Proof the FBI LIED in their WC Reports

[Gil Jesus]

Proof the FBI LIED in their WC Reports

[Karl Kinaski]

quote:

Richard C. Dodd: the shot...the smoke came from behind the hatch...on the north side of the plaza...

FBI-report: (Dodd) "He did NOT look up, and did not know, where the shots came from..."

John Leon Simmons: "...and it sounded like they(shots) came from the left and in front of us towards the wooden fence..."

FBI Report: "..it was his(Simmons) opinion, that the shots came from the SBDB..."

J.C. Price:...(theshots were come from) behind the overpass there...

...(I saw a man running) behind that wooden fence past that cars and over behind the Texas Depository Building..."

FBI Report: ...(Price) looked(to the fence area) but saw nothing pertinent...

Close quote

Yes, hundreds of FBI Reports were "rewritten"...to frame Ossi...by an order from Hoover..

KK

Edited January 19, 2011 by Karl Kinaski

[Gil Jesus]

The foundation of the case against Oswald depends on the credibility of the evidence, which is itself founded on the credibility of those who HANDLED the evidence.

If those who handled the evidence were less than honest, then the evidence itself becomes questionable. The fact that the FBI intentionally omitted details, distorted facts and flat out lied about what the witnesses told them, serves as measurement of the credibility of the case against Oswald.

And just one instance of such mishandling of the evidence is enough to get the case thrown out of any criminal court.

Had the case against Oswald been that solid, there would have been no reason why the FBI or the Dallas Police would have had to omit, distort or lie about the facts. There would have been no reason to jeopardize having the case thrown out of court. A few opposing viewpoints would have made no difference. The case would have stood on its own merit.

IOW---the truth never needs lies to support it.

[Pat Speer]

The foundation of the case against Oswald depends on the credibility of the evidence, which is itself founded on the credibility of those who HANDLED the evidence.

If those who handled the evidence were less than honest, then the evidence itself becomes questionable. The fact that the FBI intentionally omitted details, distorted facts and flat out lied about what the witnesses told them, serves as measurement of the credibility of the case against Oswald.

And just one instance of such mishandling of the evidence is enough to get the case thrown out of any criminal court.

Had the case against Oswald been that solid, there would have been no reason why the FBI or the Dallas Police would have had to omit, distort or lie about the facts. There would have been no reason to jeopardize having the case thrown out of court. A few opposing viewpoints would have made no difference. The case would have stood on its own merit.

IOW---the truth never needs lies to support it.

While I agree with your basic complaint that the FBI reports are not very reliable, I tend to believe most of their misrepresentations came from the bias against Oswald spread from Hoover down to his men, as opposed to an organized effort. For example, in January, the FBI got wind of a rumor a bullet hole had been found in the limousine. So how did they handle it? Did they interview the SS agents and technicians involved in the re-modeling of the limousine? No, they called one SS official and ASKED HIM if it was true!

When one reads through their memos and reports, it's quite clear, IMO, that they thought their efforts were an incredible waste of time, and that they wanted to do as little as possible, and that, in the process, they failed to include information that might lead them to "waste" more time. As yet another example, in March they were asked to talk to everyone who worked in the TSBD to see 1) where this person was when the shots rang out and 2) if this person recalled seeing anything odd on the day of the shooting. Well, WHY hadn't they done this the DAY after the shooting? And why, now that they have been ordered to actually do their job, did they fail to ask these potential witnesses pertinent details about the shooting, such as how many shots were fired and whether the P reacted to the first shot?

Because they just didn't care...

The WC was doomed, IMO, the moment they decided to rely not only upon the initial FBI and SS reports, but on the FBI to conduct any further investigation. It was like asking a bully to review his behavior and decide whether or not his blaming everything on the nerd was justified.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Gil Jesus]

The foundation of the case against Oswald depends on the credibility of the evidence, which is itself founded on the credibility of those who HANDLED the evidence.

If those who handled the evidence were less than honest, then the evidence itself becomes questionable. The fact that the FBI intentionally omitted details, distorted facts and flat out lied about what the witnesses told them, serves as measurement of the credibility of the case against Oswald.

And just one instance of such mishandling of the evidence is enough to get the case thrown out of any criminal court.

