The BIG UNANSWERED QUESTION: Why was JFK murdered?

[Mervyn Hagger]

All kinds of daft "I think this" and "I thought that" answers to that question have been pumped out for decades. For decades. Not one of them is fit for a court room verdict, just a talk show promotion or a conference to sell more "I think that ..." books.

So what is the definitive answer backed by accepted proof that will stand up in a court room and be agreed to by a jury of the most informed and enlightened minds that exist?

[Guest]

Hi Mervyn, 

Fundamentally, you will get no honest verdict in a US courtroom or within the US legal framework, it didn't work the first time or subsequent times, it didn't make it to that place. In my opinion that may be because nobody wants to show that the USA has a 'coup d'etat' on its soil, as two of its most important pieces of security apparatus are at the very least responsible for the cover up. If that was proven in a court room, it's very damaging to the CIA and FBI, public perception would never trust them again. What would then be brought into question would be every subsequent event afterwards and the public would want court cases there too. One of the issues with an enlightened jury, is who you would pick. How would you ensure there would be a fair and honest process to determine a result? Another question is how you'd get a chain or evidence, that left no gaps, you have to be 100% sure as a juror. 

As many have written; I think the murder happens when multiple parties are disenfranchised with JFK's plans or policies. I would put financial reasons far higher than any personal grudges or ascension to power for prestige. The "7 Days in May" discussion JFK has with friends about whether a coup of possible in the USA is very plausible, from memory he says it would take perhaps 3 Bay of Pigs style events, going against the military or other powerful institutions to create an environment where it was indeed possible. James W Douglass makes a very good case in "JFK & The Unspeakable". He goes through the events during JFK's presidency, that created tremendous friction, doing against advice of powerful departments of government and military industrial complex. I am sure it started with a general, a few east coast old money guys all having a brandy in some exclusive private lounge and passionate dissatisfaction was aired in a room. Someone may have said he needs to go, using a double entendre that could have been construed as to mean not be re-elected, but, it could also mean to be removed another way. It would be said like that to assess the others discontent and how committed they are as supporters. Once a room is unanimous, a plan grows and comes to fruition. It's clear to me that the people likely sat at that table had to be 100% sure no trail would lead back to them. So for me the order comes from financial interests being hurt by resisting wars (rackets) that have a massive return on investment and upset continuity. Their worst case scenario would have been 8 years of JFK undoing corruption and potentially a brother as a successor. Of course, lots can happen which can change the course of history. 

I think the communist angle is pure subterfuge. The mafia grudge theme is pure deflection and we known because of the attempts to kill Castro that the mafia are assisting or on the payroll of the CIA, as they have a backdoor to Cuba, which gets the close to Castro to assassinate him. So to me, from what I have read, the CIA or part of the CIA planned and executed the killing of JFK, just as they have done multiple times in far flung developing countries with their tools of regime change. I would be very surprised if Allen Dulles wasn't involved in this, I would be surprised if Edward Lansdale wasn't involved but, we can easily swap those figures out for others of similar rank or experience. It doesn't really matter if it was military guys from Fort Benning Georgia or CIA, Corsicans or assassins from one of the CIA camps abroad who did it. The environment of discontent was created via media, via whispers in government and business, and I am sure certain entities were certain there would be no come back or reprisals for them and people lower on the rungs of power were expendable. 

To prove all that in court and cover all bases, if it was fair, you'd look at years and years of due process, which would cost a fortune. But, to put things in context, given the evidence we have access to now, you couldn't prove Oswald did it either. 

I feel the June 10 1963 commencement address speech at American University was the final nail in his coffin:

"I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and to build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace in all time." John F Kennedy

We've had a PAX Americana ever since, with the USA spending more than 10x the budget of any other nation on earth in arms, it has over 1000 overseas bases or military installations, America has absolutely dominated and intervened anywhere, any time its felt like it, particularly when there is an economic benefit. Tax payer picks up the tab, debt is increased and private corporations and banking interests reap the benefits. 

[Mervyn Hagger]

27 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi Mervyn, 

Fundamentally, you will get no honest verdict in a US courtroom or within the US legal framework, it didn't work the first time or subsequent times, it didn't make it to that place. In my opinion that may be because nobody wants to show that the USA has a 'coup d'etat' on its soil, as two of its most important pieces of security apparatus are at the very least responsible for the cover up. If that was proven in a court room, it's very damaging to the CIA and FBI, public perception would never trust them again. What would then be brought into question would be every subsequent event afterwards and the public would want court cases there too. One of the issues with an enlightened jury, is who you would pick. How would you ensure there would be a fair and honest process to determine a result? Another question is how you'd get a chain or evidence, that left no gaps, you have to be 100% sure as a juror. 

