Reflections of an agnostic...

[Glenn Viklund]

GVNeither do I neglect the well known and establish fact that when politicians in high positions are assassinated, it's a basic human instinct to react with disbelief to the proposition that someone of such insignificance could actually take out someone as significant as president Kennedy.

THe obvious point at which many people began to think something was weird was when Ruby then shot Oswald on national TV.

I mean if you think he did that to save Jackie the ordeal of a trial, while at the same time being friends with McWillie who was best buds with Trafficante, then maybe you are more sure than you say about McAdams.

And BTW, the amazing thing about that, is this: even after that the WC still held sway in most people's minds. It was not until 1966, when some of the essays and books began to appear that the Report began to decline in support. That is the work by Salandria and Weisberg and Epstein. Who actually had gone through the evidence and found it did not support the conclusions the WC drew.

As most rational people will also conclude.

Jim,

Ruby was a low life thug, with lots of connections in the local underworld. While I have no idea about his motives, they may well have been those he told. Nevertheless, his connections in the DPD combined with what he was doing just before he shot Oswald, as well as the extremely tight time schedule leaves a lot of questions about this. By no means would I conclude it's a done deal that Ruby did this in order to silence Oswald as any predefined conspiracy. On the contrary, as I see it, he was just lucky to achieve what he set out to do a few hours earlier that morning. Who he knew and socialized with as an explanation to what he did, is far fetched in my view.

Again, it's not impossible but still only speculation.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Glenn Viklund]

Well, depending on what you think are the reasons for this, I may agree with you. However, not for a second if you are suggesting that the WC was knowingly cover up the assassination. Such a claim, from those who make it, I regard as nonsense.

Glenn,

If, after all this time, you don't see any evidence of conspiracy then I doubt anyone can convince you it's there. I certainly don't intend to try.

But if you're going to characterize the Warren Commission as a "poor investigation" rather than a deliberate cover-up then I'm afraid it is you who is spouting "nonsense". Provably so.

The proof is in the fact that the commission deliberately and knowingly misrepresented JFK's wounds so that it could endorse the SBT and make a single shooter seem possible.

As the transcript of the Commission's January 27, 1964, executive session shows, it was fully aware that President Kennedy's back wound was lower than the hole in his throat:

RANKIN: Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck...We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade, to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn’t strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So how it could turn—

BOGGS: I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger’s length.

RANKIN: That is what they first said.

As the Commission collected the facts of the shooting it quickly became obvious that the only way it would be able to pin the blame solely on Oswald would be to endorse Arlen Specter's Single Bullet Theory. But this meant that the back wound had to be higher than the throat wound. The answer to this apparently insurmountable problem was simple: Commission member and future president Gerald Ford simply moved the wound up the body to the back of President Kennedy’s neck. And to insure that they got away with it, the Commission kept the autopsy photos out of its report and the accompanying 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits and had the autopsy surgeon prepare deceptive and fallacious diagrams that showed a completely ficticious wound in the back of the neck.

No matter how you cut it, this was a deliberate act designed to hide the true facts and, therefore, a cover-up.

Martin, thanks for your answer, I appreciate your views.

First, I realize I did not explain that very good. So let me try this again. What I was trying to say is that the WC may well have been trying to cover up something - more specifically through the fact that their mission was flawed from the outset. By this I agree to what many others have concluded; their mission was basically to support the findings that Oswald was the lone assassin. The reasons for this we can leave aside in this discussion.

But if you are suggesting that the WC knew they were covering up a conspiracy - well, then this is where I strongly disagree. That version of events is based on the assumption that the WC had beforehand knowledge of a conspiracy.

That's where I think it's all baloney. And that's also why I prefer to use the description "a poor investigation". Arguably, not brilliant but I think you understand what I mean.

[Glenn Viklund]

If you had asked me 4 years ago if I had an opinion on who killed John Kennedy, I would have answered "I don't know - no opinion." That is how well an honest discusssion of the unfortunate realities of the JFK assassination has been suppressed in the media, academia and the government. It is like families who don't want to talk about incest - dealing with the truth can be too painful to address.

I fully believe that there are people alive today with criminal liability in the JFK assassination. George Herbert Walker Bush is one excellent candidate.

Then in the spring of 2008, I was doing some internet surfing and came across the Education Forum and a post by Dawn Meredith that was pretty much implicating Lyndon Johnson in the JFK assassination.

The next thing I noticed was that the quality of posts at Education Forum was pretty high; there were a lot of people here knowledgeable about "deep politics" - political truth that is often so radioactively true that it can't be discussed honestly in the controlled MSM.

I had just spent 4 years doing a massive amount of opposition research on the Clintons and I had learned a lot of very nasty things about them that I thought were true and which were being suppressed in the MSM. So I was familiar with political/social suppression of the truth.

In my research of the Clintons, I had also learned a lot of very nasty things about the Bushes, particularly their participation in 1980's CIA drug smuggling and GHW Bush's involvement in the Franklin pedophile ring being run by Lawrence E. King. So I was familiar with a lot of "Bush truth" being suppressed in the MSM.

I understood that the biggest scandals are those which are bipartisan in nature.

I got in contact with Dawn Meredith and she recommended a slew of other blue chip JFK assassination researchers to get in contact with. I called them and they each recommended perhaps 10 of the best books on the JFK murder.

So right off the bat, I was getting pointed to the cream of JFK research from some of the best in the field, people who had been plowing the fields of JFK research for 30, 40 years, sometimes literally since 11/22/63.

Pretty soon, and it was within days, I was convinced that Lyndon Johnson was behind the JFK assassination. The CIA part was harder to figure out. It took me a while to figure out that Lyndon Johnson and the CIA were not mutually exclusive perps in the JFK assassination. Or that LBJ and his Texas oil men had deep CIA/military ties.

I have built up a pretty good library relating to the JFK assassination and "deep politics" in general. I have 300+ books (I quit counting) plus maybe 300 books relating to the Clintons and 20 of the best books on the Bushes (mostly GHW Bush).

I place a lot of weight on the testimony of what Lyndon Johnson told Madeleine Duncan Brown on the night of 12/31/63 at the Driskill Hotel in Austin, TX.

LBJ told her that Texas oil men that she knew and "renegade CIA bastards" were behind the JFK assassination. From most of what I have learned, that seems to be true.

It also seems that the CIA, particularly Gen. Ed Lansdale, used anti-Castro Cubans and CIA operatives who had been training to kill Fidel Castro to instead murder John Kennedy.

Here is my current take on the JFK assassination: http://lyndonjohnsonmurderedjfk.blogspot.com/2012/03/lbj-cia-assassination-of-jfk.html

Robert,

You have left no one in any doubts about what your conclusions are. I disagree for two reasons; you cannot present anything that resembles evidence and you cannot defend you positions in any intellectually acceptable manor. As I'm sure, you can't have missed, you are convincing no one of nothing.

Personally, I think you've started in the wrong end of this thing. You thought you had all the answers - just as you have repeatedly told all of us here - and accordingly you have only been looking for that which support you views.