Had the case against Oswald been that solid, there would have been no reason why the FBI or the Dallas Police would have had to omit, distort or lie about the facts. There would have been no reason to jeopardize having the case thrown out of court. A few opposing viewpoints would have made no difference. The case would have stood on its own merit.

IOW---the truth never needs lies to support it.

While I agree with your basic complaint that the FBI reports are not very reliable, I tend to believe most of their misrepresentations came from the bias against Oswald spread from Hoover down to his men, as opposed to an organized effort. For example, in January, the FBI got wind of a rumor a bullet hole had been found in the limousine. So how did they handle it? Did they interview the SS agents and technicians involved in the re-modeling of the limousine? No, they called one SS official and ASKED HIM if it was true!

When one reads through their memos and reports, it's quite clear, IMO, that they thought their efforts were an incredible waste of time, and that they wanted to do as little as possible, and that, in the process, they failed to include information that might lead them to "waste" more time. As yet another example, in March they were asked to talk to everyone who worked in the TSBD to see 1) where this person was when the shots rang out and 2) if this person recalled seeing anything odd on the day of the shooting. Well, WHY hadn't they done this the DAY after the shooting? And why, now that they have been ordered to actually do their job, did they fail to ask these potential witnesses pertinent details about the shooting, such as how many shots were fired and whether the P reacted to the first shot?

Because they just didn't care...

The WC was doomed, IMO, the moment they decided to rely not only upon the initial FBI and SS reports, but on the FBI to conduct any further investigation. It was like asking a bully to review his behavior and decide whether or not his blaming everything on the nerd was justified.

Pat, it amazes me how many witnesses to the crime were not interviewed until AFTER the FBI's summary report on the assassination of 12/5/63.

You'd think that they would have wanted to interview the witnesses BEFORE releasing the report.

[Pat Speer]

The foundation of the case against Oswald depends on the credibility of the evidence, which is itself founded on the credibility of those who HANDLED the evidence.

If those who handled the evidence were less than honest, then the evidence itself becomes questionable. The fact that the FBI intentionally omitted details, distorted facts and flat out lied about what the witnesses told them, serves as measurement of the credibility of the case against Oswald.

And just one instance of such mishandling of the evidence is enough to get the case thrown out of any criminal court.

Had the case against Oswald been that solid, there would have been no reason why the FBI or the Dallas Police would have had to omit, distort or lie about the facts. There would have been no reason to jeopardize having the case thrown out of court. A few opposing viewpoints would have made no difference. The case would have stood on its own merit.

IOW---the truth never needs lies to support it.

While I agree with your basic complaint that the FBI reports are not very reliable, I tend to believe most of their misrepresentations came from the bias against Oswald spread from Hoover down to his men, as opposed to an organized effort. For example, in January, the FBI got wind of a rumor a bullet hole had been found in the limousine. So how did they handle it? Did they interview the SS agents and technicians involved in the re-modeling of the limousine? No, they called one SS official and ASKED HIM if it was true!

When one reads through their memos and reports, it's quite clear, IMO, that they thought their efforts were an incredible waste of time, and that they wanted to do as little as possible, and that, in the process, they failed to include information that might lead them to "waste" more time. As yet another example, in March they were asked to talk to everyone who worked in the TSBD to see 1) where this person was when the shots rang out and 2) if this person recalled seeing anything odd on the day of the shooting. Well, WHY hadn't they done this the DAY after the shooting? And why, now that they have been ordered to actually do their job, did they fail to ask these potential witnesses pertinent details about the shooting, such as how many shots were fired and whether the P reacted to the first shot?

Because they just didn't care...

The WC was doomed, IMO, the moment they decided to rely not only upon the initial FBI and SS reports, but on the FBI to conduct any further investigation. It was like asking a bully to review his behavior and decide whether or not his blaming everything on the nerd was justified.

Pat, it amazes me how many witnesses to the crime were not interviewed until AFTER the FBI's summary report on the assassination of 12/5/63.

You'd think that they would have wanted to interview the witnesses BEFORE releasing the report.

Even more amazing, IMO, is that they disregarded the statements of those witnesses who had been interviewed. At the time of the FBI's report, the only source for the Kennedy Connally Kennedy scenario they were pushing was Connally. Many of the other witnesses thought the last two shots were bunched, with at least one shot after the head shot.