As many have written; I think the murder happens when multiple parties are disenfranchised with JFK's plans or policies. I would put financial reasons far higher than any personal grudges or ascension to power for prestige. The "7 Days in May" discussion JFK has with friends about whether a coup of possible in the USA is very plausible, from memory he says it would take perhaps 3 Bay of Pigs style events, going against the military or other powerful institutions to create an environment where it was indeed possible. James W Douglass makes a very good case in "JFK & The Unspeakable". He goes through the events during JFK's presidency, that created tremendous friction, doing against advice of powerful departments of government and military industrial complex. I am sure it started with a general, a few east coast old money guys all having a brandy in some exclusive private lounge and passionate dissatisfaction was aired in a room. Someone may have said he needs to go, using a double entendre that could have been construed as to mean not be re-elected, but, it could also mean to be removed another way. It would be said like that to assess the others discontent and how committed they are as supporters. Once a room is unanimous, a plan grows and comes to fruition. It's clear to me that the people likely sat at that table had to be 100% sure no trail would lead back to them. So for me the order comes from financial interests being hurt by resisting wars (rackets) that have a massive return on investment and upset continuity. Their worst case scenario would have been 8 years of JFK undoing corruption and potentially a brother as a successor. Of course, lots can happen which can change the course of history. 

I think the communist angle is pure subterfuge. The mafia grudge theme is pure deflection and we known because of the attempts to kill Castro that the mafia are assisting or on the payroll of the CIA, as they have a backdoor to Cuba, which gets the close to Castro to assassinate him. So to me, from what I have read, the CIA or part of the CIA planned and executed the killing of JFK, just as they have done multiple times in far flung developing countries with their tools of regime change. I would be very surprised if Allen Dulles wasn't involved in this, I would be surprised if Edward Lansdale wasn't involved but, we can easily swap those figures out for others of similar rank or experience. It doesn't really matter if it was military guys from Fort Benning Georgia or CIA, Corsicans or assassins from one of the CIA camps abroad who did it. The environment of discontent was created via media, via whispers in government and business, and I am sure certain entities were certain there would be no come back or reprisals for them and people lower on the rungs of power were expendable. 

To prove all that in court and cover all bases, if it was fair, you'd look at years and years of due process, which would cost a fortune. But, to put things in context, given the evidence we have access to now, you couldn't prove Oswald did it either. 

I feel the June 10 1963 commencement address speech at American University was the final nail in his coffin:

"I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and to build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace in all time." John F Kennedy

We've had a PAX Americana ever since, with the USA spending more than 10x the budget of any other nation on earth in arms, it has over 1000 overseas bases or military installations, America has absolutely dominated and intervened anywhere, any time its felt like it, particularly when there is an economic benefit. Tax payer picks up the tab, debt is increased and private corporations and banking interests reap the benefits. 

Hi Chris,

What I am referring to is the constant business of creating conjecture - it could be this or it could be that. Too much hard evidence has already been accumulated and it will be possible, using court room standards of evidence, to 'try' the evidence and permanently knock out the rubbish.

The trouble is too many people have opinions but no facts and no knowledge how the legal system works.

For instance a lot of ballyhoo is being made of the USSC refusing to take the Texas case relating to the Election. But that case in the way it was filed -lacked Standing - meaning that no one from inside one of those States was a Plaintiff to the suit. Also, the issue of Laches came into play. The case could have been brought months ago by someone in one of those States, when the Election procedure was changed. So Laches (or Timing) also came to be another deciding issue.

But the US Constitutional issues in that Texas suit have not been heard, although the mass media try to imply that "Trump Lost the Suit". But he was not the Plaintiff, and the suit was never heard by the US Supreme Court!

So it it is with the JFK murder. Who did it and why? There is nothing on the record as such relating to the accumulation of hard evidence now available.

It would not be that difficult to find a venue, find a retired judge, a prosecuting attorney and a defending attorney and a qualified jury to hear the evidence - all the evidence.

The rubbish could be labeled rubbish and flushed down the toilet.