This approach does not cut it. Period.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Glenn Viklund]

Well, depending on what you think are the reasons for this, I may agree with you. However, not for a second if you are suggesting that the WC was knowingly cover up the assassination. Such a claim, from those who make it, I regard as nonsense.

Glenn,

If, after all this time, you don't see any evidence of conspiracy then I doubt anyone can convince you it's there. I certainly don't intend to try.

But if you're going to characterize the Warren Commission as a "poor investigation" rather than a deliberate cover-up then I'm afraid it is you who is spouting "nonsense". Provably so.

The proof is in the fact that the commission deliberately and knowingly misrepresented JFK's wounds so that it could endorse the SBT and make a single shooter seem possible.

As the transcript of the Commission's January 27, 1964, executive session shows, it was fully aware that President Kennedy's back wound was lower than the hole in his throat:

RANKIN: Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck...We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade, to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn’t strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So how it could turn—

BOGGS: I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger’s length.

RANKIN: That is what they first said.

As the Commission collected the facts of the shooting it quickly became obvious that the only way it would be able to pin the blame solely on Oswald would be to endorse Arlen Specter's Single Bullet Theory. But this meant that the back wound had to be higher than the throat wound. The answer to this apparently insurmountable problem was simple: Commission member and future president Gerald Ford simply moved the wound up the body to the back of President Kennedy’s neck. And to insure that they got away with it, the Commission kept the autopsy photos out of its report and the accompanying 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits and had the autopsy surgeon prepare deceptive and fallacious diagrams that showed a completely ficticious wound in the back of the neck.

No matter how you cut it, this was a deliberate act designed to hide the true facts and, therefore, a cover-up.

Martin, thanks for your answer, I appreciate your views.

First, I realize I did not explain that very good. So let me try this again. What I was trying to say is that the WC may well have been trying to cover up something - more specifically through the fact that their mission was flawed from the outset. By this I agree to what many others have concluded; their mission was basically to support the findings that Oswald was the lone assassin. The reasons for this we can leave aside in this discussion.

But if you are suggesting that the WC knew they were covering up a conspiracy - well, then this is where I strongly disagree. That version of events is based on the assumption that the WC had beforehand knowledge of a conspiracy.

That's where I think it's all baloney. And that's also why I prefer to use the description "a poor investigation". Arguably, not brilliant but I think you understand what I mean.

Glenn,

I'm sorry but again it is your argument that is "baloney" - no offence intended.

The WC knew, as one of the staff lawyers admitted to Ed Epstein, that if JFK and Connally were hit by seperate bullets then there had to be at least two assassins. This is why they endorsed the SBT even though they knew the medical evidence and the Zapruder film disproved it.

They knew the SBT was impossible but they misrepresented the evidence so they could endorse it and cover-up the existence of a second shooter.

There is no way around this simple and basic fact - unless, of course, you pull a Bugliosi and lie by saying the Commission didn't see the photos and, therefore, didn't realise the back wound was lower.

Martin,

Am I understanding you correctly - you are implying that the Warren Commission knew there had been a conspiracy and that they were trying to cover this up?

[Glenn Viklund]

Martin,

This is your evidence:

"The WC knew, as one of the staff lawyers admitted to Ed Epstein, that if JFK and Connally were hit by seperate bullets then there had to be at least two assassins. This is why they endorsed the SBT even though they knew the medical evidence and the Zapruder film disproved it."

The WC themselves clearly pointed out that the sequence of the shots was not clear. It is no secret that the staffers and the WC sometimes had different views. That could not be news to you. This stuff does nothing to support your views that the WC was knowingly cover up a conspiracy of which they had knowledge in advance.

You are speculating, Martin.

[Glenn Viklund]

Martin,

You are making my point:

They may well have been part of a cover up. But nothing of what you have brought forward here, or for that matter, what has ever been brought forward suggests that the WC knew what it was they - possibly - were covering up. And that, Martin, is a fact, not speculation.

If you have anything that proves the contrary, I will immediately re-evaluate my position. It is, without a doubt, a very different ball game what the answer to this is, would you not agree? Did, or did not, the WC know that they were covering up a conspiracy?

The reasonable answer is that they did what LBJ and Hoover instructed them to, "nail this guy, we can't afford the trouble that might otherwise arise".

And that is exactly what I think their mission was, and what they lived up to.

[Glenn Viklund]

Martin,

You are making my point:

They may well have been part of a cover up. But nothing of what you have brought forward here, or for that matter, what has ever been brought forward suggests that the WC knew what it was they - possibly - were covering up. And that, Martin, is a fact, not speculation.

If you have anything that proves the contrary, I will immediately re-evaluate my position. It is, without a doubt, a very different ball game what the answer to this is, would you not agree? Did, or did not, the WC know that they were covering up a conspiracy?

The reasonable answer is that they did what LBJ and Hoover instructed them to, "nail this guy, we can't afford the trouble that might otherwise arise".

And that is exactly what I think their mission was, and what they lived up to.

Glenn,

I think I understand your point and I guess I agree - in a sense.

To clarify: I'm saying that the commission looked at the specifics of Dealey Plaza and realised that there had to be more than one shooter. I'm not saying they knew who was involved in the conspiracy, because I'm sure they didn't.

Martin,

It took a few back-and-forths and perhaps we agree on this issue. Be that as it may, I have no problems discussing issues with reasonable people like yourself.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[David Josephs]

Glenn -

Yet that's not Hoover wrote.... it was NOT "nail this guy" at all.... at least not from Hoover initially.

Would you say that Allen Dulles - who KNEW of the Castro assassination attempts and ongoing ZR- programs and decided to withhold that information from the WC

that this does not constitute a conspiracy - at least on the part of this one WCC - to cover up some of the basic facts related to WHY JFK might be assassinated OTHER than a disgruntled Lone Nut?

Even Hoover would not let that go... He KNEW something was up with Cuba but could not get the info

Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December 12, 1963

page 2

Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan

Mr. Rankin of the difficulty about the Department's desire to issue certain conclusions; that they wanted to issue a statement before the report went to the Commission with the conclusion Oswald was the assassin, no foreign or subversive elements involved, and Rubenstein and Oswald had no connection; that I flatly disagreed; they took it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance.

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

As to Rubenstein, I said I did not want a statement about Rubenstein and Oswald; that we have no proof they were ever together. I stated Rubenstein is a shady character from the hoodlum element of Chicago, has a poor background, runs a nightclub in Dallas, and is what would be called a police buff; that the police officers in the precinct have been able to get food and liquor from him at any time they drop in; that while I think there was no connection between him and Oswald, I did not want the report to be 100% sure on that.

Martin,

You are making my point:

They may well have been part of a cover up. But nothing of what you have brought forward here, or for that matter, what has ever been brought forward suggests that the WC knew what it was they - possibly - were covering up. And that, Martin, is a fact, not speculation.

If you have anything that proves the contrary, I will immediately re-evaluate my position. It is, without a doubt, a very different ball game what the answer to this is, would you not agree? Did, or did not, the WC know that they were covering up a conspiracy?

The reasonable answer is that they did what LBJ and Hoover instructed them to, "nail this guy, we can't afford the trouble that might otherwise arise".

