The HSCA - a joke? or did they do it to us on purpose?

[Glenn Nall]

I do not know much about the 35+ year old convention and findings of the HSCA other than what i learned from Plausible Denial, which I'm inclined to take to the bank, mostly. I know that there was some controversy over the position of lead counsel (among other controversies) and that they pretty much felt obliged to find "some suggestion of a conspiracy" although it didn't warrant any actual further investigation into the murder of the US President. (things that make you go, "hmmm")

I'm noticing a tendency by "some" to wave HSCA findings when attempting to rebut a CT's argument, and this confuses me. I can't help but think that's only a little better than saying "yeah, but in the Warren Commission Allen Dulles said-"

A real question: are there any reliable rulings in this old stuff that reasonable people can use? Didn't they try hard to get around a lot of things (i.e. the truth)?

someone just pointed me to an HSCA report on the xrays of JFK's skull, and my only thought was - yeah, AND...?

[Pat Speer]

I've done several presentations on the HSCA, and no, it was no joke. They originally hired someone who was gonna run it like a criminal investigation. That wouldn't do. The congressman on the committee wanted to be able to say they investigated the assassination, but they also wanted to avoid ruffling the feathers of the intelligence agencies. So, bye-bye. They then brought in someone who'd studied organized crime, whose approach to the case can be summed up in two statements. 1) The only conspiracy he was interested in pursuing was one involving organized crime. And 2) he wanted to sell the committee's conclusions to the public via science, and have the scientists essentially tell the committee what to think. Well, this led to a whole bunch of nonsense--with this scientist skewing his results to suggest a conspiracy and this scientist skewing his results to suggest no conspiracy, etc. It was a freakin' mess.

And yet, it was still better than the Warren Commission, which presented a united front when pushing even worse nonsense.

[Robert Prudhomme]

The HSCA conducted interviews with witnesses who were present at the autopsy in Bethesda. It was then announced these interviews would be kept from the public for 50 years. However, the HSCA did inform the public that these 26 Bethesda witnesses had all stated that what they witnessed of JFK's corpse agreed with the findings of the autopsy.

The HSCA lost ALL credibility when the contents of these interviews were made public in the 1990's, and it was revealed the HSCA lied about the interviews, and that all 26 witnesses disagreed with the findings of the autopsy and placed the large wound at the back of JFK's head.

This alone should have been enough to reopen the investigation into JFK's murder.

[Pat Speer]

The HSCA conducted interviews with witnesses who were present at the autopsy in Bethesda. It was then announced these interviews would be kept from the public for 50 years. However, the HSCA did inform the public that these 26 Bethesda witnesses had all stated that what they witnessed of JFK's corpse agreed with the findings of the autopsy.

The HSCA lost ALL credibility when the contents of these interviews were made public in the 1990's, and it was revealed the HSCA lied about the interviews, and that all 26 witnesses disagreed with the findings of the autopsy and placed the large wound at the back of JFK's head.

This alone should have been enough to reopen the investigation into JFK's murder.

Unfortunately, seeing as every person involved with writing the section of the report containing the lie about the 26 witnesses denied writing the lie, it can be dismissed as a typo, or a misunderstanding of sorts. That's one of the problems with "truth by committee." There's no accountability.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The HSCA (pages 156-7) did find that Jack Ruby had assistance from someone inside the police department

when he murdered Lee Oswald.

I think that is one HSCA finding that will stand the test of time.

[Robert Prudhomme]

The HSCA conducted interviews with witnesses who were present at the autopsy in Bethesda. It was then announced these interviews would be kept from the public for 50 years. However, the HSCA did inform the public that these 26 Bethesda witnesses had all stated that what they witnessed of JFK's corpse agreed with the findings of the autopsy.

The HSCA lost ALL credibility when the contents of these interviews were made public in the 1990's, and it was revealed the HSCA lied about the interviews, and that all 26 witnesses disagreed with the findings of the autopsy and placed the large wound at the back of JFK's head.

This alone should have been enough to reopen the investigation into JFK's murder.

Unfortunately, seeing as every person involved with writing the section of the report containing the lie about the 26 witnesses denied writing the lie, it can be dismissed as a typo, or a misunderstanding of sorts. That's one of the problems with "truth by committee." There's no accountability.

Hellishly big typo, or misunderstanding of sorts.

[Glenn Nall]

The HSCA conducted interviews with witnesses who were present at the autopsy in Bethesda. It was then announced these interviews would be kept from the public for 50 years. However, the HSCA did inform the public that these 26 Bethesda witnesses had all stated that what they witnessed of JFK's corpse agreed with the findings of the autopsy.

The HSCA lost ALL credibility when the contents of these interviews were made public in the 1990's, and it was revealed the HSCA lied about the interviews, and that all 26 witnesses disagreed with the findings of the autopsy and placed the large wound at the back of JFK's head.

This alone should have been enough to reopen the investigation into JFK's murder.

How very interesting - Robert, or anyone, where might I find a little more material on this? both the reports and maybe some of the published interviews?

[Tim Sauter]

Hello everyone. This being my first post here at this Forum.

I have always believed there was some good things that emerged from the HSCA, as well as some less than satisfying aspects. For example, they went beyond the Warren Commission by establishing a panel to actually study the available films and photos, and viewed the autopsy photos and x-rays.

In my personal opinion only, the result of this helped establish the time of the first JFK hit (approx. z190). However, on the “less than satisfying side”, they still went along with the dubious SBT, although in an entirely different time and location on Elm St. from the WC.

My biggest problem with the HSCA’s version of the SBT was that it would have made an already difficult shot from Oswald even more difficult, given that he would have been shooting through the Oak tree at (or about) z190.

Additionally, while the HSCA correctly disagreed with the WC with regard to the location of JFK’s back wound, they incorrectly speculated that JFK would have had to be leaning significantly forward in a manner not evident in any photo or film frame to produce an exit wound that would go on to hit Connally.

So to buy into the HSCA’s version, one must accept that after Oswald completely missed a clear and open shot directly below the window, then less than two seconds later, had only enough time to point-aim his rifle through the Oak tree and still hit both JFK and Connally with a single shot..... and that JFK was leaning substantially forward at the time of the bullet strike.

As far as the establishment of the HSCA goes, this article by a somewhat biased Richard E. Sprague, and his reaction to the change in leadership (as discussed above by Pat Speer) is interesting reading nonetheless:

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/18th_Issue/blakey.html

Edited June 12, 2015 by Tim Sauter