The hard, factual and provable evidence could then be brought before a US Federal Court as a Class Action suit against one of the parties who have benefited from claiming that LHO did it and the Warren Report was correct. Damages to the parties would be the harm inflicted upon the USA of which the Plaintiffs would be citizens, as well as harm performed by the education system upon individuals who have been fed false propaganda which they had to pay for. 

But before getting to that stage all the speculation needs to be removed and a case stated as to who killed JFK and why.

There could even be a series of interlocking trials judging the hard evidence.

It's not impossible to achieve but a lot of the 'tin hat' brigade need to be shown the door first!

This is for serious researchers who have sought out the facts, and only the facts.

Edited December 13, 2020 by Mervyn Hagger

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Hi Chris,

What I am referring to is the constant business of creating conjecture - it could be this or it could be that. Too much hard evidence has already been accumulated and it will be possible, using court room standards of evidence, to 'try' the evidence and permanently knock out the rubbish.

The trouble is too many people have opinions but no facts and no knowledge how the legal system works.

For instance a lot of ballyhoo is being made of the USSC refusing to take the Texas case relating to the Election. But that case in the way it was filed -lacked Standing - meaning that no one from inside one of those States was a Plaintiff to the suit. Also, the issue of Laches came into play. The case could have been brought months ago by someone in one of those States, when the Election procedure was changed. So Laches (or Timing) also came to be another deciding issue.

But the US Constitutional issues in that Texas suit have not been heard, although the mass media try to imply that "Trump Lost the Suit". But he was not the Plaintiff, and the suit was never heard by the US Supreme Court!

So it it is with the JFK murder. Who did it and why? There is nothing on the record as such relating to the accumulation of hard evidence now available.

It would not be that difficult to find a venue, find a retired judge, a prosecuting attorney and a defending attorney and a qualified jury to hear the evidence - all the evidence.

The rubbish could be labeled rubbish and flushed down the toilet.

The hard, factual and provable evidence could then be brought before a US Federal Court as a Class Action suit against one of the parties who have benefited from claiming that LHO did it and the Warren Report was correct. Damages to the parties would be the harm inflicted upon the USA of which the Plaintiffs would be citizens, as well as harm performed by the education system upon individuals who have been fed false propaganda which they had to pay for. 

But before getting to that stage all the speculation needs to be removed and a case stated as to who killed JFK and why.

There could even be a series of interlocking trials judging the hard evidence.

It's not impossible to achieve but a lot of the 'tin hat' brigade need to be shown the door first!

This is for serious researchers who have sought out the facts, and only the facts.

Ok, I understand. I don't know if US law works in a similar way to UK law (my native country) but, would any case not be thrown out due to a break in chain of evidence? If you were the family of JFK, I presume you could sue the authorities for a negligent investigation. If we look at the RFK case, they've tried to open that a few times and been blocked, despite perhaps the most credible evidence being from the Dr carrying out the autopsy and providing beyond reasonable doubt that Sirhan was not the person firing the fatal shot. In which case it suggests corruption, right up to present day. You have the HSCA stating based on their insufficient investigation that it was probable based on acoustic evidence that there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza. No further action was taken. Is it just easy for the people who wish to let lie, to say its too expensive and not desirable for the tax payer? It sounds like you understand the legal mechanics far better than I. Presumably the moment the body is taken out of Texas, that's a miscarriage of justice?! 

[Mervyn Hagger]

I was born in England lived half my life there and then half in Texas with a smattering of other States and Canada too. I now have well over a score of years in that other country called Scotland. Having been an investigator, including one into the murder of my daughter, as well as into corporate issues, what I am referring to on this thread is a text book, inch by inch, laying of foundational groundwork, first in a moot court to try the issues, then taking that case before a real court as a Class Action suit. It can be done.

But, if the reactions by some on this Forum are anything to go by regarding the Election case brought by Texas before the USSC, which was NOT heard, clearly a lot of people on this Forum don't understand why facts and not their opinions count.

The currently blocked Texas case is in fact similar to an issue that I co-authored several years ago - see: http://foundthreads.com/04.html

A case involving JFK evidence would have to follow procedure and lay down a series of interlocking foundations, but the hypothesis constantly thrown up here on this Forum by some, just go around and around in circles, year after year.

There are some dedicated researchers here, but not many. Too many have "opinions", but since they are not Justices on the USSC, their "opinions" are worthless.