And that is exactly what I think their mission was, and what they lived up to.

[Glenn Viklund]

Bill, good luck with your tackling of journalists attempting to pin the assassination on the mafia. I am wondering why it is so easy to associate the mafia with the cover up? Is it the Ruby angle, alone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earl_Warren&oldid=432596658#Controversy

....Drew Pearson hinted in his syndicated column in October 1963 that Clark had told him that the FBI confirmed Ragen's accusations of Chicago mob control by leading businessmen and politicians. This was confirmed in the posthumous publication, eleven years later, of Drew Pearson's Diaries, 1949–1959 edited by Tyler Abell.[46]; Tom Clark had told Pearson that Ragen stated that Henry Crown, the Hilton Hotels chain, and Walter Annenberg controlled the mob.[47][48][46][49][50][51][52][53][54]

Earl Warren and his family were close friends of Henry Crown's investment partner, Conrad Hilton, and Warren's daughter, Virginia was formerly involved in a close relationship with Conrad Hilton.[55][56][57][58] The year following the publication of the Warren Report, Earl Warren selected[59] as his Supreme Court law clerk, the son of Paul Ziffren,[60]former California state Democratic party chairman, forced to resign after allegations of Ziffren's organized crime connections were leveled by Earl Warren's friend,[61] Senator William F. Knowland.[62][63][64][65]

"One of the things that was embarrassing and got national coverage was the Reader's Digest article of July, 1960. It was written by Lester Velie and is called, "Paul Ziffren, The Democrats' Man of Mystery." (The author sets forth a very detailed account of "Ziffren 's connections with the underworld and gambling figures of the period,") "[66]

Despite the disturbing information about Henry Crown, et al., Drew Pearson claimed was provided to him by Clark in 1946, Justice Tom Clark appointed Crown's son, John, as one of two of his 1956 Supreme Court session law clerks.[67] In December 1963, Chief Justice Earl Warren, acting as head of the newly formed Presidential Commission investigating the death of President Kennedy, suggested that Henry Crown's attorney, Albert E. Jenner, Jr., who also, at that time employed Crown's son, John at Jenner's Chicago law firm, be appointed as a senior assistant Warren Commission counsel. Warren gave his fellow commissioners the names of two men who approved of Jenner's appointment, Tom C Clark and Dean Acheson. [68]

The appointment of Albert Jenner to investigate[69] whether either Oswald or Ruby acted alone or conspired with others remains controversial.[70][71] In 1953, Albert E. Jenner, Jr. had represented Michael Frank Darling when he was investigated by the House Committee on Education and Labor.[72]Darling was business manager of IBEW union Chicago local 1031, the first and largest union organization to contract insurance coverage with Allen Dorfman and his father, Paul, an associate of Jack Ruby. [73][74][75]

(Don't worry...the "minders" @wikipedia moved in within two hours to remove everything displayed in the above quote box because the details interfered with the eternal, sanitized version of the wikipedia Earl Warren biography, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren )

My guess is that section was deleted because most of the citations were links to Google searches that normally did not support the claim and few, IF any, of the others supported the claims made. Was that your handywork?

Funny that neither the LA Times 3x obits nor the AP or NYT obits of Ziffren mentioned him being accused of ties to the mob. The latter said, “[in 1960 Democratic presidential]Hopefuls like John F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey sought him out.” Hmmm so if Warren is tainted by supposedly making his son a cleark, what does that say about JFK?

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-101_1_paul-ziffren

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-02/news/mn-458_1_paul-ziffren

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-10_1_los-angeles

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19910603&id=7gYhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lXYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3069,164975

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/03/obituaries/paul-ziffren-democratic-leader-in-california-in-1950-s-dies-at-77.html

Gus Russo however makes similar charges

Wow Glen that is indeed quite an admission. That you have actually STUDIED this case all these years and nothing has convinced you of conspiracy. My study began day one, at age 14. It was clear to me from day one, and totally so by the time LHO was shot, that the fix was in. It would color-and virtually dictate- everything else in my life for the next nearly 50 years. Then in 96 I met a wonderful man, an attorney like myself, and we fell in love. Of course the case came up as it always with me (I have an obsession with the truth) and I asked Erick his view. Much to my shock and dismay he replied that he'd never given it a thought. To his credit he began reading books and by the time of our wedding- a mere four months later- he knew enough to (1.) know it was a conspiracy and (2.) be relatively conversant with longtime students of this case. No he does not read all the stuff I do, he did, more recently, read Brothers and JFK and the Unspeakable...so he KNOWS...but YOU???? It is hard to take seriously what you say. The only people I have ever encountered who refuse to believe conspiracy who have actually studied the evidence are people who are ah...assets of some sort. I am not saying you are...I just find your story amazing beyond all belief. As JIm Garrison once said and I paraphrase, "the only way you can believe in the WC is to not study it".

But I appreciate you telling your most strange tale and I will just take you at your word, no matter how difficult it is for me to comprehend. I mean it was IN- OUR- FACES blatant.imho.

Dawn

Dawn,

Darn, my intention was by no means to shock anyone the way you seem to have been? Are you alright? Beyond that, I'm really glad that I could give you a good laugh, I'm always inclined to look between my fingers whenever I can achieve that.

However, I've admitted nothing - as a lawyer I would expect you to be well aware of the distinction between an admittance and a statement? No? You know, unlike what you seem to think, it's not criminal to have views about this case that differs from yours. I'm not accused of anything, as far as I understand?

One thing that I can detect in this posting of yours is that this is a matter of your way or the highway. You, on the other hand, have been working hard and consistently to throw out any evidence of JVBs lies. Some time ago you commented that "we all know why you are here". Above, you are continuing along the same lines:

"... who have actually studied the evidence are people who are ah...assets of some sort." You just cant help yourself, can you? If I disagree with you, I'm a CIA agent?

Let's sum this up.

You knew from the age of 14 that this was a conspiracy. You have an obsession with the truth. Your partner has now read two books and accordingly I do not know what I'm talking about? Moreover, it was all IN-MY-FACE? If nothing else, perhaps I'm "an asset"?

Dawn Meredith,

I am sincerely glad that I live in a country where I will never be at risk of having you representing me.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Glenn Viklund]

Glenn -

Yet that's not Hoover wrote.... it was NOT "nail this guy" at all.... at least not from Hoover initially.

Would you say that Allen Dulles - who KNEW of the Castro assassination attempts and ongoing ZR- programs and decided to withhold that information from the WC

that this does not constitute a conspiracy - at least on the part of this one WCC - to cover up some of the basic facts related to WHY JFK might be assassinated OTHER than a disgruntled Lone Nut?

Even Hoover would not let that go... He KNEW something was up with Cuba but could not get the info

Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December 12, 1963

page 2

Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan

Mr. Rankin of the difficulty about the Department's desire to issue certain conclusions; that they wanted to issue a statement before the report went to the Commission with the conclusion Oswald was the assassin, no foreign or subversive elements involved, and Rubenstein and Oswald had no connection; that I flatly disagreed; they took it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance.

