it impossible to identify those responsible for these events.

I was reading Dick Russell's interview with Doug Horne in his compendium On the Trail of the JFK Assassins (I haven't started digging into Horne's stuff yet) in which Horne feels that Humes gave up part of the ghost during his ARRB testimony; that the different groups of observers as delineated originally by David Lifton did see what they said they saw; and that, opposite Lifton's theory, the official autopsists performed a "pre-autopsy autopsy" themselves to create the scenario to support a lone, deranged gunman being the sole perp.

I thought about how, back years ago, the mainstream media was raising questions and calling for new investigations before turning on their heel and constructing the trench for the WC's defense. About Bill Clinton's comment about believing there was a conspiracy and his silence on the topic after gaining office. About the Kennedy family's lack of interest in the matter. The destruction of USSS documents in apparent anticipation of their legally ordered release. Panels created to sanctify findings that differ from the original (e.g., a head wound that moves four inches). The list goes on.

And I wonder if it isn't possible that, however gruesome as it may sound, there is an official policy, a contingency plan put into effect upon the violent death of the chief executive by whatever means, that ensures not so much that justice can never be served, but that nobody can claim credit for the act.

"Mr. President, about that 'conspiracy' statement you'd made. Sir, we just cannot allow [insert extremist threat here] or anyone to be able to claim that they were able to assassinate the President of the United States. So if you please, sir, let us outline what will happen to you - to your body, sir - and what your government will do to insure the integrity of your office and the invulnerability of the United States. If it cannot be proven who killed you, sir, then fewer people will try. You will be killed by a lone nut, sir, someone we could never have identified or controlled or even seen coming, much less stopped. Evidence will be constructed to support this version of events. Some poor sap will be blamed, and either killed or spirited away. It's unfortunate but necessary ...."

Of course, were something like this to be true, it could only be carried out if couldn't be found out. It could be an on-going contingency such that, applied as it would be to each succeeding POTUS, it could not be revealed as having taken place even 100 or 200 years hence absent a radically different contingency being developed. Its records of implementation, if there were any, would remain classified and exempt, whether as "on-going national security operations" or as not being "assassination-related" (at least not to any particular POTUS's death) or destroyed "routinely" before they could be examined. Their destruction could be questioned, but never reversed.

The actual perpetrator(s) would probably become known to a selected few - there would be a real but very secret investigation if the answer was not already known - and "justice carried out" against them. It may be done quickly to make a strong point, or sufficiently in the future to appear unconnected. The immediate family would probably be aware of at least the broadest developments and results ("we know who did it, and this has been done to them?") to dampen any enthusiasm any of them may have for a "full investigation" in the future. The government would in any case survive any attempt at disclosure by family members, its "lone nut" cover story well entrenched and supported by all "rational" factions, a support voiced all the louder the closer or more forcefully an actual solution - or disputation - might come.

This is just a notional whim that, even (and especially) if true, could never be proved, merely a passing thought ... but given the odd ways that governments seem to think and act, not a complete impossibility. (If I'm ever visited in the middle of the night and become a vocal LNer - or a "strange death!" - it may have some some actual validity!)

I've had similar thoughts, Duke. It wouldn't surprise me if, when all is said and done, it becomes clear that the mysterious deaths circa 1975 and 1976 do not track back to Trafficante and Marcello, as presumed, but the Secret Service and Ted Kennedy.

I mean, really, if the Secret Service and/or FBI were to come to Teddy and say "Now, Mr. Kennedy, this guy Rosselli's been talking, and it's clear Hoffa and Giancana ordered the assassination of BOTH your brothers. What should we do? Should we let this become public, whereby certain forces--you know who we mean, the people who are still mad about your bringing down Nixon--will try to blame their deaths on their own actions, airing all your family's dirty laundry, or should we have the CIA have one of their own take care of it?"

I think we know what he would say. "Make them go away. Clear the table so my family will feel safe when I run in 1980." And thus sign the death warrants of Hoffa, Giancana, and Rosselli... (and perhaps still others, including DeMohrenschildt and William Pawley).

I mean, really......

You are so full of crap that its coming out your ears.

We can and will learn who exactly were behind the murders of the assassination witnesses during the HSCA investigation.

