The BIG UNANSWERED QUESTION: Why was JFK murdered?

[Richard Booth]

Just now, Mervyn Hagger said:

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.

 

Yes, of course a crime was committed. 

Yes we agree on these things you mention.

I remain convinced this is a pointless endeavor because the proof necessary to successfully prosecute the suspected perpetrators is not in hand.

Quite simply, they got away with it and the people who did it left no concrete evidence that implicates those responsible.

This will remain a case that must be analyzed in books and essays, where it can be shown that Oswald did not do the crime he was accused of, and where speculation as to who did it has largely been carried out. 

Any endeavor to try to prosecute the perpetrators will fail because the evidence is circumstantial. I don't think you're going to get anywhere and any participation in this endeavor is a waste of time.

[Mervyn Hagger]

1 minute ago, Richard Booth said:

Yes, of course a crime was committed. 

Yes we agree on these things you mention.

I remain convinced this is a pointless endeavor because the proof necessary to successfully prosecute the suspected perpetrators is not in hand.

Quite simply, they got away with it and the people who did it left no concrete evidence that implicates those responsible.

This will remain a case that must be analyzed in books and essays, where it can be shown that Oswald did not do the crime he was accused of, and where speculation as to who did it has largely been carried out. 

Any endeavor to try to prosecute the perpetrators will fail because the evidence is circumstantial. I don't think you're going to get anywhere and any participation in this endeavor is a waste of time.

Richard, you contradict yourself.

You are here posting away on this Forum, but why if it is a waste of time?

Then you state "they got away with it" = but who is "THEY" and what did "they" get away with?

What was "their" MOTIVE?

If "THEY" got away with something, and if whatever "they" got away with has not been stopped and prosecuted as the spoils of a crime (murder of JFK), then the criminal activity continues today.

If that is the case then this case is by no means "cold".

 

[Richard Booth]

4 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Richard, you contradict yourself.

You are here posting away on this Forum, but why if it is a waste of time?

 

 

You fail to understand what I said. Being on this forum and talking to people here is not equal to and is not the same thing as prosecuting something.

What I said is a waste of time is thinking you can prosecute a case against those responsible given there isn't any evidence.

I don't contradict myself, in fact what I said is damn clear. You twist what I say for the sake of arguing. This is a waste of time. Mervyn.

There are plenty of cases out there where insufficient evidence exists to successfully prosecute those responsible. This case is one of them, largely because it was carried out by professionals.

Edited December 14, 2020 by Richard Booth

[Mervyn Hagger]

11 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

You fail to understand what I said. Being on this forum and talking to people here is not equal to and is not the same thing as prosecuting something.

What I said is a waste of time is thinking you can prosecute a case against those responsible given there isn't any evidence.

I don't contradict myself, in fact what I said is damn clear. You twist what I say for the sake of arguing. This is a waste of time. Mervyn.

There are plenty of cases out there where insufficient evidence exists to successfully prosecute those responsible. This case is one of them, largely because it was carried out by professionals.

Richard, I am not twisting anything. You are here and this Forum is filled with accusations and counter accusations.

I am a freelance investigative journalist and a published contributor to academic journals.

So I began this thread in a very modest and open and straightforward manner, and you chose to join in,

Fair enough and I welcome your input.

I am merely bringing this topic down from cloud nine to earth and looking at it as any sane judge would do, and any open minded jury would do.

It is the job of the prosecutor to accuse and get a conviction of guilt.

It is the job of the defense to prove no guilt.

That is all, and this thread is like any other thread on this Forum only this thread is shoving aside wild speculation.

I liked Joe Friday who wanted "just the facts".

So what are the facts other than the death of JFK in a Dallas street at High Noon?

Edited December 14, 2020 by Mervyn Hagger

[Richard Booth]

20 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Richard, I am not twisting anything. 

Yes you are. I said that it's a waste of time to think you can prosecute a case against the perpetrators in JFK's murder because the evidentiary record is not strong enough to do that.

You then claimed that I was contradicting myself because I want to participate in this forum and talk to others. 

That is twisting things. This forum is not a court room. It is not the same thing as carrying out a prosecution successfully, and it is absurd if you think the two are comparable.

You are wasting time and I think you just want to argue. I'm not going to participate in it.  I'm most certainly not going to continue talking to someone intellectually disingenuous, who twists things for the sake of petty argument.

[Mervyn Hagger]

41 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

Yes you are. I said that it's a waste of time to think you can prosecute a case against the perpetrators in JFK's murder because the evidentiary record is not strong enough to do that.

You then claimed that I was contradicting myself because I want to participate in this forum and talk to others. 

That is twisting things. This forum is not a court room. It is not the same thing as carrying out a prosecution successfully, and it is absurd if you think the two are comparable.

You are wasting time and I think you just want to argue. I'm not going to participate in it.  I'm most certainly not going to continue talking to someone intellectually disingenuous, who twists things for the sake of petty argument.

Richard, I will let your own word condemn you. I won't argue with you.

Because you are turning this thread into something differe. nt than what it is, I will restate it:

"The BIG UNANSWERED QUESTION: Why was JFK murdered?"