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

I was born in England lived half my life there and then half in Texas with a smattering of other States and Canada too. I now have well over a score of years in that other country called Scotland. Having been an investigator, including one into the murder of my daughter, as well as into corporate issues, what I am referring to on this thread is a text book, inch by inch, laying of foundational groundwork, first in a moot court to try the issues, then taking that case before a real court as a Class Action suit. It can be done.

But, if the reactions by some on this Forum are anything to go by regarding the Election case brought by Texas before the USSC, which was NOT heard, clearly a lot of people on this Forum don't understand why facts and not their opinions count.

The currently blocked Texas case is in fact similar to an issue that I co-authored several years ago - see: http://foundthreads.com/04.html

A case involving JFK evidence would have to follow procedure and lay down a series of interlocking foundations, but the hypothesis constantly thrown up here on this Forum by some, just go around and around in circles, year after year.

There are some dedicated researchers here, but not many. Too many have "opinions", but since they are not Justices on the USSC, their "opinions" are worthless.

 

Hi Mervyn, 

I would support any re-opening of the case, in any court, in attempt to give justice and correct history, wholeheartedly. So, I am behind you. As a layman in legal procedures, I can only relate to the way Mark Lane laid out his case in The Last Word, which was the first JFK assassination book I read. Here on the forum; some like a conspiracy, some like a mystery, some are devils advocate guys, but, I think there are many who are deeply saddened by 11/22/63 and events in the aftermath. It makes you look at the world in despair. 

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi Mervyn, 

I would support any re-opening of the case, in any court, in attempt to give justice and correct history, wholeheartedly. So, I am behind you. As a layman in legal procedures, I can only relate to the way Mark Lane laid out his case in The Last Word, which was the first JFK assassination book I read. Here on the forum; some like a conspiracy, some like a mystery, some are devils advocate guys, but, I think there are many who are deeply saddened by 11/22/63 and events in the aftermath. It makes you look at the world in despair. 

 

Thanks Chris, the trouble I have with JFK and his brother is that they were two-faced - meaning that they lied about the CIA and the Bay of Pigs. As for a moot court examining the hard evidence and then trying that evidence in a real court, I think that too many here who pretend to be interested are merely drive-by rubber necks looking for a thrill.

[Jeff Carter]

Bill Kelly at his JFK CounterCoup blog has been honing in on the actuated plot. A problem is that actual conspirators/assassins will likely never be identified - although the cover-up is a proven event. The evidence as is points to a triangulated sniper operation with Oswald as designated patsy within various contingencies (i.e. as lone nut or as willing collaborator with a presumed Cuban or Soviet hit team who “get away”). Conspirators worked with friendly factions in DPD, SS, and Army Intelligence.

In my opinion, the reason Kennedy was killed was first: his domestic and foreign policies were not acceptable to the prevailing Establishment,  and second: his policies were popular, he was well positioned for a second term, and even worse, his popular policies could achieve a momentum which could not be later reversed. I think Kennedy was following a politics based on human development, articulated previously in New Deal era reforms, which were anathema to an establishment fully committed to a laissez-faire structure based on resource exploitation. I see Kennedy’s experience in Congress as teaching him to avoid direct ideological battles, and so the depth of his policies were not telegraphed ahead of achieving the presidency. Otherwise, establishment interests would have neutralized him somehow before such event.

[Mervyn Hagger]

9 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Bill Kelly at his JFK CounterCoup blog has been honing in on the actuated plot. A problem is that actual conspirators/assassins will likely never be identified - although the cover-up is a proven event. The evidence as is points to a triangulated sniper operation with Oswald as designated patsy within various contingencies (i.e. as lone nut or as willing collaborator with a presumed Cuban or Soviet hit team who “get away”). Conspirators worked with friendly factions in DPD, SS, and Army Intelligence.

In my opinion, the reason Kennedy was killed was first: his domestic and foreign policies were not acceptable to the prevailing Establishment,  and second: his policies were popular, he was well positioned for a second term, and even worse, his popular policies could achieve a momentum which could not be later reversed. I think Kennedy was following a politics based on human development, articulated previously in New Deal era reforms, which were anathema to an establishment fully committed to a laissez-faire structure based on resource exploitation. I see Kennedy’s experience in Congress as teaching him to avoid direct ideological battles, and so the depth of his policies were not telegraphed ahead of achieving the presidency. Otherwise, establishment interests would have neutralized him somehow before such event.

