Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mark Lane had a lot of input to the "Executive Action" movie, which at the end dealt with the probability of all the eye witnesses having unnatural deaths. Richard Charnin expanded on this:

EXECUTIVE ACTION

An actuary engaged by the London Times calculated the probability that at least EIGHTEEN witnesses would die within three years of the JFK assassination as 1 in 100,000 TRILLION. The calculation is mentioned in the 1973 film Executive Action based on a book by the original JFK researcher and lawyer Mark Lane. The film starred Burt Lancaster, Robert Ryan and Will Geer.

The actuary’s probability is actually very conservative. At least 42 JFK-related witnesses died unnaturally in the three years following the assassination. Using the 0.000220 WEIGHTED JFK-witness mortality rate, the probability is E-53 (1/TRILLION^4).

The number of deaths spiked during the 1977-78 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) investigation of the JFK and MLK murders. The HSCA determined that both were conspiracies.

Warren Commission apologists have suggested that there were many more than 1,400 witnesses. The FBI claimed to have interviewed 25,000. But how many were material? The probability that 25 of 25,000 witnesses would be murdered in the three years following the assassination is 2E-11 or 1 in 40 billion.

To put these numbers in perspective, there are approximately 7E17 (700,000 trillion) grains of sand on the earth and 3E23 (300 billion trillion) stars in the universe.

WITNESSES

Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination by Michael Benson, provides information on more than 1,400 JFK-related individuals (suspects, victims, witnesses, law enforcement officials and investigators) involved in the assassination.The book is based on years of research using a wealth of data sources and a detailed analysis of the Warren Commission’s twenty-six volumes. The JFK Calc spreadsheet includes 97 witnesses listed in Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination.

Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination by Richard Belzer and David Wayne is a comprehensive analysis of fifty witness deaths and cites the probability calculations presented here.

Crossfire by Jim Marrs lists 103 individuals related to the assassination who died mysteriously from 1963-1978. The latest version refers to my analysis.

TWO POSSIBILITIES

Suppose that on Nov. 22, 1963, 1400 individuals were selected at random from the entire U.S. population. Further suppose that within one year, at least 18 would die unnaturally under mysterious circumstances. Based on unnatural death mortality rates, only 1 in a random group of 1400 would be expected to die unnaturally.

There are two possibilities. The 18 unnatural deaths were…

1) unrelated. It was just a 1 in 1000 trillion coincidence.

2) related. There was a common factor -a connection- between them.

We can confidently rule out 1). Then if the 18 unnatural deaths were related, what was the connection?

Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth. – Arthur Conan Doyle

COINCIDENCE OR CONNECTION?

There were at least 18 unnatural deaths of JFK-related witnesses within one year of the assassination. In any given year, only one unnatural death would be expected in a random group of 1400. The probability that at least 18 would die unnaturally in any given year is 1 in 1000 trillion (see the mathematical proof below).

The 18 deaths could not have been a coincidence. There had to be a COMMON FACTOR. It could have been a) they were interviewed by the Warren Commission, B) scheduled to be interviewed, c) were in the commission witness index or d) related and not interviewed. If they were JFK-related, the deaths were not random. One must therefore conclude that the assassination was a conspiracy.

Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin, was shot by Jack Ruby in front of millions of television viewers on Nov. 24, 1963. He was conveniently disposed of before he could get a lawyer after claiming that he was “just a patsy”. The transcript of Oswald’s interrogation was destroyed.

In 1977, seven top FBI officials died suddenly in the six months from June to November. Two had testified to the Warren Commission; two were #3 FBI officials; two were forensic experts. William Sullivan, a #3 FBI official, died from an “accidental” gunshot while hunting, just before he was scheduled to testify at HSCA. James Cadigan, an FBI document expert, died from a fall in his home. The others died from heart attacks.

THE LONDON TIMES AND THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS

In a response to a letter from the 1977 House Select Committee on Assassinations, London Sunday Times Legal Manager Anthony Whitaker wrote: “Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times editorial staff after the first edition – the one which goes to the United States – had gone out, and later editions were amended. There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong: it was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked ” what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time” to which he replied -correctly – that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission Index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter – hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize”.

That settled the matter for the HSCA which did not bother to ask U.S. mathematicians to analyze the probabilities. One must ask: Why not?

Whitaker obfuscated a very simple mathematical problem: to determine the probabilities of unnatural JFK-related deaths over relevant time intervals: 1, 3, 14 years. He did so by leaving out the word unnatural.

The Times legal manager made two fundamental errors. The first was an incomplete and misleading statement of the problem. He implicitly assumed deaths of all types, natural and unnatural. He did not distinguish between the two categories. The probability calculations must be based on the expected number of unnatural (not total) deaths.

