The BIG UNANSWERED QUESTION: Why was JFK murdered?

[Stephen Lavin]

16 hours 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. 

the plot outlined above is the storyline of the movie Executive Action - 1973 American conspiracy thriller film about the assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy, written by Dalton Trumbo, Mark Lane, and Donald Freed, and directed by David Miller.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Action_(film)

[Mervyn Hagger]

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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. 

Hi Greg. All of that brings us back to the basic question: Who killed JFK and why?

Put another way, for all the promoters of the LHO was not alone or not even the assassin crowd: Which came first, the organization to kill JFK, or JFK giving birth to his organizational killers?

The latter make no sense.

Think Chicago in the Thirties (or anywhere else since then). Gangs had bosses who controlled members who brought in money. Gang bosses rubbed out other gang bosses to get more money by takeover. (Think legit business corporations today.)

So the organization came first and JFK got in the way of its business model.

Name that gang.

[Mervyn Hagger]

56 minutes ago, Stephen Lavin said:

the plot outlined above is the storyline of the movie Executive Action - 1973 American conspiracy thriller film about the assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy, written by Dalton Trumbo, Mark Lane, and Donald Freed, and directed by David Miller.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Action_(film)

Sorry Steve, but that is just a pile of words. Answer the question: Who killed JFK and why? Airy-fairy musings don't fund killers, fund things as big as this, or even have an objective. Who gained from killing JFK and where is the evidence in cash. As they say in Texas: Money talks and bullshit walks.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Sorry Steve, but that is just a pile of words. Answer the question: Who killed JFK and why? Airy-fairy musings don't fund killers, fund things as big as this, or even have an objective. Who gained from killing JFK and where is the evidence in cash. As they say in Texas: Money talks and bullshit walks.

People who don't gain;
The American public
The Kennedy family
Oswald
Ruby
Mary Pinchot Meyer
All the people who spoke out about what they saw or knew. 

People who do gain;
Bankers/Federal Reserve/Wall Street - They can have someone predictable back in where they can keep trading on foreknowledge, keep investing on this and keep racking up debt for wars, which the tax payer picks up the tab for and private corporations profit from. 
Oil companies - They see demand soar along with profits during Vietnam. No threat to the oil depletion allowance.
Munitions suppliers - And all other companies profiting from Vietnam as the conflict is exponentially scaled up.
US Military - Wars mean more promotions, more high brass needed, so it's good for the upper echelons. Terrible for the ground troops. 
LBJ - The investigation brewing in regard to his past corrupt activities dies as he is now POTUS, he avoids jail and assumes the role he has always wanted. 
Allen Dulles - He is restored to a prestigious public life by LBJ and assumes a role on the Warren Commission, more important than setting his score with JFK, he is able to steer the investigation clear of the CIA or any of its assets.
The CIA - The organisation experiencing budget cuts and which was threatened with being scattered into a thousand pieces is now back to its unrestricted, unchecked, foreign policy making best, without an AG or president throwing spanners in the works. 
FBI - Hoover can continue unchecked, and doesn't have RFK busting his chops now that LBJ is in charge. 
Mafia - JFK & RFK gone, the thorn in their side and heat on organised crime is relaxed. 

Do we need more? I am probably missing some here. Rather than focusing on grudges, the picture is economics and restoring continuity. 


 

[Mervyn Hagger]

49 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

People who don't gain;
The American public
The Kennedy family
Oswald
Ruby
Mary Pinchot Meyer
All the people who spoke out about what they saw or knew. 

People who do gain;
Bankers/Federal Reserve/Wall Street - They can have someone predictable back in where they can keep trading on foreknowledge, keep investing on this and keep racking up debt for wars, which the tax payer picks up the tab for and private corporations profit from. 
Oil companies - They see demand soar along with profits during Vietnam. No threat to the oil depletion allowance.
Munitions suppliers - And all other companies profiting from Vietnam as the conflict is exponentially scaled up.
US Military - Wars mean more promotions, more high brass needed, so it's good for the upper echelons. Terrible for the ground troops. 
LBJ - The investigation brewing in regard to his past corrupt activities dies as he is now POTUS, he avoids jail and assumes the role he has always wanted. 
Allen Dulles - He is restored to a prestigious public life by LBJ and assumes a role on the Warren Commission, more important than setting his score with JFK, he is able to steer the investigation clear of the CIA or any of its assets.
The CIA - The organisation experiencing budget cuts and which was threatened with being scattered into a thousand pieces is now back to its unrestricted, unchecked, foreign policy making best, without an AG or president throwing spanners in the works. 
FBI - Hoover can continue unchecked, and doesn't have RFK busting his chops now that LBJ is in charge. 
Mafia - JFK & RFK gone, the thorn in their side and heat on organised crime is relaxed. 