That's it.

At first you decided that it had something to do with a defensive position. I told you to reread the preamble - you did and then to defend yourself you began alleging motive. Goodbye Richard.

To open minds this thread is exactly what the title says that it is.

The official version says the LHO murdered (unlawful killing), but all we actually know is that JFK was shot and killed in Dallas in the middle of the day in plain sight of onlookers.

If you don't want to participate Richard that is your right, but don't try to stir up animosity when it does not exist.

 

[Jeff Carter]

The U.S. power elite - i.e. the cabal which is presumed to exist above the president - is remarkably and uniquely opaque. The extensive cover-up of the circumstances of the crime, and seeming coordination of personnel across official agencies, seems to indicate the murder was at least sanctioned somewhere up in those stratospheres - but there is no means to clarify these things because the most crucial information, at least as it appears, has been removed from the record. That would include items such as the complete Air Force One transcripts (or recording), and the briefing boards from the NPIC analysis (Nov 23-24/63) or official description or memo re: those briefing boards.

[Mervyn Hagger]

3 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The U.S. power elite - i.e. the cabal which is presumed to exist above the president - is remarkably and uniquely opaque. The extensive cover-up of the circumstances of the crime, and seeming coordination of personnel across official agencies, seems to indicate the murder was at least sanctioned somewhere up in those stratospheres - but there is no means to clarify these things because the most crucial information, at least as it appears, has been removed from the record. That would include items such as the complete Air Force One transcripts (or recording), and the briefing boards from the NPIC analysis (Nov 23-24/63) or official description or memo re: those briefing boards.

Jeff there is a way to trace this cabal from the first rigged (fraudulent) election by Democrat LBJ.

What is missing in all of this is the fact that the Democrats were the racist party of the Klu Klux Klan. Now that is being hushed up with a new slogan BLM. It is all meaningless drivel.

There is even another new thread on here that mentions the racist Democrat who supposedly was going to bump off JFK at the Electoral College level.

But this is the problem with this topic:

A LOT of people seem to enjoy just making up more allegations while ignoring the main issue:

JFK was murdered in broad daylight in front of an audience in the round at high noon in Dallas, Texas, but no one seems to want to deal with the facts, only the fiction.

The official version concluded that a loner named LHO killed JFK, but this is disputed by many people.

But WHY was JFK murdered in broad daylight in front of an audience?

Was it the work of a loner?

If not - who and why?

What was the motive?

The wooly-bully reasons posted by many are downright absurd, but they keep the silliest of social posters busy presenting their opinions founded in nothing but guided by their own vanity to express THEIR opinions.

But their opinions are totally meaningless and still we come back to the main question asked by this thread ....

Who murdered JFK?

[Paul Brancato]

Are you frustrated? Join the club. I asked you what your research into McClendon revealed to you about the JfK assassination and you had nothing to offer. Not that he isn’t an interesting individual or that your research isn’t important, or even that it’s not relevant. Many of us here are not new to the subject. Many like me have been trying to piece together who and why for decades. Others are much more steeped in research than I. No one claims to know for certain the answers to your questions. All of us want to know, want our government to care and our media to report. It’s not our collective faults that they don’t or haven’t. 
is your purpose to help us navigate the choppy waters and arrive at our destination? Then try to connect the dots and tell us what you find. 

[Greg Doudna]

22 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

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.

OK, I'll make an attempt (I like your questions and precision). I am not personally certain on what follows, but for the sake of argument:

The gang: joint chiefs. Consensus: JFK was incompetent and treasonous. Ideology mixed with realpolitik. "For the good of the nation this <Kennedy> must die" (takeoff from "Jesus Christ Superstar").  

However there is no evidence tying the assassination to the joint chiefs, nor would that be alleged. The charge in court would be: Marcello of New Orleans. The evidence would be: two testimonies of confession after the fact, and one testimony of stated overt intent before the fact, to assassinate JFK. 

There would be argument of means: he was one of the most powerful Mob bosses in the US, the Mob boss over several states including Dallas, Texas, where the assassination occurred.  

Evidence would be brought forth that Marcello was behind Ruby's gangland execution of Oswald immediately after Oswald appeared to have shot JFK. Evidence would be brought forth that Marcello was financially in control of Ruby's Carousel Lounge. That Marcello partly through Ruby had useful contacts in the Dallas Police Department. Phone calls, Ruby contacts, extremely compelling circumstantial evidence combined with overt testimony of Marcello confessing directly control of Ruby in the immediate time frame of the assassination.

It would be argued that "who was behind Ruby killing Oswald, also is likely to have been behind the killing of JFK", q.e.d.

Motive: Marcello in league with other Mob bosses hated RFK and JFK for prosecutions, and in Marcello's case, deporting Marcello to central America in a way that had almost gotten Marcello killed. 

However, it would be conceded that no sensible Mob figure, such as Marcello, would on his own or in concert with others decide on their own to kill a president. That would be suicidal, declaration of war on the entire US government with the wrath of God falling on them. It can be assumed, though there was and is no proof, that Marcello or associates received some form of green light, "OK", "go". In a normal prosecution, Marcello would be charged and encouraged to tell who gave the green light. Marcello however is dead today. The prosecution therefore would be limited solely to Marcello, even though we privately consider it certain that it went higher.