The second error was the omission of relevant numerical data: He did not provide unnatural death mortality statistics. He failed to show the probability calculations. Why not? Was it because it would prove that the actuary’s calculation was essentially correct?

If the London Times was interested in the truth, it would have confirmed these results:

1. Incorrect problem definition: Calculate the probability that 15 named JFK-witnesses would die in one year. Given the 1964 unnatural death rate (0.000825), the probability is 0.000825^15 that 15 named individuals would die unnaturally. The odds that 15 named individuals would die of any cause is of course much higher.

2. Correct definition: Calculate the probability that at least 15 material witnesses in a known group would die unnaturally in one year.

Given the 1964 UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATE (0.000825), the probability that at least 15 of 1400 RANDOM individuals would die unnaturally in 1964 is 1 in 445 BILLION (2.0E-12).

Given the 1964 JFK-WEIGHTED AVERAGE UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATE (0.000163), the probability that at least 15 of 1400 JFK-related individuals would die unnaturally in 1964 is 1 in 6 BILLION TRILLION (1.47E-22). In fact, there were at least 21 unnatural JFK-related deaths in the first year, so the probabilities are even lower. Of course, the odds that at least 15 would die of any cause is much higher: 1 in 2.

CALCULATING THE PROBABILITY: THE POISSON DISTRIBUTION

The probability calculations are based on the 0.000815 average annual unnatural mortality rate in 1964-78.

The probability P of at least n unnatural deaths in a group of N individuals, for time period T years, given unnatural mortality rate R, is P(n)= Poisson(n, E), where E=R*N*T is the expected number of unnatural deaths. As E increases, the probability increases. The probabilities of various unnatural deaths for a range of witnesses is displayed in a Probability Sensitivity Matrix.

The Poisson distribution is used to calculate the probability of a rare event when the probability of an event (P) is very small and the number of trials (N) is large, and therefore

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will repeat: Has anyone here read Citizen Lane?

Taking your advice,,,,

Just found it and ordered it at my library . as far as Leonard Peltier , I will be interested in knowing if Citizen Lane interacted with Robert Redford - I feel he almost certainty had to. and I should see Incident at Oglala again (it's on Netflix), and see if Lane is mentioned or appears in that documentary.

I don't recall, but it's been a few years since I viewed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, has everyone noticed the Dark Syde's unified response to Lane's death?

I mean this was typified by the tripe posted at JFK Facts by McAdams, and also what Max Holland posted at his site.

I will be replying to these matters, that somehow Lane distorted the record, on a future BOR since I got some letters about this matter.

BTW, I am reading A Citizen's Dissent right now. Quite a good book.

In it he says that he and DeAntonio were allowed to look at the outtakes from the 1964 CBS Special on a movieola.

All told it was well over 70 hours. Why so long for a two hour program?

Because CBS would not let any witness break from their agenda. Which had clearly been arranged in advance, since the show aired almost the day of the WR release.

When a witness would say something CBS did not like, or did not fit the WC verdict, they would cut. The interviewer would then offer the subject other information outside their own experience that day. The witness would then say something like "Well, I thought this was the case, but I have since been instructed that it was wrong". Then the question would be repeated, and the desired reply would be recorded. And only that would be broadcast.

Lane and DeAntonio were there for five hours the first night. They were stunned.

Guess what happened the next day? Their agreement was negated and their access was cut off.

CBS was in the tank for the Warren Commission from BEFORE the day it was issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, has everyone noticed the Dark Syde's unified response to Lane's death?

I mean this was typified by the tripe posted at JFK Facts by McAdams, and also what Max Holland posted at his site.

I will be replying to these matters, that somehow Lane distorted the record, on a future BOR since I got some letters about this matter.

BTW, I am reading A Citizen's Dissent right now. Quite a good book.

In it he says that he and DeAntonio were allowed to look at the outtakes from the 1964 CBS Special on a movieola.

All told it was well over 70 hours. Why so long for a two hour program?

Because CBS would not let any witness break from their agenda. Which had clearly been arranged in advance, since the show aired almost the day of the WR release.

When a witness would say something CBS did not like, or did not fit the WC verdict, they would cut. The interviewer would then offer the subject other information outside their own experience that day. The witness would then say something like "Well, I thought this was the case, but I have since been instructed that it was wrong". Then the question would be repeated, and the desired reply would be recorded. And only that would be broadcast.

Lane and DeAntonio were there for five hours the first night. They were stunned.

Guess what happened the next day? Their agreement was negated and their access was cut off.

CBS was in the tank for the Warren Commission from BEFORE the day it was issued.

As someone who's studied the eyewitness evidence to a greater extent than most, it seems obvious to me that CBS withheld some of their interviews for a reason. These interviews are a valuable commodity. CBS could have packaged them as five DVD set or some such thing, but never have. When the ARRB asked about them, as I recall, CBS said they could have access to them, but that they would have to transcribe them themselves. (Now, that's patriotism!) In any event, the ARRB failed to act, and these interviews--along with Manchester's many interviews--remain unstudied by any researcher or government agency. That's freakin' crazy, if you ask me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that interesting.