For those who don't have Dick's book and would like to read the interview, here it is:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/11/doug-horne.html

[B. A. Copeland]

That does seem like a bit of disinfo lol...I might also add, when you have international as well as domestic financiers who have the greatest control over "top-down" institutions/agencies such as the U.S Military, FBI, CIA, etc, it isn't too difficult to see that this is more than "Teddy brought down Nixon" or JFK's death or the complete elimination of anyone even considered a potential risk. I would probably believe that the Kennedy famile does indeed know and have their issues they'd prefer to keep secret but it doesn't destroy the fact that JFK (or any of the other well know assassinations) were planned by a most powerful cabal of special interests.

My only gripe with Russell's book is that it seemed to let GHWB off the hook fairly quickly, given that Bush may have indeed had bigger involvement in the murder than we have been led to believe for many years, aside from that little "bump" it was a nice read.

[Pat Speer]

I have come to the conclusion that we will never discover the truth about the people behind the assassination of JFK. I think in time, probably in about 2063, the US government will appoint a respected historian to examine the classified documents related to the case. They will then report that a conspiracy and a cover-up did take place but the available evidence makes it impossible to identify those responsible for these events.

I was reading Dick Russell's interview with Doug Horne in his compendium On the Trail of the JFK Assassins (I haven't started digging into Horne's stuff yet) in which Horne feels that Humes gave up part of the ghost during his ARRB testimony; that the different groups of observers as delineated originally by David Lifton did see what they said they saw; and that, opposite Lifton's theory, the official autopsists performed a "pre-autopsy autopsy" themselves to create the scenario to support a lone, deranged gunman being the sole perp.

I thought about how, back years ago, the mainstream media was raising questions and calling for new investigations before turning on their heel and constructing the trench for the WC's defense. About Bill Clinton's comment about believing there was a conspiracy and his silence on the topic after gaining office. About the Kennedy family's lack of interest in the matter. The destruction of USSS documents in apparent anticipation of their legally ordered release. Panels created to sanctify findings that differ from the original (e.g., a head wound that moves four inches). The list goes on.

And I wonder if it isn't possible that, however gruesome as it may sound, there is an official policy, a contingency plan put into effect upon the violent death of the chief executive by whatever means, that ensures not so much that justice can never be served, but that nobody can claim credit for the act.

"Mr. President, about that 'conspiracy' statement you'd made. Sir, we just cannot allow [insert extremist threat here] or anyone to be able to claim that they were able to assassinate the President of the United States. So if you please, sir, let us outline what will happen to you - to your body, sir - and what your government will do to insure the integrity of your office and the invulnerability of the United States. If it cannot be proven who killed you, sir, then fewer people will try. You will be killed by a lone nut, sir, someone we could never have identified or controlled or even seen coming, much less stopped. Evidence will be constructed to support this version of events. Some poor sap will be blamed, and either killed or spirited away. It's unfortunate but necessary ...."

Of course, were something like this to be true, it could only be carried out if couldn't be found out. It could be an on-going contingency such that, applied as it would be to each succeeding POTUS, it could not be revealed as having taken place even 100 or 200 years hence absent a radically different contingency being developed. Its records of implementation, if there were any, would remain classified and exempt, whether as "on-going national security operations" or as not being "assassination-related" (at least not to any particular POTUS's death) or destroyed "routinely" before they could be examined. Their destruction could be questioned, but never reversed.

The actual perpetrator(s) would probably become known to a selected few - there would be a real but very secret investigation if the answer was not already known - and "justice carried out" against them. It may be done quickly to make a strong point, or sufficiently in the future to appear unconnected. The immediate family would probably be aware of at least the broadest developments and results ("we know who did it, and this has been done to them?") to dampen any enthusiasm any of them may have for a "full investigation" in the future. The government would in any case survive any attempt at disclosure by family members, its "lone nut" cover story well entrenched and supported by all "rational" factions, a support voiced all the louder the closer or more forcefully an actual solution - or disputation - might come.

This is just a notional whim that, even (and especially) if true, could never be proved, merely a passing thought ... but given the odd ways that governments seem to think and act, not a complete impossibility. (If I'm ever visited in the middle of the night and become a vocal LNer - or a "strange death!" - it may have some some actual validity!)

I've had similar thoughts, Duke. It wouldn't surprise me if, when all is said and done, it becomes clear that the mysterious deaths circa 1975 and 1976 do not track back to Trafficante and Marcello, as presumed, but the Secret Service and Ted Kennedy.