Do we need more? I am probably missing some here. Rather than focusing on grudges, the picture is economics and restoring continuity. 


 

Chris, try using that as an argument in a court of law or even an academic article. It will go right into the waste paper or deleted cyber basket. 

Now answer the question: who murdered JFK and why?

You are in a court of law as the prosecuting attorney.

WHO (name) are you prosecuting?

WHAT was the MOTIVE for the murder? (Actually, you don't need a motive per se, but it helps in PROVING that the accused YOU NAMED is guilty!)

Skip all the encyclopedic mythology - because at the moment that is all that it is.

ANSWER the questions that you would have to tell the court in your opening argument - for which you will have submit proven evidence to back it up.

Step forward and address the court Mr Barnard ...

(YOU'RE ON!)

Edited December 14, 2020 by Mervyn Hagger

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Chris, try using that as an argument in a court of law or even an academic article. It will go right into the waste paper or deleted cyber basket. 

Now answer the question: who murdered JFK and why?

You are in a court of law as the prosecuting attorney.

WHO (name) are you prosecuting?

WHAT was the MOTIVE for the murder? (Actually, you don't need a motive per se, but it helps in PROVING that the accused YOU NAMED is guilty!)

Skip all the encyclopedic mythology - because at the moment that is all that it is.

ANSWER the questions that you would have to tell the court in your opening argument - for which you will have submit proven evidence to back it up.

Step forward and address the court Mr Barnard ...

(YOU'RE ON!)

Well, in which case, you have no case. The chain of evidence is broken, your witnesses and perpetrators are deceased or too old. I'll put it back on you, Mervyn, and ask you; who killed JFK & why? And how exactly are you going to prove it in court? You're asking someone who isn't an advocate or legal professional to make a case? Isn't that like asking a submarine commander to drive an F1 car or land a 747? 

I think its entirely disrespectful to disparage all of the authors who have put so much work in to shedding light on this matter, giving up so much of their lives researching, many of which using sources that would be considered credible and you referring to it as 'mythology'. Maybe you should have said it was 'circumstantial'? They (some of the authors) were also courageous enough to speak out at the time, when it mattered the most and they sacrificed a lot. To put things in context, the most used source of information on the planet right now is Wikipedia (partly due to google's SEO) and that says LHO was a lone gunman who shot and killed JFK. That wasn't proven to be the case in a courtroom and is no more credible that the work of many researchers, many of which have pulled apart the absurdity of the WC findings. In reality, the whole thing should be labelled as 'unsolved'. Furthermore I would add, the legal system has failed JFK, why would you assume it's honest now or make it the benchmark of acceptance? 

Having said that, if you have a way, then you have my support, go head and explain in detail. 

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

22 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Well, in which case, you have no case. The chain of evidence is broken, your witnesses and perpetrators are deceased or too old. I'll put it back on you, Mervyn, and ask you; who killed JFK & why? And how exactly are you going to prove it in court? You're asking someone who isn't an advocate or legal professional to make a case? Isn't that like asking a submarine commander to drive an F1 car or land a 747? 

I think its entirely disrespectful to disparage all of the authors who have put so much work in to shedding light on this matter, giving up so much of their lives researching, many of which using sources that would be considered credible and you referring to it as 'mythology'. Maybe you should have said it was 'circumstantial'? They (some of the authors) were also courageous enough to speak out at the time, when it mattered the most and they sacrificed a lot. To put things in context, the most used source of information on the planet right now is Wikipedia (partly due to google's SEO) and that says LHO was a lone gunman who shot and killed JFK. That wasn't proven to be the case in a courtroom and is no more credible that the work of many researchers, many of which have pulled apart the absurdity of the WC findings. In reality, the whole thing should be labelled as 'unsolved'. Furthermore I would add, the legal system has failed JFK, why would you assume it's honest now or make it the benchmark of acceptance? 

Having said that, if you have a way, then you have my support, go head and explain in detail. 

 

Chris, how can "the chain of evidence be broken", if we don't know what the real evidence is?

Murder does not have a time limitation for prosecution.

It may be a cold case and maybe most of the participants are deceased. On the other hand, maybe not. Think poopoo war crimes.

So, we begin with 'WHO' and look at what the case file currently says.

There was no trial.

The accused was shot to death in Police HQ in front of the press (!) - which is almost as bad as the underlying crime - the murder of JFK.