Why not just turn over the raw stock? Much easier right?

BTW, same with NBC and the Sheridan special on Garrison.

NBC would not turn over the outtakes. They actually returned them to the family and the family refused to cooperate.

Its things like this that have lowered my opinion of the ARRB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that interesting.

Why not just turn over the raw stock? Much easier right?

BTW, same with NBC and the Sheridan special on Garrison.

NBC would not turn over the outtakes. They actually returned them to the family and the family refused to cooperate.

Its things like this that have lowered my opinion of the ARRB.

Since you didn't seem to know that CBS offered to let the ARRB transcribe the outtakes, I decided to make sure my memory was correct. Here is what it says in the ARRB Report: "CBS agreed to donate its outtakes from its television specials to the JFK collection. The Review Board anticipates that the CBS records eventually will become part of the JFK collection."

"Anticipates"? Is that the same as wishful thinking?

"Eventually"? If there's no firm agreement just who did they suppose would get it done?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, did you know about the NBC stuff?

Ron, this goes into the nineties.

IMO, in both of these cases, I would have done what the ARRB did with Connick and the Garrison files.

I would have gone to court. The ARRB act was really very inclusive. Why not use it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished A CItzien's Dissent, which I had not read in I think over 15 years. Probably more.

No wonder the establishment hated Lane.

He nailed them every time.

This book outlines the struggle he had voicing his opinions about the JFK case to the public. The FBI harassed him and visited certain media outlets to discourage them from having him on again.

There are some really interesting nuggets there:

1. He is the one who gave Epstein the idea for Inquest through Cornell professor Andrew Hacker. (BTW, Hacker is an interesting character in this saga.)

2. A camera crew from Italy arrived in Dealey Plaza to film a rifle team trying to duplicate what the WR said Oswald did. Except it was under real circumstances: that is from the sixth floor with an open car below. They couldn't do it.

Shortly after, the authorities limit access to the TSBD and the plaza for such purposes.

3. Benavides gave a description of the TIppit murderer that did not match Oswald. Hmm. What happened with him and CBS then?

4. Lane found a witness who said Ruby knew TIppit, a man named Harold Williams. Anyone ever hear of him? Is he credible?

5. Manchester said the autopsy pics depict the wound at the base of the neck. Hmm. Big a xxxx as Humes.

6. Specter said that there was no damage to the inside of the car from a bullet. Is that true? Isn't there a dent on the chrome behind the rearview mirror or something?

Anyway, I am now going to read Citizen Lane. And then I am going to order the rest of his books.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

2. A camera crew from Italy arrived in Dealey Plaza to film a rifle team trying to duplicate what the WR said Oswald did. Except it was under real circumstances: that is from the sixth floor with an open car below. They couldn't do it. Shortly after, the authorities limit daces to the TSBD and the plaza for such purposes.

Jim,

Does the book give any more info about this? I've never heard of it, and I always find the re-enactments intriguing.

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished A CItzien's Dissent, which I had not read in I think over 15 years. Probably more.

No wonder the establishment hated Lane.

He nailed them every time.

This book outlines the struggle he had voicing his opinions about the JFK case to the public. The FBI harassed him and visited certain media outlets to discourage them from having him on again.

There are some really interesting nuggets there:

5. Manchester said the autopsy pics depict the wound at the bee of the neck. Hmm. Big a xxxx as Humes.

I write about Manchester's comments in the Manchester Dissected section of Chapter 10. The last two interviews for his book were with Howard Willens and Dr. Burkley. Evidently they told him the wound was on the back of the neck. In his book, however, Manchester said three men who'd seen the photos had told him it was on the back of the neck. This suggests that Willens told him about two people--perhaps Warren and Specter, or Specter and Kelley, and that Burkley was the third.

In any event, I noticed that Manchester's interviews with Willens and Burkley were after the final date of his agreement with the Kennedy family, and contacted Wesleyan University to try to get a copy of his notes on these interviews. But, alas, they told me there were no such notes,

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am reading "A Citizen's Dissent" right now (strangely enough, I stopped reading "Praise From A Future Generation" to read Lane's book.) Boy, the BBC really did a number on Lane. They invited him to participate in a program with Arlen Specter following a screeing of the film "Rush To Judgment", and then seemingly did everything in their power to stack the deck against him. It was almost comic. Also a relief that the people watching the broadcast still thought Lane won the "debate."

And the CBS shenanigans are pretty shocking. I'm reading about how they fudged the rifle tests. Many times they had to stop the test because of rifle difficulties, but didn't ever factor in the stops when calculating the average shooting times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...