I mean, really, if the Secret Service and/or FBI were to come to Teddy and say "Now, Mr. Kennedy, this guy Rosselli's been talking, and it's clear Hoffa and Giancana ordered the assassination of BOTH your brothers. What should we do? Should we let this become public, whereby certain forces--you know who we mean, the people who are still mad about your bringing down Nixon--will try to blame their deaths on their own actions, airing all your family's dirty laundry, or should we have the CIA have one of their own take care of it?"

I think we know what he would say. "Make them go away. Clear the table so my family will feel safe when I run in 1980." And thus sign the death warrants of Hoffa, Giancana, and Rosselli... (and perhaps still others, including DeMohrenschildt and William Pawley).

I mean, really......

You are so full of crap that its coming out your ears.

We can and will learn who exactly were behind the murders of the assassination witnesses during the HSCA investigation.

For those who don't have Dick's book and would like to read the interview, here it is:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/11/doug-horne.html

Really now, William. What part was nonsense? That Teddy would give the OK to have the killers of his brothers killed on the sly, and thereby protect his family from both public disgrace and possible retribution? I not only think he would have agreed to such a thing, I think he would have GLADLY agreed to such a thing. And should I have been in his shoes, I probably would, too. Wouldn't you?

As far as "bringing down Nixon"... that is exactly what Nixon and his supporters believed...that Watergate could have been made to go away, but that O'Brien and Teddy--the Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party--were behind the scenes pulling the strings to make sure it meant Nixon's downfall. He was incredibly paranoid about Teddy in general. Not only did he send Hunt to investigate Chappaquiddick, he later had the Secret Service spy on Teddy. Now, was this justified? Or was Nixon's suspicions about Teddy activated by his own guilty conscience? And if he felt guilty, guilty about what? Oliver Stone, in his film on Nixon, suggested Nixon felt guilty because his road to the presidency had been paved with the bodies of dead Kennedys. Maybe so. Or maybe he knew something.

As far as your "We can and will learn" comment... Really? How? Are you privy to an upcoming confession?

[Duke Lane]

I mean, really......

You are so full of crap that its coming out your ears.

We can and will learn who exactly were behind the murders of the assassination witnesses during the HSCA investigation.

For those who don't have Dick's book and would like to read the interview, here it is:

http://jfkcountercou...doug-horne.html

I do believe that I said it was a whimsical thought on my part, but at least one that would seem to make sense of the seemingly unsensible (is that a word?).

What Horne said in the interview was this:

DOUG HORNE: I am now convinced – and this insight didn’t really come to me until 2006, when I did much of the writing on the manuscript I’m putting together about all this – that Humes and Boswell, who were there at the morgue with the president’s body well before the autopsy started and prior to Dr. Finck’s arrival, were involved in a covert deception operation from the very beginning.

I believe they were told, for national security reasons, to destroy or suppress any evidence that the president was shot from the front and to record only evidence that he was shot form the rear – even if they had to manufacture some of it

.

On what basis, unless Humes and Boswell were part of the murder plot, would they do what Horne posits and not say a word of it in their lifetimes? "For national security reasons," Doug says. What national security reasons? Ones that won't go away during our lifetimes?

Pat's assessment may not be too far off, if the above were true, although I think that someone serving in the Senate for nearly 50 years until his own death would be savvy enough to recognize the "national security" implications if this information came to the fore, and not just how it might affect him and his family if and when he ran for president.

If my scenario were valid - and I'm by no means suggesting that it is - the chances are that the actual killer or killers were known to the national security apparatus shortly after if not at the moment of the shooting in DP. Any retribution would not take place, I would think, until well after it would not longer be attributed to being retribution, after enough time that the connection wouldn't be obvious except to those with guilty knowledge.

If I wanted to get back at someone for something they did to me, that's how I'd try to pull it off.

Frankly, on my first reading of H&B's testimonies before the ARRB, I couldn't see where this conclusion was being drawn from. Maybe I missed something, or got bogged down in the minutiae, or didn't understand something someone said, but it wasn't obvious to me.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

That does seem like a bit of disinfo lol...I might also add, when you have international as well as domestic financiers who have the greatest control over "top-down" institutions/agencies such as the U.S Military, FBI, CIA, etc, it isn't too difficult to see that this is more than "Teddy brought down Nixon" or JFK's death or the complete elimination of anyone even considered a potential risk. I would probably believe that the Kennedy famile does indeed know and have their issues they'd prefer to keep secret but it doesn't destroy the fact that JFK (or any of the other well know assassinations) were planned by a most powerful cabal of special interests.