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

As to Rubenstein, I said I did not want a statement about Rubenstein and Oswald; that we have no proof they were ever together. I stated Rubenstein is a shady character from the hoodlum element of Chicago, has a poor background, runs a nightclub in Dallas, and is what would be called a police buff; that the police officers in the precinct have been able to get food and liquor from him at any time they drop in; that while I think there was no connection between him and Oswald, I did not want the report to be 100% sure on that.

Martin,

You are making my point:

They may well have been part of a cover up. But nothing of what you have brought forward here, or for that matter, what has ever been brought forward suggests that the WC knew what it was they - possibly - were covering up. And that, Martin, is a fact, not speculation.

If you have anything that proves the contrary, I will immediately re-evaluate my position. It is, without a doubt, a very different ball game what the answer to this is, would you not agree? Did, or did not, the WC know that they were covering up a conspiracy?

The reasonable answer is that they did what LBJ and Hoover instructed them to, "nail this guy, we can't afford the trouble that might otherwise arise".

And that is exactly what I think their mission was, and what they lived up to.

David,

Of course I would.

But we're still back to square one as the discussion circled around the WC. The WC were not accomplices in this deed, other than possibly indirectly. If, in my view, this was to be agreed upon, maybe then things could move one step forward.

[Dawn Meredith]

It seems, Glenn, you have fallen into the same trap as McAdams. WHY in the world would you expect agreement on this case from the critics?

If someone--say Saddam Hussein--is a dictator, but the people are divided on who should replace him, does that make him any less a dictator? Of course not. By the same token, then, the Warren Commission's conclusion Oswald acted alone does not gain in credibility due to its being rejected by so many, with so many agendas, for so many different reasons.

That a view of history has been rejected by so many does not make it MORE likely to be true, does it?

As far as the single bullet theory... in chapters 10-12 of my webpage I go through it from A-Z, from its formulation in the Warren Commission to its being pushed by programs on TV. And pretty much kill it. If you take the time to read through it, I suspect you'll come to agree.

Pat, thanks for your answer.

I believe you are missing my point about bringing those issues forward, which in fact is one of the main reasons to my skepticism.

As I said, I could have made that list much, much longer. Don't you find it a bit awkward that while on the one hand there are so many people that are die hard believers in a conspiracy, when on the other hand there's a complete and utter lack of consensus about what the evidence for this conspiracy are? I'm sure you know better than I do how completely divided those who believe in a conspiracy are.

What I see is a clearly visible pattern about this. A pattern that leads me to, at least question, the very foundation of a conspiracy. Neither do I neglect the well known and establish fact that when politicians in high positions are assassinated, it's a basic human instinct to react with disbelief to the proposition that someone of such insignificance could actually take out someone as significant as president Kennedy. It's just not comprehensible. In fact, there's a good example of this in this very thread:

"My study began day one, at age 14. It was clear to me from day one, and totally so by the time LHO was shot, that the fix was in."

Understandable, of course. But very clearly based on anything but evidence. An instinctive psychological reaction which surely didn't have much to do with age as it probably was, and most likely still is, just as frequent among all age cohorts.

As I also said, the two areas that I've tried to understand - what happened at the Plaza and the medical evidence - are indeed hard to grasp. In my case, especially the medical evidence. I'm the first to acknowledge that there are a whole range of unanswered questions related to those areas. I believe I have read your take on this but I'll do it again as soon as time allows, and perhaps then comment on what your conclusions are, if you are interested.

For the record, I may or may not agree with McAdams on certain issues, I really don't know. Except about Judyth Baker where I do know that I am in complete agreement with his take, but that whole thing is just a distraction and a waste of time. What I also do know is that whatever opinions I have in this case, they're not based any one persons views. I'm trying to look at the evidence from all angles, where that is possible.

Again you're 100% wrong. It was based entirely on the evidence that the tv and newspapers were spitting out so fast we barely had time to eat or sleep. I grew up reading murder mysteries and true crime stories, almost from the time I began to read in first grade, so I knew how complex any murder investigation can be. That they KNEW so much about LHO so fast, and it all had such a false ring to it, even at my age. As Jim D said, if you REALLY believe Ruby shot the patsy on tv so Jackie would not have to testify against him then you are pretty qullible.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

Bill, good luck with your tackling of journalists attempting to pin the assassination on the mafia. I am wondering why it is so easy to associate the mafia with the cover up? Is it the Ruby angle, alone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earl_Warren&oldid=432596658#Controversy

....Drew Pearson hinted in his syndicated column in October 1963 that Clark had told him that the FBI confirmed Ragen's accusations of Chicago mob control by leading businessmen and politicians. This was confirmed in the posthumous publication, eleven years later, of Drew Pearson's Diaries, 1949–1959 edited by Tyler Abell.[46]; Tom Clark had told Pearson that Ragen stated that Henry Crown, the Hilton Hotels chain, and Walter Annenberg controlled the mob.[47][48][46][49][50][51][52][53][54]

Earl Warren and his family were close friends of Henry Crown's investment partner, Conrad Hilton, and Warren's daughter, Virginia was formerly involved in a close relationship with Conrad Hilton.[55][56][57][58] The year following the publication of the Warren Report, Earl Warren selected[59] as his Supreme Court law clerk, the son of Paul Ziffren,[60]former California state Democratic party chairman, forced to resign after allegations of Ziffren's organized crime connections were leveled by Earl Warren's friend,[61] Senator William F. Knowland.[62][63][64][65]

"One of the things that was embarrassing and got national coverage was the Reader's Digest article of July, 1960. It was written by Lester Velie and is called, "Paul Ziffren, The Democrats' Man of Mystery." (The author sets forth a very detailed account of "Ziffren 's connections with the underworld and gambling figures of the period,") "[66]

Despite the disturbing information about Henry Crown, et al., Drew Pearson claimed was provided to him by Clark in 1946, Justice Tom Clark appointed Crown's son, John, as one of two of his 1956 Supreme Court session law clerks.[67] In December 1963, Chief Justice Earl Warren, acting as head of the newly formed Presidential Commission investigating the death of President Kennedy, suggested that Henry Crown's attorney, Albert E. Jenner, Jr., who also, at that time employed Crown's son, John at Jenner's Chicago law firm, be appointed as a senior assistant Warren Commission counsel. Warren gave his fellow commissioners the names of two men who approved of Jenner's appointment, Tom C Clark and Dean Acheson. [68]

The appointment of Albert Jenner to investigate[69] whether either Oswald or Ruby acted alone or conspired with others remains controversial.[70][71] In 1953, Albert E. Jenner, Jr. had represented Michael Frank Darling when he was investigated by the House Committee on Education and Labor.[72]Darling was business manager of IBEW union Chicago local 1031, the first and largest union organization to contract insurance coverage with Allen Dorfman and his father, Paul, an associate of Jack Ruby. [73][74][75]

(Don't worry...the "minders" @wikipedia moved in within two hours to remove everything displayed in the above quote box because the details interfered with the eternal, sanitized version of the wikipedia Earl Warren biography, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren )

My guess is that section was deleted because most of the citations were links to Google searches that normally did not support the claim and few, IF any, of the others supported the claims made. Was that your handywork?