So before we can ask 'Who Else' (but LHO)? - we need to know WHY?

Why was JFK murdered?

Neither one of these issues has ever been properly addressed.

Using In Limine to restrict the case file and narrow it down to WHO and WHY, we can immediately start throwing a lot of books and magazines and newspapers and recorded interviews out of the door to our cyber court room because they are not evidence.

Speculation is not wanted: "Just the facts" as Joe Friday used to say on TV, but what are the facts?

You play Prosecutor and present your case ...

Edited December 14, 2020 by Mervyn Hagger

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Chris, how can "the chain of evidence be broken", if we don't know what the real evidence is?

Murder does not have a time limitation for prosecution.

It may be a cold case and maybe most of the participants are deceased. On the other hand, maybe not. Think poopoo war crimes.

So, we begin with 'WHO' and look at what the case file currently says.

There was no trial.

The accused was shot to death in Police HQ in front of the press (!) - which is almost as bad as the underlying crime - the murder of JFK.

So before we can ask 'Who Else' (but LHO)? - we need to know WHY?

Why was JFK murdered?

Neither one of these issues has ever been properly addressed.

Using In Limine to restrict the case file and narrow it down to WHO and WHY, we can immediately start throwing a lot of books and magazines and newspapers and recorded interviews out of the door to our cyber court room because they are not evidence.

Speculation is not wanted: "Just the facts" as Joe Friday used to say on TV, but what are the facts?

You play Prosecutor and present your case ...

Lets start;

Do we have the murder weapon(s) ?
Do we have the bullets that caused the fatality and wounded others?
Was an autopsy carried out in Dallas as legally required? 

Aren't they 3 points where a chain of evidence is broken? Case dismissed, insufficient evidence ... 

[Mervyn Hagger]

9 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Lets start;

Do we have the murder weapon(s) ?
Do we have the bullets that caused the fatality and wounded others?
Was an autopsy carried out in Dallas as legally required? 

Aren't they 3 points where a chain of evidence is broken? Case dismissed, insufficient evidence ... 

Chris, that is not how cases are presented to courts.

1. Do we have a crime? - Yes, the crime of murder.

2. Do we have a victim? - Yes, JFK.

3. Do we have an alleged perp.? - Yes, LHO.

Only now can you get to the bit about linking LHO to JFK.

That is where evidence comes in.

But, if you are going to claim that LHO was either a) not involved or b) was not the shooter or c) not the lone shooter, then you have to name the person or persons who committed the crime of murder.

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Chris, that is not how cases are presented to courts.

1. Do we have a crime? - Yes, the crime of murder.

2. Do we have a victim? - Yes, JFK.

3. Do we have an alleged perp.? - Yes, LHO.

Only now can you get to the bit about linking LHO to JFK.

That is where evidence comes in.

But, if you are going to claim that LHO was either a) not involved or b) was not the shooter or c) not the lone shooter, then you have to name the person or persons who committed the crime of murder.

 

I don't really know where you want me to go with this or the purpose, as nobody has a bonafide alternative to LHO but, we could certainly go down a route of proving it wasn't LHO if we were defending him (not proving he wasn't involved but, proving he didn't kill JFK). But again, this seems applicable:
"You're asking someone who isn't an advocate or legal professional to make a case? Isn't that like asking a submarine commander to drive an F1 car or land a 747?" 

[Mervyn Hagger]

4 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I don't really know where you want me to go with this or the purpose, as nobody has a bonafide alternative to LHO but, we could certainly go down a route of proving it wasn't LHO if we were defending him (not proving he wasn't involved but, proving he didn't kill JFK). But again, this seems applicable:
"You're asking someone who isn't an advocate or legal professional to make a case? Isn't that like asking a submarine commander to drive an F1 car or land a 747?" 

Chris, take a look at this main thread and all of the related main threads, but especially this one because it is alive, while others on this Forum are either dead or dying. But this thread is alive with all manner of conspiracy discussions. All manner of finger pointing. As far as I can tell, none of the people posting have the qualifications you refer to.

How about the avalanche of books, magazine and newspaper articles?

Most are opinionated pieces.

So let's begin at the beginning since I did not bring you here, you came here of your own free will.

You commented on matters relating to the murder of JFK.

Now I am saying let's deal with this topic as though we are in a court room.

The victim of unlawful killing is JFK.

Now, are you prosecuting LHO as a sole gunman or part of a conspiracy with others to kill JFK. If so, who are these other people and what is your evidence?

Edited December 14, 2020 by Mervyn Hagger

[Richard Booth]

19 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Chris, that is not how cases are presented to courts.