Jeff, on the one hand you claim that killing Kennedy in broad daylight was the work of a huge operation, which means an expensive operation involving a lot of people, while at the same time you can't state a motive for killing him. By motive I mean a reason that could be presented to this huge team you describe who were so full of hate for JFK that they all agreed that JFK had to die, and die in broad daylight to humiliate the huge US government that would never be able to solve this crime. Jeff, that does not make sense and it is the reason why I posed the question.

[Jeff Carter]

I don’t know that it was a “huge operation”. It was compartmentalized, and Bill Kelly has been making the point that there already was a working plan which could easily be switched from one target to another (i.e. from Castro to JFK). The operating motive seems to reside within the two identifiable contingencies involving Oswald - specifically that he would be fingered as a collaborator working with Cuban or Soviet sniper teams, and thus Kennedy’s death would generate at the very least the removal of Castro by US military. Sniper teams of Cuban exiles would be rather well motivated, and the branches of CIA involved with Oswald and who were actively establishing this contingency’s narrative  had direct contact with the Cuban exile paramilitary people. Assistance within DPD and SS may have been secured without the personnel knowing exactly what was to occur. At some point within two hours after the shooting, the WW3 contingency had been scrapped in favour of the lone nut, and this itself may have been part of the plan.

A more generalized establishment consensus that JFK had to be removed does not imply direct awareness of how or when. But the depth of opposition to reformist policies directed at the structural framework of the US economy should not be underestimated.

[Mervyn Hagger]

26 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

I don’t know that it was a “huge operation”. It was compartmentalized, and Bill Kelly has been making the point that there already was a working plan which could easily be switched from one target to another (i.e. from Castro to JFK). The operating motive seems to reside within the two identifiable contingencies involving Oswald - specifically that he would be fingered as a collaborator working with Cuban or Soviet sniper teams, and thus Kennedy’s death would generate at the very least the removal of Castro by US military. Sniper teams of Cuban exiles would be rather well motivated, and the branches of CIA involved with Oswald and who were actively establishing this contingency’s narrative  had direct contact with the Cuban exile paramilitary people. Assistance within DPD and SS may have been secured without the personnel knowing exactly what was to occur. At some point within two hours after the shooting, the WW3 contingency had been scrapped in favour of the lone nut, and this itself may have been part of the plan.

A more generalized establishment consensus that JFK had to be removed does not imply direct awareness of how or when. But the depth of opposition to reformist policies directed at the structural framework of the US economy should not be underestimated.

Jeff, this is what I object to because it defies logic and commonsense.

You dispute the words "huge operation", but to mount the kind of operation you are discussing - which includes (maybe) two Oswalds and the cover-up afterwards, all costs money and high level planning. If LHO did it on his own for his own reasons, that is a small operation and bungling explains the cover-up.

I don't buy the simple explanation that a deranged LHO did it all by himself because there are too many unexplained issues surrounding LHO.

This brings us to the stark question: who wanted JFK dead, if it was not just a deranged LHO acting on the spur of the moment?

Gangs kill to protect turf which represents money.

There were many reasons to kill Hitler, but no one succeeded in doing so.

So who wanted JFK dead, and WHY?

What would his death accomplish?

What did it accomplish?

So far you have added more woolly explanations which is why MLK and RFK are thrown into the mix in order to further obfuscate the BIG question:

Who killed JFK and WHY?

 

 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

14 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

All kinds of daft "I think this" and "I thought that" answers to that question have been pumped out for decades. For decades. Not one of them is fit for a court room verdict, just a talk show promotion or a conference to sell more "I think that ..." books.

So what is the definitive answer backed by accepted proof that will stand up in a court room and be agreed to by a jury of the most informed and enlightened minds that exist?

The only evidence capable of supporting charges in court against some party or parties other than Oswald, it seems, would be one of the existing claims to confession pursued to the exclusion of all the others. But it seems doubtful that any of the existing claims to confession, most of which are unverified hearsay, would be sufficiently strong to take into court. And there seems to be no mechanism for going into court to prove Oswald's innocence, given that Oswald is already legally innocent never having been convicted of a crime in court. 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Thanks Chris, the trouble I have with JFK and his brother is that they were two-faced - meaning that they lied about the CIA and the Bay of Pigs. As for a moot court examining the hard evidence and then trying that evidence in a real court, I think that too many here who pretend to be interested are merely drive-by rubber necks looking for a thrill.