Funny that neither the LA Times 3x obits nor the AP or NYT obits of Ziffren mentioned him being accused of ties to the mob. The latter said, “[in 1960 Democratic presidential]Hopefuls like John F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey sought him out.” Hmmm so if Warren is tainted by supposedly making his son a cleark, what does that say about JFK?

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-101_1_paul-ziffren

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-02/news/mn-458_1_paul-ziffren

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-04/local/me-10_1_los-angeles

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19910603&id=7gYhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lXYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3069,164975

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/03/obituaries/paul-ziffren-democratic-leader-in-california-in-1950-s-dies-at-77.html

Gus Russo however makes similar charges

Wow Glen that is indeed quite an admission. That you have actually STUDIED this case all these years and nothing has convinced you of conspiracy. My study began day one, at age 14. It was clear to me from day one, and totally so by the time LHO was shot, that the fix was in. It would color-and virtually dictate- everything else in my life for the next nearly 50 years. Then in 96 I met a wonderful man, an attorney like myself, and we fell in love. Of course the case came up as it always with me (I have an obsession with the truth) and I asked Erick his view. Much to my shock and dismay he replied that he'd never given it a thought. To his credit he began reading books and by the time of our wedding- a mere four months later- he knew enough to (1.) know it was a conspiracy and (2.) be relatively conversant with longtime students of this case. No he does not read all the stuff I do, he did, more recently, read Brothers and JFK and the Unspeakable...so he KNOWS...but YOU???? It is hard to take seriously what you say. The only people I have ever encountered who refuse to believe conspiracy who have actually studied the evidence are people who are ah...assets of some sort. I am not saying you are...I just find your story amazing beyond all belief. As JIm Garrison once said and I paraphrase, "the only way you can believe in the WC is to not study it".

But I appreciate you telling your most strange tale and I will just take you at your word, no matter how difficult it is for me to comprehend. I mean it was IN- OUR- FACES blatant.imho.

Dawn

Dawn,

Darn, my intention was by no means to shock anyone the way you seem to have been? Are you alright? Beyond that, I'm really glad that I could give you a good laugh, I'm always inclined to look between my fingers whenever I can achieve that.

However, I've admitted nothing - as a lawyer I would expect you to be well aware of the distinction between an admittance and a statement? No? You know, unlike what you seem to think, it's not criminal to have views about this case that differs from yours. I'm not accused of anything, as far as I understand?

One thing that I can detect in this posting of yours is that this is a matter of your way or the highway. You, on the other hand, have been working hard and consistently to throw out any evidence of JVBs lies. Some time ago you commented that "we all know why you are here". Above, you are continuing along the same lines:

"... who have actually studied the evidence are people who are ah...assets of some sort." You just cant help yourself, can you? If I disagree with you, I'm a CIA agent?

Let's sum this up.

You knew from the age of 14 that this was a conspiracy. You have an obsession with the truth. Your partner has now read two books and accordingly I do not know what I'm talking about? Moreover, it was all IN-MY-FACE? If nothing else, perhaps I'm "an asset"?

Dawn Meredith,

I am sincerely glad that I live in a country where I will never be at risk of having you representing me.

Dealing with idiots like you is why I left here to start with, so yes I too am glad that I'd never BE representing you. Since most everyone else here is arguing that there was a conspiracy you stoop to that tried and true attack mode. You are such a bore. Glad there is an ignore function here. Note I did not attack you personally nor even inquire what work you do...but people like you always resort to name calling and ad Homs. Goodnight and goodluck. (If it isn't obvious I will not ever respond to a post of yours again) YOur agenda is quite clear.

[Bernice Moore]

CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH"=20

RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, =

there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. =

Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, =

(which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now =

had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new =

pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and =

articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the =

critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, =

and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. =

Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren =

Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% =

of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more =

than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some =

questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or =

possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, =

including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were =

naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They =

represented both major parties, and they and their staff were =

deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the =

standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and =

wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. =

Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that =

President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have =

benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo =

of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also =

the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself =

is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to =

the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion =

on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey =

Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material =

countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so =

as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. =

Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a =

number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination =

question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where =

discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts =

(especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren =

Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that =

the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that =

further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the =

opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to =

be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use =

their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the =

critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate =

for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should =

provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy =

should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to =

theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically =

interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in =

their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course =

of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy =

may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached =

Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark =

Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly =

where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more =

difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of =

unrelated details.)

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular =

writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the =

following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not =

consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim =

Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike =

that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new =

evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there =

is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an =

imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some =

competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe =

was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either =

Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, =

but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that =

the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They =

tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses =

(which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more =

hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and =

photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records =

will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted =

out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and =

sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to =

conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to =

receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General =

at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to =

overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, =

Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the =

sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have =

had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of =

Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a =

location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his =

control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk =

that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators =

could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they =

light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the =

Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat =

decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission =

and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any =

one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into =

certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a =

co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability =

and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. =

[Archivist's note: This claim is demonstrably untrue with the latest =

file releases. The CIA had an operational interest in Oswald less than a =

month before the assassination. Source: Oswald and the CIA, John Newman =

and newly released files from the National Archives.]