1. Do we have a crime? - Yes, the crime of murder.

2. Do we have a victim? - Yes, JFK.

3. Do we have an alleged perp.? - Yes, LHO.

Only now can you get to the bit about linking LHO to JFK.

That is where evidence comes in.

But, if you are going to claim that LHO was either a) not involved or b) was not the shooter or c) not the lone shooter, then you have to name the person or persons who committed the crime of murder.

 

I think you are getting this backwards.

It is up to the prosecution to prove that JFK was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald. They have to prove that, it is not the other way around where the Defense has to prove who did it and why. 

The defense does not have to name the person or persons who committed the crime of murder. 

[Mervyn Hagger]

10 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

I think you are getting this backwards.

It is up to the prosecution to prove that JFK was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald. They have to prove that, it is not the other way around where the Defense has to prove who did it and why. 

The defense does not have to name the person or persons who committed the crime of murder. 

Richard, read the topic. I am tackling this from the point of view of law enforcement trying to assist a Prosecutor to prosecute for the unlawful killing of JFK.

Chris is the unfortunate Prosecutor and he is trying to wriggle out of doing his job (lol).

No one is defending anyone, yet.

Do you want to take on that role?

The official version says that LHO did it on his own.

So I guess LHO is your client, unless Chris is going to charge other people as part of a conspiracy or as the real actors in this crime.

I am not the jury, just the judge ruling for order in the court.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Mervyn Hagger

[Richard Booth]

2 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Richard, read the topic. I am tackling this from the point of view of law enforcement trying to assist a Prosecutor to prosecute for the unlawful killing of JFK.

Chris is the unfortunate Prosecutor and he is trying to wriggle out of doing his job (lol).

No one is defending anyone, yet.

Do you want to take on that role?

The official version says that LHO did it on his own.

So I guess LHO is your client, unless Chris is going to charge other people as part of a conspiracy or as the real actors in this crime.

 

 

I see what you mean.

I believe that this endeavor would fail because we do not have the kind of evidence necessary in order to carry out a successful prosecution like that. It is largely circumstantial evidence. 

This is akin to the situation where the homicide detective knows who committed the crime, knows several key suspects, knows he is right, but doesn't have enough evidence to allow the DA to prosecute. 

The books that you disparage and waive off as merely a bunch of rubbish or opinion I believe do have the answers to this.

I believe that the assassination was carried out by a group of people which consisted in large part of CIA personnel who were involved in the Cuba operations. I believe that William Harvey is one of these people. I believe there are other CIA officials who participated and can be named.

There is not enough evidence to successfully carry out a prosecution of these people. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means there isn't enough evidence. 

I get the impression you establish where or not something is truth according to what can or can't be prosecuted in a court room when the reality is the courts regularly fail to provide justice and in many cases send innocent people to the death chamber or fail to convict obviously guilty people. 

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

1 minute ago, Richard Booth said:

I see what you mean.

I believe that this endeavor would fail because we do not have the kind of evidence necessary in order to carry out a successful prosecution like that. It is largely circumstantial evidence. 

This is akin to the situation where the homicide detective knows who committed the crime, knows several key suspects, knows he is right, but doesn't have enough evidence to allow the DA to prosecute. 

The books that you disparage and waive off as merely a bunch of rubbish or opinion I believe do have the answers to this.

I believe that the assassination was carried out by a group of people which consisted in large part of CIA personnel who were involved in the Cuba operations. I believe that William Harvey is one of these people. I believe there are other CIA officials who participated and can be named.

There is not enough evidence to successfully carry out a prosecution of these people. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means there isn't enough evidence. 

I get the impression you establish where or not something is truth according to what can or can't be prosecuted in a court room when the reality is the courts regularly fail to provide justice and in many cases send innocent people to the death chamber or fail to convict obviously guilty people. 

 

Richard, a crime was committed.

The crime is murder and the victim was JFK.

Are we agreed so far?

The Official Version as it stands says the LHO was the lone gunman.

Are we agreed on that (irrespective of whether you think that he was/wasn't totally/partially involved.)

If we are agreed on those basics, then we can progress.

If you tell me that JFK did not die or what not even shot, then we can't go anywhere.

As to the books, I don't disparage them, I have many of them and that includes Larry Hancock's excellent 'Shadow Warfare' and the detailed research of Gary Murr who I am in correspondence with outside of this Forum. But those books are not the issue here. The basic facts are the issue.

If we can't discuss this from what is actually known and set aside ideas that a Martian in an invisible craft spirited JFK away and left a dummy in his place, then there is no point. But I assume we both are grounded in reality.