Hugh Trevor - Roper

[Peter McGuire]

"So far, I have only dealt with the evidence which was available to the Commission and which has since been published. But of course there is also evidence which did not come before the Commission: evidence which the Commission did not think worth hearing, or which the "existing agencies" did not think worth bringing to its notice, or the agencies concerned did not wish to transmit.

Such evidence is necessarily rather less effective than the evidence actually submitted to the Commission. It has not been tested in some way; it is unsworn; and the characters of the witnesses have not been so clearly brought out. Nevertheless, it cannot be rejected out of hand. The mere fact that the Commission heard a witness does not necessarily make his evidence more credible than that of a witness who has not been heard, and indeed much of the testimony which was heard was of very little value."

Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper

Just got my copy of "Handel’s Messiah Rocks" and have watched it about 50 times in the last 4 days.

All my birthday gifts during the 4th quarter and all my Christmas gifts will be this great work!

Sorry younger brother - no Handel Messiah Country" available. (Luckily)

Edited October 5, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Peter McGuire]

"So far, I have only dealt with the evidence which was available to the Commission and which has since been published. But of course there is also evidence which did not come before the Commission: evidence which the Commission did not think worth hearing, or which the "existing agencies" did not think worth bringing to its notice, or the agencies concerned did not wish to transmit.

Such evidence is necessarily rather less effective than the evidence actually submitted to the Commission. It has not been tested in some way; it is unsworn; and the characters of the witnesses have not been so clearly brought out. Nevertheless, it cannot be rejected out of hand. The mere fact that the Commission heard a witness does not necessarily make his evidence more credible than that of a witness who has not been heard, and indeed much of the testimony which was heard was of very little value."

Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper

[John Simkin]

"So far, I have only dealt with the evidence which was available to the Commission and which has since been published. But of course there is also evidence which did not come before the Commission: evidence which the Commission did not think worth hearing, or which the "existing agencies" did not think worth bringing to its notice, or the agencies concerned did not wish to transmit.

Such evidence is necessarily rather less effective than the evidence actually submitted to the Commission. It has not been tested in some way; it is unsworn; and the characters of the witnesses have not been so clearly brought out. Nevertheless, it cannot be rejected out of hand. The mere fact that the Commission heard a witness does not necessarily make his evidence more credible than that of a witness who has not been heard, and indeed much of the testimony which was heard was of very little value."

Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper

Peter, do you have a full-copy of the introduction?

[Terry Mauro]

Donald Gibson does a good job on Lord Bertrand Russell and Trevor-Roper in his 2001 book Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up Smashed.

Russell and Trevor-Roper were part of the "British Who Killed Kennedy (was it a play on words?) Committee.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7n_sF3PSvSAC&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=hugh+trevor-roper,+the+british+who+killed+kennedy&source=bl&ots=h2ie5Tg03Q&sig=6cAtGBjLJ6xf-M02zIfgNg9NHNE&hl=en&ei=o-OZTMi0OKjonQfo_cDUDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=hugh%20trevor-roper%2C%20the%20british%20who%20killed%20kennedy&f=false

[Michael Hogan]

"So far, I have only dealt with the evidence which was available to the Commission and which has since been published. But of course there is also evidence which did not come before the Commission: evidence which the Commission did not think worth hearing, or which the "existing agencies" did not think worth bringing to its notice, or the agencies concerned did not wish to transmit.

Such evidence is necessarily rather less effective than the evidence actually submitted to the Commission. It has not been tested in some way; it is unsworn; and the characters of the witnesses have not been so clearly brought out. Nevertheless, it cannot be rejected out of hand. The mere fact that the Commission heard a witness does not necessarily make his evidence more credible than that of a witness who has not been heard, and indeed much of the testimony which was heard was of very little value."

Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper

Peter, do you have a full-copy of the introduction?

http://nyc.indymedia.org/media/application/6/RushtoJudgment_MarkLane.pdf

[Peter McGuire]

"So far, I have only dealt with the evidence which was available to the Commission and which has since been published. But of course there is also evidence which did not come before the Commission: evidence which the Commission did not think worth hearing, or which the "existing agencies" did not think worth bringing to its notice, or the agencies concerned did not wish to transmit.

Such evidence is necessarily rather less effective than the evidence actually submitted to the Commission. It has not been tested in some way; it is unsworn; and the characters of the witnesses have not been so clearly brought out. Nevertheless, it cannot be rejected out of hand. The mere fact that the Commission heard a witness does not necessarily make his evidence more credible than that of a witness who has not been heard, and indeed much of the testimony which was heard was of very little value."

Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper

Peter, do you have a full-copy of the introduction?

http://nyc.indymedia.org/media/application/6/RushtoJudgment_MarkLane.pdf

I knew that it was available online, but would rather pay $5 through Ebay and have the actual book.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Peter McGuire]

"So far, I have only dealt with the evidence which was available to the Commission and which has since been published. But of course there is also evidence which did not come before the Commission: evidence which the Commission did not think worth hearing, or which the "existing agencies" did not think worth bringing to its notice, or the agencies concerned did not wish to transmit.

Such evidence is necessarily rather less effective than the evidence actually submitted to the Commission. It has not been tested in some way; it is unsworn; and the characters of the witnesses have not been so clearly brought out. Nevertheless, it cannot be rejected out of hand. The mere fact that the Commission heard a witness does not necessarily make his evidence more credible than that of a witness who has not been heard, and indeed much of the testimony which was heard was of very little value."

Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper

What is important here is that evidence uncovered by private research is just as, or even more valid than the so called official report; which has been exposed as an outright fraudulent document and was shoved down the throat of the American people in order to "heal the nation."

Edited October 5, 2010 by Peter McGuire