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged =

three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that =

the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to =

the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some =

cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, =

are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died =

mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the =

individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the =

Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more =

people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a =

large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn =

Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, =

appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list =

were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on =

collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a =

bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the =

Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be =

impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which =

the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to =

add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report =

itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.=20

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

20 QUESTIONS --- MY VERSION ( Well, there's more than 20, but let's=20

see how smart .john's trolls are )=20

1. What type of echo produces a "puff of smoke" ?=20

2. If RFK had accepted without question the WC findings with regard=20

to the murder of his brother, what would be the purpose of his taking=20

possession of his brother's brain and locking it away ?=20

3. Name another murder where there was a "jet effect".=20

4. Why is there no "jet effect" in any other REAL death videos ?=20

5. In what other murder case was the testimony of 51 sworn and many=20

other unheard witnesses dismissed so cavalierly as "no credible=20

evidence"?=20

6. Why do the autopsy photographs show the skull intact, when the=20

"Harper Bone Fragment" was missing from the skull at the time of the=20

autopsy ?=20

7. Why did the FBI withhold from the WC Jack Ruby's ties to Organized=20

Crime and his numerous phone calls to mobsters in the weeks prior to=20

the assassination ?=20

8. JFK was was breathing when they brought him in to Parkland=20

Hospital. He had a heartbeat. Proof that his brain stem WAS intact.=20

Yet his brain stem was severed by the time his body was seen in=20

Bethesda for the autopsy. How and when was it severed ?=20

9. The autopsy photograph of the back of the President's neck shows no=20

entry wound anywhere above the top of the shoulders. Yet the Humes-=20

supervised Rydberg drawing shows a bullet wound in the base of the=20

neck. Is the autopsy photo a fake, or did Humes lie about the location=20

of the wound ?=20

http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L2J... =

10. Can you name ONE TIME when Oswald threatened President Kennedy=20

specifically ?=20

11. What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald ever purchased any=20

6.5mm ammunition ?=20

12. How did a "Defector" ( with a dishonorable discharge ) get=20

employed during the missile crisis by a company which did Gov't work=20

on U-2 photos ?=20

13. When examined by the FBI, CE 399 had no bone particles, no=20

clothing fibers and no blood on it from either victim. Why not ?=20

14. How did Sgt. Hill misidentify the shells found at the Tippit=20

murder scene as coming from a .38 automatic when gun shells are=20

clearly labelled by caliber and type on the bottom and are always=20

identified by that label.=20

http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L5H... =

15. Why did the Dallas Police give Oswald a Nitrate Test that was=20

known to be unreliable ?=20

16. In 2007, the FBI admitted that the Comparative Lead Bullet=20

Analysis test was in fact unreliable, thus making the evidence it used=20

to connect Oswald to the Kennedy assassination bogus.=20

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/201207Oswald.htm=20

Why, then do some, including the media, still argue in favor of=20

Oswald's guilt ?=20

17. Did Hoover proclaim Oswald guilty before or after the FBI examined=20

any of the evidence ?=20

18. How did the President's tie get nicked in the front of the knot=20

from a bullet exiting ?=20

http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L69... =

19. How did Oswald fire a "steel jacket (sic) bullet" from a "high=20

powered rifle" in the Walker shooting, when his rifle could only fire=20

copper-jacketed bullets ?=20

http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1LzY... =

20. What evidence is there that Oswald ever received the mail-order=20

rifle from the Post Office ?=20

21. Why did the the Dallas Police dust "4 pcs" of white "curtain rods"=20

four months after the assassination for Oswald's fingerprints (CE=20

1952) ?=20

http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L6B... =

we'll start with these. Good Luck.=20

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/78=

c3a1f568ff1863?hl=3Den#

[David Josephs]

Glenn -

Yet that's not Hoover wrote.... it was NOT "nail this guy" at all.... at least not from Hoover initially.

Would you say that Allen Dulles - who KNEW of the Castro assassination attempts and ongoing ZR- programs and decided to withhold that information from the WC

that this does not constitute a conspiracy - at least on the part of this one WCC - to cover up some of the basic facts related to WHY JFK might be assassinated OTHER than a disgruntled Lone Nut?

Even Hoover would not let that go... He KNEW something was up with Cuba but could not get the info

Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December 12, 1963

page 2

Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan

Mr. Rankin of the difficulty about the Department's desire to issue certain conclusions; that they wanted to issue a statement before the report went to the Commission with the conclusion Oswald was the assassin, no foreign or subversive elements involved, and Rubenstein and Oswald had no connection; that I flatly disagreed; they took it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance.

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

As to Rubenstein, I said I did not want a statement about Rubenstein and Oswald; that we have no proof they were ever together. I stated Rubenstein is a shady character from the hoodlum element of Chicago, has a poor background, runs a nightclub in Dallas, and is what would be called a police buff; that the police officers in the precinct have been able to get food and liquor from him at any time they drop in; that while I think there was no connection between him and Oswald, I did not want the report to be 100% sure on that.

Martin,

You are making my point:

They may well have been part of a cover up. But nothing of what you have brought forward here, or for that matter, what has ever been brought forward suggests that the WC knew what it was they - possibly - were covering up. And that, Martin, is a fact, not speculation.

If you have anything that proves the contrary, I will immediately re-evaluate my position. It is, without a doubt, a very different ball game what the answer to this is, would you not agree? Did, or did not, the WC know that they were covering up a conspiracy?

The reasonable answer is that they did what LBJ and Hoover instructed them to, "nail this guy, we can't afford the trouble that might otherwise arise".

And that is exactly what I think their mission was, and what they lived up to.

David,

Of course I would.

But we're still back to square one as the discussion circled around the WC. The WC were not accomplices in this deed, other than possibly indirectly. If, in my view, this was to be agreed upon, maybe then things could move one step forward.

IF.... again?

If my grandmother had balls she'd be my grandfather... but she doesn't, will never and IF is worthless...

We cannot agree on it cause it aint true. The Commissioners where chosen specifically because they could be counted upon as accomplices - what you seem to be saying is that you are not sure whether they... to the man, had any foreknowledge of the assassiantion... if that is so (if again) are you saying if they did not have this knowledge that they could not ever be considered part of "this deed" or part of the conspiracy?

Glenn, do you think that RFK, who KNEW there was more to it than Oswald, would be considered an accomplice because he didn't yell "Bullsh!t" at the top of his lungs and not stop until he exposed the entire thing? There are those who would say his and Jackie's and the rest of the Kennedy's acceptance of the coup without a real fight mirrors the US public's acceptance and condoned the conspiracy - indirectly.

That story after story is related about how those who KNEW something was wrong didn't say... and those that did, conveniently disappear.

Yet those on the inside, on the WC, could change testimony, move the location of wound in the permanent record, discuss an autopsy that no longer exists, etc....

and not be held accountable.

If there was no conspiracy, why did the Secret Service BREAK THE LAW and TAKE the body from Dallas?

No POTUS or SS agent is above the law...

You may wish to read a little Salandria and/or Schotz... Conspiracy is already proven by the actions of the US gov't and the DPD... not to mention the FBI's excuse for an investigation.

Even the HSCA, who - post Sprague and saddled with Blakey - STILL found it impossible not to have considered a conspiracy during the investigation of the case....

2nd Watergate law of American Politics - NEVER believe anything until its been OFFICIALLY denied....

C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that president John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once simply defined conspiracy as "a partnership in criminal purposes."(1) That definition is adequate. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to set out a more precise definition. If two or more individuals agreed to take action to kill President Kennedy, and at least one of them took action in furtherance of the plan, and it resulted in President Kennedy's death. The President would have been assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

The committee recognizes, of course, that while the word "conspiracy" technically denotes only a "partnership in criminal purposes," it also, in fact, connotes widely varying meanings to many people, and its use has vastly differing societal implications depending upon the sophistication, extent and ultimate purpose of the partnership. For example, a conspiracy to assassinate a President might be a complex plot orchestrated by foreign political powers; it might be the scheme of a group of American citizens dissatisfied with particular governmental policies; it also might be the plan of two largely isolated individuals with no readily discernible motive.

Conspiracies may easily range, therefore, from those with important implications for social or governmental institutions to those with no major societal significance. As the evidence concerning the probability that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a "conspiracy" is analyzed, these various connotations of the word "conspiracy" and distinctions between them ought to be constantly borne in mind. Here, as elsewhere, words must be used carefully. lest people be misled.1

A conspiracy cannot be said to have existed in Dealey Plaza unless evidence exists front which, in Justice Holmes' words, a "partnership in criminal purposes" may be inferred. The Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President was, for example, largely based on its findings of the absence of evidence of significant association (2) between Oswald and other possible conspirators and no physical evidence of conspiracy.(3)

The Commission reasoned, quite rightly, that in the absence of association or physical evidence, there was no conspiracy. Even without physical evidence of conspiracy at the scene of the assassination, there would, of course, be a conspiracy if others assisted Oswald in his efforts. Accordingly, an examination of Oswald's associates is necessary. The Warren Commission recognized that a first premise in a finding of conspiracy may be a finding of association. Because the Commission did not find any significant Oswald associates, it was not compelled to face the difficult questions posed by such a finding. More than association is required to establish conspiracy. There must be at least knowing assistance or a manifestation of agreement to the criminal purpose by the associate.