My only gripe with Russell's book is that it seemed to let GHWB off the hook fairly quickly, given that Bush may have indeed had bigger involvement in the murder than we have been led to believe for many years, aside from that little "bump" it was a nice read.

I do believe GHW Bush was one of those CIA guys deeply involved in the JFK assassination:

From Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition 1998 p. 638-639]:

“The Role of deep-cover CIA officer, Trenton Parker, has been described in earlier pages, and his function in the CIA's counter-intelligence unit, Pegasus. Parker had stated to me earlier that a CIA faction was responsible for the murder of JFK … During an August 21, 1993, conversation, in response to my questions, Parker said that his Pegasus group had tape recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy. I asked him, "What group were these tapes identifying?" Parker replied: "Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, Johnson of Texas, George Bush, and J. Edgar Hoover." I asked, "What was the nature of the conversation on these tapes?"

I don't have the tapes now, because all the tape recordings were turned over to [Congressman] Larry McDonald. But I listened to the tape recordings and there were conversations between Rockefeller, [J. Edgar] Hoover, where [Nelson] Rockefeller asks, "Are we going to have any problems?" And he said, "No, we aren't going to have any problems. I checked with Dulles. If they do their job we'll do our job." There are a whole bunch of tapes, because Hoover didn't realize that his phone has been tapped. Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition p. 638-639]

[Duke Lane]

(No sex. Be still my heart.)

[William Kelly]

I have come to the conclusion that we will never discover the truth about the people behind the assassination of JFK. I think in time, probably in about 2063, the US government will appoint a respected historian to examine the classified documents related to the case. They will then report that a conspiracy and a cover-up did take place but the available evidence makes it impossible to identify those responsible for these events.

I was reading Dick Russell's interview with Doug Horne in his compendium On the Trail of the JFK Assassins (I haven't started digging into Horne's stuff yet) in which Horne feels that Humes gave up part of the ghost during his ARRB testimony; that the different groups of observers as delineated originally by David Lifton did see what they said they saw; and that, opposite Lifton's theory, the official autopsists performed a "pre-autopsy autopsy" themselves to create the scenario to support a lone, deranged gunman being the sole perp.

I thought about how, back years ago, the mainstream media was raising questions and calling for new investigations before turning on their heel and constructing the trench for the WC's defense. About Bill Clinton's comment about believing there was a conspiracy and his silence on the topic after gaining office. About the Kennedy family's lack of interest in the matter. The destruction of USSS documents in apparent anticipation of their legally ordered release. Panels created to sanctify findings that differ from the original (e.g., a head wound that moves four inches). The list goes on.

And I wonder if it isn't possible that, however gruesome as it may sound, there is an official policy, a contingency plan put into effect upon the violent death of the chief executive by whatever means, that ensures not so much that justice can never be served, but that nobody can claim credit for the act.

"Mr. President, about that 'conspiracy' statement you'd made. Sir, we just cannot allow [insert extremist threat here] or anyone to be able to claim that they were able to assassinate the President of the United States. So if you please, sir, let us outline what will happen to you - to your body, sir - and what your government will do to insure the integrity of your office and the invulnerability of the United States. If it cannot be proven who killed you, sir, then fewer people will try. You will be killed by a lone nut, sir, someone we could never have identified or controlled or even seen coming, much less stopped. Evidence will be constructed to support this version of events. Some poor sap will be blamed, and either killed or spirited away. It's unfortunate but necessary ...."

Of course, were something like this to be true, it could only be carried out if couldn't be found out. It could be an on-going contingency such that, applied as it would be to each succeeding POTUS, it could not be revealed as having taken place even 100 or 200 years hence absent a radically different contingency being developed. Its records of implementation, if there were any, would remain classified and exempt, whether as "on-going national security operations" or as not being "assassination-related" (at least not to any particular POTUS's death) or destroyed "routinely" before they could be examined. Their destruction could be questioned, but never reversed.

The actual perpetrator(s) would probably become known to a selected few - there would be a real but very secret investigation if the answer was not already known - and "justice carried out" against them. It may be done quickly to make a strong point, or sufficiently in the future to appear unconnected. The immediate family would probably be aware of at least the broadest developments and results ("we know who did it, and this has been done to them?") to dampen any enthusiasm any of them may have for a "full investigation" in the future. The government would in any case survive any attempt at disclosure by family members, its "lone nut" cover story well entrenched and supported by all "rational" factions, a support voiced all the louder the closer or more forcefully an actual solution - or disputation - might come.