Could you send me some links to docs showing that? ie the two faces lying about the Bay of Pigs. I personally didn't accept Helms, Dulles or their acolytes providing statements after both JFK & RFK were assassinated. At the time of the BOP it seemed like the CIA/military expected JFK to sanction all out invasion, instead he shouldered the blame and let Bissell & Dulles go without public blame. Many presidents would have perhaps tried to cover tings up to save reputation, or passed the buck. I'd be interested to hear more as this discussion has raged on here and in books i've read. 

[Adam Johnson]

Mervyn asked Q: "So what is the definitive answer backed by accepted proof that will stand up in a court room and be agreed to by a jury of the most informed and enlightened minds that exist?"

A: There can be no court case now that 12 juror's could sit in a court room and hear to the extent of satisfaction you seem to be asking for. The principles witnesses and orchestrators are all dead and cant be questioned in a court setting,  their answered cant be cross examined.

Where were you in 1968/9, where were you in the 1970's? Where were you in the early 80's Mervyn? Where were all of us on this forum then??? Asking for this type of case to be held during those time frames may have been possible- but not in the US of A. We saw that during the late 60's and early 70's the principals in this case still had to much power and control. Which hints to who organised, executed and covered up the murder. Members of the US government's departments and agencies. 

They may have utilised those outside the government to perform certain tasks involved in the murder and cover up, but i believe many of us on this forum have no doubt Government employees orchestrated this crime and covered each others asses for the next 25 to 50 years.

Lets just say if you were looking for justice for JFK, an American court room was never going to be the place to find it!! Neither was writing a book.

[Denny Zartman]

The JFK assassination case is likely never going to court again. If it were that easy, it would have been done many times over in the past. Nearly sixty years after the event, you'd be fortunate to have a small handful of elderly witnesses. And go through "all" the evidence? Good luck on that. You're going to find a retired judge, an empty courthouse, somehow a jury of the most enlightened minds on the planet, and think the case will be officially re-opened? Again, best of luck. If it is that easy to do, we look forward to hearing your progress in organizing it. I'll give you moral support, but you have to have a legal reason to go to court. You can't just get a retired judge and rent a courtroom and expect it to have any legal weight. And if you want a mock JFK trial, what would that prove and to who? You think it's going to convince the general public? Besides, they've already conducted a mock trial of Oswald, decades ago. You can watch it on YouTube. How many people did it convince? If all it took was a mock trial to end debate, there wouldn't be any debate today.

Anyone who says they know everything about the JFK assassination is suspect, in my opinion. Therefore, I believe that no reliable researchers will ever tell you that they always have all the answers to all the questions. For my part, I try to remain uncommitted on many issues large and small. I believe this is important because I feel that once one publicly commits to a certain position, part of their mind becomes closed off from fairly evaluating conflicting evidence and/or arguments. Discussion of the case can then become more about defending one's ego than seriously considering what could be valid evidence or a logical argument.

That said, if you really, really want an opinion, I'll give you one.

Why? National security. National security was the reason most involved believed they had to do what they were doing. In their opinion, JFK was weak and letting Communism encroach closer to America. Taking him out was a necessary and ultimately patriotic action in their view. I think one could probably point to the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, his intent to damage/destroy the CIA, his intent to deescalate tensions with the USSR, and his intent to deescalate American involvement in Vietnam as some of the evidence that (to them) JFK posed a serious and growing threat to national security. An added but not at all insignificant benefit of removing a president intent on de-escalation of wars and relaxing tensions with enemies is that the Military Industrial Complex ends up getting fed, which is what happened in Vietnam.

Who did it? I have no real reason to doubt the theory that James Angleton was likely the chief coordinator. Was he the one who ultimately initiated it? I don't know. I do believe that Angleton, Helms, Dulles, Hoover, and Johnson were all in on it and in agreement. Who else would be needed at the uppermost top level? I'm not sure I believe in the theory that an assassination could only happen if there was only one single individual jabbing their finger on their desk formally ordering that JFK be killed, like in a movie. Perhaps it was just someone, or a small group of powerful people like those named above, who assessed the situation and recognized an opportunity to make what would be, for them, a beneficial tactical move.