It is important to realize, too, that the term "associate" may connote widely varying meanings to different people. A person's associate may be his next door neighbor and vacation companion, or it may be an individual he has met only once for the purpose of discussing a contract for a murder. The Warren Commission examined Oswald's past and concluded he was essentially a loner.4

It reasoned, therefore, that since Oswald had no significant associations with persons who could have been involved with him in the assassination, there could not have been a conspiracy.(5)

Ruby and Oswald, and other possible groups or organizations

With respect to Jack Ruby,2 the Warren Commission similarly found no significant associations, either between Ruby and Oswald or between Ruby and others who might have been conspirators with him.(8) In particular, it found no connections between Ruby and organized crime, and it reasoned that absent such associations, there was no conspiracy to kill Oswald or the President.9

The committee conducted a three-pronged investigation of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. On the basis of extensive scientific analysis and an analysis of the testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses, the committee found there was a high probability that two gunmen fired at President Kennedy.

Second, the committee explored Oswald's and Ruby's contacts for any evidence of significant associations. Unlike the Warren Commission, it found certain of these contacts to be of investigative significance. The Commission apparently had looked for evidence of conspiratorial association. Finding none on the face of the associations it investigated, it did not go further. The committee, however. conducted a wider ranging investigation. Notwithstanding the possibility of a benign reason for contact between Oswald or Ruby and one of their associates, the committee examined the very fact of the contact to see if it contained investigative significance. Unlike the Warren Commission, the committee took a close look at the associates to determine whether conspiratorial activity in the assassination could have been possible, given what the committee could learn about the associates, and whether the apparent nature of the contact should, therefore, be examined more closely.3

Third, the committee examined groups, political organizations, national governments and so on that might have had the motive, opportunity and means to assassinate the President.

The committee, therefore, directly introduced the hypothesis of conspiracy and investigated it with reference to known facts to determine if it had any bearing on the assassination.

The committee examined a series of major groups or organizations that have been alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President. If any of these groups or organizations, as a group, had been involved in the assassination, the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy would have been one of major significance.

As will be detailed in succeeding sections of this report, the committee did not find sufficient evidence that any of these groups or organizations were involved in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly, the committee concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet government, the Cuban government, anti-Castro Cuban groups, and the national syndicate of organized crime were not involved in the assassination.

Further, the committee found that the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination.

DJ: 2nd Watergate law of American Politics - NEVER believe anything until its been OFFICIALLY denied...

Based on the evidence available to it, the committee could not preclude the possibility that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups or the national syndicate of organized crime were involved in the assassination. There was insufficient evidence, however, to support a finding that any individual members were involved. The ramifications of a conspiracy involving such individuals would be significant, although of perhaps less import than would be the case if a group itself, the national syndicate, for example, had been involved.

The committee recognized that a finding that two gunmen fired simultaneously at the President did not, by itself, establish that there was a conspiracy to assassinate the President. It is theoretically possible that the gunmen were acting independently, each totally unaware of the other. It was the committee's opinion, however, that such a theoretical possibility is extremely remote. The more logical and probable inference to be drawn from two gunmen firing at the same person at the same time and in the same place is that they were acting in concert, that is, as a result of a conspiracy.

The Findings:

The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established, it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy. The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy was premised on four factors:

1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent weight.

2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.

3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.

4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact, fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly stated, in expressing its finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."

Further Conclusions:

The photographic and other scientific evidence available to the committee was insufficient to permit the committee to answer these questions In addition, the committee's other investigative efforts did not develop evidence from which Oswald's conspirator or conspirators could be firmly identified. It is possible, of course, that the extent of the conspiracy was so limited that it involved only Oswald and the second gunman. The committee was not able to reach such a conclusion, for it would have been based on speculation, not evidence. Aspects of the investigation did suggest that the conspiracy may have been relatively limited, but to state with precision exactly how small was not possible. Other aspects of the committee's investigation did suggest, however, that while the conspiracy may not have involved a major group, it may not have been limited to only two people. These aspects of the committee's investigation are discussed elsewhere.

If the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy was limited to Oswald and a second gunman, its main societal significance may be in the realization that agencies of the U.S. Government inadequately investigated the possibility of such a conspiracy. In terms of its implications for government and society, an assassination as a consequence of a conspiracy composed solely of Oswald and a small number of persons, possibly only one, and possibly a person akin to Oswald in temperament and ideology, would not have been fundamentally different from an assassination by Oswald alone.

[Bernice Moore]

yes David... in for more ??

The page below comes from the Executive Session of the WC on =

January 27, 1964.=20

It was kept classified, though Harold Weisberg attempted to =

obtain a copy of

from the FOIA. After 6 years, with the help of

Jim Lesar, the transcript was finally given to him in 1974.

Specter sent this to J.Lee Rankin in April 1964......Specter =

I believe was aware of forseeing many problems.. MEMORANDUM

April 30, 1964

TO: Mr. J. Lee Rankin

FROM: Arlen Specter SUBJECT: Autopsy Photographs and X-rays of President John F. =

Kennedy In my opinion it is indispensable that we obtain the =

photographs and x-rays of President Kennedy's autopsy for the following =

reasons:=20

1. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER =

THE SHOTS CAME FROM THE REAR. Someone from the Commission should review =

the films to corroborate the autopsy surgeons' testimony that the holes =

on the President's back and head had the characteristics of points of =

entry. None of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas observed the =

hole in the President's back or the small hole in the lower portion of =

his head.=20

With all the outstanding controversy about the direction of =

the shots, there must be independent viewings of the films to verify =

testimony which has come only from Government doctors.=20

2. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER =

THE SHOTS CAME FROM ABOVE. It is essential for the Commission to know =

precisely the location of the bullet wound on the President's back so =

that the angle may be calculated. The artist's drawing prepared at =

Bethesda (Commission Exhibit #385) shows a slight angle of declination.=20

It is hard, if not impossible, to explain such a slight =

angle of decline unless the President was farther down Elm Street than =

we have heretofore believed.=20

Before coming to any conclusion on this, the angles will =

have to be calculated at the scene; and for this, the exact point of =

entry should be known.=20 3. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE =

ARE NO MAJOR VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE FILMS AND THE ARTIST'S DRAWINGS.=20

Commission Exhibits Nos. 385, 386, and 388 were made from =

the recollections of the autopsy surgeons as told to the artist.=20

Some day someone may compare the films with the artist's =

drawings and find a significant error which might substantially affect =

the essential testimony and the Commission's conclusions.=20

In any event, the Commission should not rely on hazy =

recollections, especially in view of the statement in the autopsy report =

(Commission Exhibit #387) that:=20

"The complexity of those fractures and the fragments thus =

produced=20

tax safisfactory verbal description and are better =

appreciated in the photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared."=20

B....