This is just a notional whim that, even (and especially) if true, could never be proved, merely a passing thought ... but given the odd ways that governments seem to think and act, not a complete impossibility. (If I'm ever visited in the middle of the night and become a vocal LNer - or a "strange death!" - it may have some some actual validity!)

I've had similar thoughts, Duke. It wouldn't surprise me if, when all is said and done, it becomes clear that the mysterious deaths circa 1975 and 1976 do not track back to Trafficante and Marcello, as presumed, but the Secret Service and Ted Kennedy.

I mean, really, if the Secret Service and/or FBI were to come to Teddy and say "Now, Mr. Kennedy, this guy Rosselli's been talking, and it's clear Hoffa and Giancana ordered the assassination of BOTH your brothers. What should we do? Should we let this become public, whereby certain forces--you know who we mean, the people who are still mad about your bringing down Nixon--will try to blame their deaths on their own actions, airing all your family's dirty laundry, or should we have the CIA have one of their own take care of it?"

I think we know what he would say. "Make them go away. Clear the table so my family will feel safe when I run in 1980." And thus sign the death warrants of Hoffa, Giancana, and Rosselli... (and perhaps still others, including DeMohrenschildt and William Pawley).

I mean, really......

You are so full of crap that its coming out your ears.

We can and will learn who exactly were behind the murders of the assassination witnesses during the HSCA investigation.

For those who don't have Dick's book and would like to read the interview, here it is:

http://jfkcountercou...doug-horne.html

Really now, William. What part was nonsense?

It's all nonsense

That Teddy would give the OK to have the killers of his brothers killed on the sly,

Ted Kennedy wasn't capable of having anyone killed on purpose, he didn't believe Giancanna or Rosselli were behind the murders of his brother, and every time he tried to do anything on the sly it backfired on him -

and thereby protect his family from both public disgrace and possible retribution?

Ted Kennedy couldn't protect his family from public disgrace or retribution.

I not only think he would have agreed to such a thing, I think he would have GLADLY agreed to such a thing. And should I have been in his shoes, I probably would, too. Wouldn't you?

No I wouldn't and No he wouldn't.

As far as "bringing down Nixon"... that is exactly what Nixon and his supporters believed...that Watergate could have been made to go away, but that O'Brien and Teddy--the Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party--were behind the scenes pulling the strings to make sure it meant Nixon's downfall.

Ted Kennedy had nothing to do with Nixon's downfall.

He was incredibly paranoid about Teddy in general.

Nixon was paranoid about everybody.

Not only did he send Hunt to investigate Chappaquiddick,

He sent Tony Uslawitz - you look it up - not Hunt.

he later had the Secret Service spy on Teddy.

Wait a minute, how did he have the SS spy on Teddy?

Now, was this justified? Or was Nixon's suspicions about Teddy activated by his own guilty conscience? And if he felt guilty, guilty about what? Oliver Stone, in his film on Nixon, suggested Nixon felt guilty because his road to the presidency had been paved with the bodies of dead Kennedys. Maybe so. Or maybe he knew something.

As far as your "We can and will learn" comment... Really? How? Are you privy to an upcoming confession?

No, no confession is necessary. I believe that some day, possibly someday soon, those with the power to do so will apply the Constitution and the laws of the land to the murder of John F. Kennedy, Congress will properly oversee the JFK Act and release of the government records related to the assassination, and a sitting grand jury will evaluate the evidence and witness testimony concerning crimes related to the assassination and order a proper forensic autopsy of the victims.

Many, if not most of the outstanding questions about the assassination can be answered. It's just a matter of will.

I may be totally wrong, or overly optomistic, and I know some people will be disapointed when we learn the truth, but when they do, some people will be shown to be right, and others will have egg on their face, but know the truth.

Or maybe people will want to carry on and argue about answerable questions forever.

Or suggest such totall bullcrap as Castro, the mob, Teddy Kennedy or Micky Mouse were the real killers.

BK

[William Kelly]

THIS WAS THE SECOND POST OF MY JFKCOUNTERCOUP BLOG

JANUARY 1, 2008

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01/jfk-grand-jury-basis-for-legal-action.html"

JFKcountercoup: JFK Assassination Grand Jury - Basis for Legal Action

THE JFK ASSASSINATION – BASIS FOR LEGAL ACTION

It is a myth that the assassination of President Kennedy will always remain an enduring mystery. Though justice may never be served, the murder of John F. Kenney is not an unsolvable crime, but rather a homicide that can be solved to a moral and legal certainty by traditional detective work.