The W/C didn't reach any final conclusion of three shots =

from the one shooter ( Oswald ) and from one location......TSBD....that =

was done for them... There was only one government agency responsible for the =

investigation of the murder of the President...and it was never the =

W/C..... The FBI produced 5 books re their investigation in less than =

three weeks....for the W/C.... See U.S Federal Bureau of Investigations ..Investigation of =

Assassination of President John F.Kennedy,Nov 22,1963.Washington =

D.C..Federal Bureau of Investigation, Dec.9 1962.....Five Volumes.. It was error prone, as well as deceptive let alone =

distorted..report......and it proceeded the formation of said W/C..and =

it became the basis for it's none investigation.... See...Warren Commission Document number CD 1.

Only 450 words appear on the murder of the President =

within, excluding the shot that wounded citizen James Tague and the =

wound on=20

President Kennedy's throat......... From this lacking base =

the FBI asserted that Oswald was the lone, psycholologically disturbed =

assassin, which also was a conclusory statement.. In advance of the delivery to the W/C of the 5 FBI =

books...... Hoover secretly, released the findings to the press in a =

effort to mold the public's opinion... this in regarding both the =

validity of the FBI's finding and the presumption of Oswald's guilt is =

found in the W/C's executive session transcripts...they are available at =

the Mary Ferrel site...

The seven men were very busy officials, and they had little =

time nor any expertise for research. ...nor investigations....

They selected 84 men for their staff .......and they named =

as chief council Rankin, a former Solicitor General of the US.....

They did not select nor assembled a body of criminal law =

specialists, inspectors, or field investigators....they chose to rely =

entirely on several Gov agencies, mainly the FBI, to whom the others =

handed their information to........and they in turn witheld....... Their decisions doomed the W/C from the start, and on =

Dec.9/63 the W/C based it's inquiry on the FBI's five volume =

report...... The five volumes contain less than 450 pages on the murder =

of the President ....they are mainly on the psychological profile of LHO =

and biographical details of his Marine Corps youth.=20

On such a report and in so short a time, they closed the =

investigation and drew the pre- conclusion....Oswald.....3 shots from =

the 6th floor of the TSBD....he alone...was guilty....

They had shut down the Dallas Police Dept.inquiry, as well =

as the Texas Att.Gs office by Warren's personal ....interference...The =

SS as well were left to watch from the sidelines... The FBI took all of =

the evidence and such...and took full control.......and their man =

Gerald Ford a member of the W/C , reported to Hoover on the W/Cs =

information from their executive sessions.

On Jan 22 /1964.... Dulles.......Why would it be in their ( FBI) interest to say =

he ( Oswald) is clearly the only guilty one? Rankin..They would like us to fold up and quit.... Boggs....This closes the case, you see. Don't you see? Rankin...They found the man. There is nothing more to do. =

The commission supports their conclusions, and we can go on home and =

that is the end of it....... Boggs...I don't even like to see this being taken down...... Dulles...Yes.I think this record ought to be destroyed.... There was perhaps one could say a meeting of closed =

minds....within the Government agencies...... the SS handed their =

information over to the FBI..But the FBI only passed along to the W/C =

from any of the other agencies, what they felt would not damage their =

findings...Aside from all that, scullduggery , the CIA did not comply =

with handing over any information whatsoever.......when requested and =

never did...... Therefore the Commission by controlling it's own record did =

lead to a deliberate suppression, by all agencies that were involved... Keep in mind also the witnesses who stated that their info =

given to the FBI was recorded improperly....such as omitted or changed.. =

Also the investigation that the FBI was working on in New Orleans( see =

Weisberg... "LHO in N.O " ) ....... information found, statements

taken from witnesses to anything found within in that area, =

were at times not recorded till as long as ten days later....from memory =

and at times scribbled notes......Then they were told to close shop, by =

Hoover.... even though they had not completed their work, they did so =

and walked away... B......=20 "=85Secret Service men literally seized the body from local =

officials at Parkland Hospital, who were demanding that an autopsy be =

performed in accordance with Texas law. If the law had been observed, =

there might have been no controversy, and the Bethesda doctors, the FBI =

and the Secret Service would have escaped the heavy responsibility they =

now bear. Sadly and ironically, the report of the autopsy performed on =

the murdered Oswald in Dallas is a model of clarity and precision =

alongside the sloppy, ambiguous and incomplete record of the autopsy =

President Kennedy received=85the President's body remains the object of =

obscene speculation, and the country suffers needless, disruptive =

controversy. As matters stand, no single element of the (Warren) =

Commission's version of the assassination is more suspect than the =

official account of the President's autopsy."---"The Saturday Evening =

Post", January 14, 1967 The page below comes from the Executive Session of the WC on =

January 27, 1964.=20

It was kept classified, though Harold Weisberg attempted to =

obtain a copy of

from the FOIA. After 6 years, with the help of

Jim Lesar, the transcript was finally given to him in 1974.

Specter sent this to J.Lee Rankin in April 1964......Specter =

I believe was aware of forseeing many problems.. MEMORANDUM

April 30, 1964

TO: Mr. J. Lee Rankin

FROM: Arlen Specter SUBJECT: Autopsy Photographs and X-rays of President John F. =

Kennedy In my opinion it is indispensable that we obtain the =

photographs and x-rays of President Kennedy's autopsy for the following =

reasons:=20

1. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER =

THE SHOTS CAME FROM THE REAR. Someone from the Commission should review =

the films to corroborate the autopsy surgeons' testimony that the holes =

on the President's back and head had the characteristics of points of =

entry. None of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas observed the =

hole in the President's back or the small hole in the lower portion of =

his head.=20

With all the outstanding controversy about the direction of =

the shots, there must be independent viewings of the films to verify =

testimony which has come only from Government doctors.=20

2. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER =

THE SHOTS CAME FROM ABOVE. It is essential for the Commission to know =

precisely the location of the bullet wound on the President's back so =

that the angle may be calculated. The artist's drawing prepared at =

Bethesda (Commission Exhibit #385) shows a slight angle of declination.=20

It is hard, if not impossible, to explain such a slight =

angle of decline unless the President was farther down Elm Street than =

we have heretofore believed.=20

Before coming to any conclusion on this, the angles will =

have to be calculated at the scene; and for this, the exact point of =

entry should be known.=20 3. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE =

ARE NO MAJOR VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE FILMS AND THE ARTIST'S DRAWINGS.

Commission Exhibits Nos. 385, 386, and 388 were made from =

the recollections of the autopsy surgeons as told to the artist.=20

Some day someone may compare the films with the artist's =

drawings and find a significant error which might substantially affect =

the essential testimony and the Commission's conclusions.=20

In any event, the Commission should not rely on hazy =

recollections, especially in view of the statement in the autopsy report =

(Commission Exhibit #387) that:=20

"The complexity of those fractures and the fragments thus =

produced

tax safisfactory verbal description and are better =

appreciated in the photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared."

B....

Edited March 16, 2012 by Bernice Moore