To keep people questioning, to allow multiple theories to abound, to let time slip away and drag on before applying the basic and routine legal procedures for investigating and solving such a crime is only a reflection of the institutional unwillingness, resistance and refusal to challenge the powers that took over the government on November 22, 1963.

The feeling of citizen helplessness is reflected in the subtitle of the book by one of the living victims of the same criminals – James Tague, whose book is called The Truth Withheld – A Survivor's Story – Why We Will Never Know the Truth About the Assassination. But those responsible for JFK's murder win and go free only if they die before being exposed, and escape justice.

The reason for the Congressional law that established the "50 year rule" on the classification of all Congressional documents is that is the amount of time it is estimated for the people mentioned in the documents to be dead. Since it is not yet 50 years after the assassination of President Kennedy, some of those suspects are therefore still alive.

It is simply not true that the murder of JFK will forever remain a mystery, and we'll never know the truth, since thanks to the JFK Act, we have most of the evidence, the documentary records and witness testimony in the public domain.

Despite the institutional unwillingness to make the effort to solve the crime, a strong regiment of independent researchers, determined investigators, honest witnesses and ordinary citizens have taken upon themselves to determine the truth, solve the crime, but justice has yet to take its course.

"We need not accept (the) view that mankind…..is doomed," JFK said in his landmark June 10, 1963 'Peace Speech' at American University. We need not accept, "that we are gripped by forces we cannot control…Our problems are manmade – therefore, they can be solved by man….No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable – and we believe man can do it again."

American political assassinations and murders were committed by men, and therefore can be solved by men, if only the effort is taken to do so. However belatedly, there is a new trend to at least attempt to resolve the civil rights and political murders of the 1960s, with the assassination of Medgar Evers, the murders of the Philadelphia, Mississippi Freedom Riders, the York, Pennsylvania race riot killings, the MLK assassination civil trial, and the passage of the Emmett Till Bill to establish a permenant department dedicated to such murders and assassinations all utilized the judicial system to solve crimes that were thought to be untouchable a decade ago.

The assassination of President Kennedy was not an accident of history or an act of God, but the act of man, and men can therefore solve the crime if only the effort is made to do so.

Whether the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman as the official report alleges or a patsy as he claimed, he was a former U.S. Marine who worked with the U2 program in Japan, was trained in the Russian language, defected to the USSR, returned with a Russian wife, reportedly took a shot at General Walker, participated in covert Cuban operations in New Orleans and Mexico City, and fits the covert operative profile that makes the assassination a covert intelligence operation. As former Senator Richard Schweikder (R. Pa.) put it, the case has "the fingerprints of intelligence," and it must be properly investigated with that assumption.

Just because covert operations are designed to conceal the actual perpetuators doesn't mean that they can't be exposed, identified and brought to justice, just as other, similar covert crimes have been exposed – Watergate, Iran-Contra, the assassination of the former Chilean ambassador to the U.S. in Washington, and more recent mob and terrorist conspiracies.

How can ordinary citizens force the hand of an entrenched judicial system? The system is changing, and a new guard are now at the ramparts, working on behalf of the taxpapers and citizens instead of the old political machine. There are examples of how other such political assassinations were solved through the system, and despite the system.

An examination of how the assassination of Medgar Evers and the other civil rights murders of the 1960s were resolved presents a road map to follow, and one of the first stops on the way to justice is the grand jury.

"As a general policy," former Justice Department official Ben Civiletti testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in its last session, "the Department of Justice seldom turns down at least exploring, or reviewing a petition or reasonable request,…(and)…to some extent it becomes a matter of public will…but also a matter of judgment that falls within the duties of any particular department or agency of government…as to how far questions…can be explored to a useful or fruitful purpose."

Getting questions answered, getting questions answered honestly and under oath is one thing, getting the proper questions asked in a proper legal venue is another thing all together.

Besides determining the truth and seeking justice, it would be useful and fruitful to determine who killed President Kennedy, why they did it, and how they accomplished it, so such a thing can never happen again. If the assassination of Medgar Evers was immediately pursued and justice resolved, President Kennedy would not have been killed in the same way, and if JFK's assassination was properly resolved immediately, RFK and MLK would never have died the way the did.

Political assassination remain an effective tool for controlling policy only because the true perpetuators of these crimes are permitted to remain hidden in the background, pulling the strings of the puppets and moving the pawns as they have for decades and centuries. The assassination of President Kennedy has maintained its watershed mark as the single most significant political event of the past century because it remains unresolved. Despite the tremendous amount of information that is now available, it remains an unresolved enigma and unsolved cold case homicide because there is no institutional willingness, motive or desire to simply solve it.

Unsolved cold cases, especially homicides, are usually 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 by a prosecutor, district attorney, who represents the people.

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. Before a grand jury, hearsay is allowed, and witnesses must testify 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.

The DA can simply ignore such a citizen's petition and request and not present the evidence to a grand jury, or even if a grand jury votes to indict, it is still up to the DA to issue the indictment and proceed to take the matter to court.

The Grand Jury process, which stems from English Cannon law, has been refined by the United States Constitutional system as an extension of the prosecutor's will, though historically the grand jury can investigate official corruption, review and develop evidence, attempt to answer questions, subpoena records and witnesses, order forensic autopsies and specialized tests and follow the evidence where ever it leads.

While grand juries composed of ordinary American citizens do not have the knowledge of the history and powers of a grand jury, and are often merely tools of the prosecutors, and just do what he instructs them to do. Though sometimes a prosecutor will lose control of a grand jury, one that begins to ask questions and make requests of its own. Such a grand jury is called a "Runaway Grand Jury," and often goes beyond the original intent of the prosecutors, such as the Rocky Mountain Flats Runaway Grand Jury. When the Colorado prosecutors refused to issued the indictments against major defense contractors for environmental contamination, the grand jury leaked its report to the press [see: Westword Rocky Mountain Flats ]

The previous reluctance of district attorneys to prosecute political assassinations, especially decades old crimes, is being overcome by new, young and diversified blood in official positions of authority. Although those District Attorneys at the top of their profession know that investigating political assassinations is detrimental to furthering their careers, and witness what happened to New Orleans DA Jim Garrison, there is a younger generation of assistant prosecutors who look upon solving such major crimes as an achievement that will advance their future careers.

Former HSCA attorney, Dean Browning Webb, Esq., who specializes in RICO litigation, said that such indictments are possible and that, "I am especially interested in developing an approach to seek indictments of those who conspired to murder the President."

"I believe that a prosecution is feasible," says Webb, "especially when invoking the Pinkerton Doctrine," which holds that "a person associated with a conspiracy culpable for any criminal act committed by a co-conspirator if the act is within the scope of the conspiracy and is a foreseeable result of the criminal scheme." Agency theory holds that "all conspirators act as the agent or represent the other conspirators involved in the criminal scheme, and are liable for all criminal acts committed by the other conspirators."

Another reason that District Attorneys are reluctant to investigate and prosecute political assassination, besides opposing the criminal effort behind the murder, is the effort and manpower it takes to solve it, which takes away from the normal, day-to-day prosecutions that the District Attorney is also responsible for.

This can be compensated by including the most significant evidence, lists of documents and witnesses, and outstanding questions with the Petition-Request, laying out the case for crimes and conspiracy and reducing the work of the prosecutors. Such a convincing attachment would also help persuade a prosecutor to accept the case and take it to a grand jury.

It will only take one such JFK grand jury, and there are dozens of potential jurisdictions, with Federal, State and County grand juries, each with many assistant district attorneys who work under the District Attorney, providing dozens of individuals in which to present the Petition Request.

Establishing jurisdiction in any particular district will not be difficult. Although some will argue that it was not a federal crime to kill the president in 1963, it was a federal crime to conspire to kill a federal employee, whether it is a postman or a president.

Besides the local Dallas district, there are Texas State grand juries, as well as the North Texas Federal District court, which is located in Dallas. The reluctance of any Dallas or Texas official to investigate the assassination will probably make other jurisdictions more inviting, but new, young, district attorneys have been elected in both Dallas and New Orleans, where special grand juries could be convened.

Of the dozens of the potential jurisdictions, it will be easiest to convene a Special Federal Grand Jury in Washington D.C., where most of the original evidence is located at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the body of the victim can be exhumed for a proper forensic autopsy.

Although conspiracy and homicide are the crimes being investigated, once the grand jury begins to subpoena records and require the sworn testimony of witnesses, other crimes, such as perjury, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice come into play, and help persuade witnesses to tell the truth.

One aspect of the grand jury proceedings is their secrecy, which prevents the testimony from being made public before a trial. If there are no indictments, and there isn't a trial, the grand jury could issue a report explaining what it learned and the reasons behind its action or inaction.

Historically, traditionally and legally according to the Constitution of the United States, the evidence in a homicide is presented to a grand jury, which is where the evidence in the murder of John F. Kennedy must go before there can be justice.

"That we live as a nation of laws, and are not a 'Banana Republic,'" said Warren Commissioner John McCloy, "requires us as individuals and as a society, to purse truth and justice, 'even if the heaven's may fall.'"

It is not too late now, but soon, this case will slip slowly from an unsolved homicide to an historical mystery, unless we act now, and present the best evidence in a Petition-Request to convene a special JFK Grand Jury, and let the legal take its course, wherever it may go.

Grand Jury Petition.

Federal Grand Jury Petition (Request) to evaluate the existing evidence and investigate the homicide of John F. Kennedy, the attempted murder of John B. Connolly, the wounding of James Tague and the murders of J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas, Texas in Nov. 1963.

[Note: Although the assassination of the President was not a federal crime in 1963, it was a federal crime to conspire to kill a federal official in the line of duty. Therefore we are submitting this petition, with evidentiary exhibits of conspiracy to Special Federal Grand Juries in the Northern District of the State of Texas, in New Orleans Parish in Louisiana and Washington D.C. requesting that a Special Federal Grand Jury be convened especially for these particular cases, guided by a Assistant U.S. Attorney and assisted by a Task Force of independent researchers, professionals, investigators, law enforcement officers and judicial officials.]

To: Richard B. Roper, U.S. Attorney for Federal District of North Texas, Earle Cabell Federal Building, 1100 Commerce St., 3rd Floor, Dallas, Texas, 75242-1699

We citizens of the United States of America do hereby petition you Richard B. Roper [u.S. Attorney for Federal District of North Texas] to fulfill your obligations [under U.S. Code : Title 18, Section 3331(Summoning and term) –3332 (Powers & Duties) & 3331 (Reports); Or appropriate statute for correct jurisdiction]; See: Documentary Exhibits #1 (a), (, ©] and carry out your duties to convene a grand jury of American citizens to "operate as an investigative agency…in cases of civic corruption or misconduct by public officers….to look into the criminal conduct prior to the arrest of any suspect…(since)…the inquisitorial power of the grand jury may operate to develop evidence against civic corruption, organized crime, or a broad array of criminal activity."

This request is being submitted for the purposes of:

1)Completing previously impeded official investigations; by the Dallas Police, Texas State, Secret Service, FBI, the Warren Commission, Church Intelligence Committee, Rockefeller Commission, Pike Committee, House Select Committee on Assassinations, Assassinations Records Review Board; Justice Department of the United States;

2)To determine the disposition and establish the provenance of all relevant evidence, records and witnesses;

3)To answer all outstanding questions that can be reasonably answered by basic inquiry and independent investigation (and not by agencies or departments of the government that have been implicated in the crime);

4)To have qualified experts review the available acoustic, ballistic, medical and autopsy evidence and to order new, independent studies and tests you deem necessary, including proper forensic autopsies of victims;

5)To review the available documentary records and hard evidence, subpoena witnesses, take their testimony, determine what crimes have been committed and whether there is enough evidence to indict those individuals responsible for crimes related to the assassination, including but not limited to conspiracy, homicide, treason, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice and perjury;

6)To conduct a thorough oversight review of how and why this case was permitted to go unresolved for so long and to determine the national security implications;

7)To help restore public confidence in government, the law and the legal and

judicial systems of this country; The public confidence in the government of the United States is lower now than ever before and began to decline, according to public opinion polls, in December, 1963, directly as a result of the assassination of the President, and has never been regained, and will not be regained until the remaining questions are properly answered.

We citizens of the United States hereby present you with this petition, along with the relevant discovered evidence, records and exhibits, and respectfully request that you carry out your responsibilities under the law to convene and present them to a grand jury.

When you are finished we ask you to publicly report [under Sec. 3333] what steps you have taken, what you have discovered and whether you have determined if indictments should be brought against any individuals for crimes related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States.

Attached: Evidence List; Exhibits; Living Material Witness List; Living Expert Witness List; Outstanding Questions; List of Related Crimes;

William E. Kelly, Jr. –

List of names of co-signers to petition.

Or To have your name added to petition email: Bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Petition on line:

http://www.petitiono...y/petition.html

Posted by William Kelly

Edited February 10, 2011 by William Kelly