Testimony would be brought forward that Oswald was connected to Marcello or his organization. Testimony from a witness would be brought forward that Marcello confessed to having employed both Oswald's uncle and Oswald himself, making Oswald easy to deploy or use as a patsy (take the blame) for the assassination, and witness testimony that Marcello confessed that that was exactly what Oswald's role was in Marcello's eyes.

That would be the gist of the argument. Filled out with familiar details from e.g. David Scheim, Contract on America. Basically it would be the HSCA investigation's conclusion that Marcello (and 2-3 other Mob heavies) had means, motive, and opportunity to do the assassination, but the HSCA committee lacked evidence that they did. That was before the confessions of Marcello, however. So this would essentially be a Blakey case plus the addition of a Marcello confession. 

Official coverup would not be argued in this case, only the case for conviction of Marcello.

The key confession evidence is that of van Laningham's testimony and FBI tapes at the time van Laningham was an informant in Marcello's cell, which would be subpoened (have those tapes ever been brought to light? I don't think so). The second confession testimony would be Frank Ragano, the attorney for Trafficante. There is also a hilarious story that later Marcello at the end of his life, suffering from dementia and at home, confused his nurses with aides in his better days and, out of his mind, was giving them orders related to carrying out the JFK assassination. But as I understand it courts do not admit testimony into evidence including confessions from someone not in their right mind. 

Would this be in the ballpark of what you had in mind Mervyn?

[Adam Johnson]

Mervyn,  in your guise as a prosecution attorney or DPD detective assisting the prosecution please prove one, just one fact for me and you can have my further attention:

Please prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 people on this forum that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the TSBD 6th floor window, firing a rifle at the time of the assassination!

I await your scholarly legal eagle reply.

[Mervyn Hagger]

9 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Are you frustrated? Join the club. I asked you what your research into McClendon revealed to you about the JfK assassination and you had nothing to offer. Not that he isn’t an interesting individual or that your research isn’t important, or even that it’s not relevant. Many of us here are not new to the subject. Many like me have been trying to piece together who and why for decades. Others are much more steeped in research than I. No one claims to know for certain the answers to your questions. All of us want to know, want our government to care and our media to report. It’s not our collective faults that they don’t or haven’t. 
is your purpose to help us navigate the choppy waters and arrive at our destination? Then try to connect the dots and tell us what you find. 

Hi Paul!

No, I am not at frustrated with my research which did not begin with JFK on November 22, 1963, but sort of came to engulf it due to a timeline I was working on. November 22, 1963 is smack dab in the middle of it. So is Gordon McLendon (no double 'c').

My appearance here is part of a bigger endeavor and for your part I thank you for the 'Brandy' suggestion. An interesting character about whom at the moment, I am not sure what to make of him. I can see 'guilt by association', but I try to avoid that dot connection like the plague.

I also thank Gary Murr who came into my life via a friend in Norway who was drowning himself in the history of a ship and a Texan named Don Pierson who brought it to his attention via a 50kW station called 'Swinging Radio England' which was cobbled together from a variety of US formats of the Sixties and was the most brash and in-your-face (ears) station ever to affront the solemnity of the staid British Crown.

Pierson had earlier dragged a carbon copy of McLendon's KLIF in Dallas across the seas to the coastline of England and eventually, the UK passed a law to censor it (because it was so popular), and then told the BBC to make a carbon copy of WRL, which they did very badly as BBC Radio One.

But I interviewed Don Pierson in his home in Eastland, Texas - on tape and at one point he became furious with me. (We were friends who had previously gone into business together in publishing and I also made programs for his FCC licensed Eastland radio station.)

Pierson told me that if I ever asked a similar question again - that would be 'it' for our friendship. He did this with a hand across the throat gesture to stop the tape and then told me what for!

I told my friend in Norway who I gave a lot of Pierson documents to, and for years this friend in Norway plagued me about to learn more about why Pierson had reacted this way. For years I shrugged him off. Finally I began digging.

In the meantime Gary Murr contacted my friend in Norway because of my friend's web site about Pierson's stations.

My friend in Norway then sent me a copy of Gary's email.

Years went by, and then, in the last seven days, Gary sent me information that he had been collecting for publication about one of Pierson's ships, before Pierson got hold of it.

The dots connected to Bobby Kennedy; the Zenith Project on the U of S.Miami campus and Manuel Artime Buesa, and finally to Gordon McLendon in Dallas - all via Galveston and .... Sweden.

A very complicated tale which I am assembling into a new timeline.

Do I and did I have a quick answer to your previous question: No.

But I am working on it.

[Mervyn Hagger]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

OK, I'll make an attempt (I like your questions and precision). I am not personally certain on what follows, but for the sake of argument:

The gang: joint chiefs. Consensus: JFK was incompetent and treasonous. Ideology mixed with realpolitik. "For the good of the nation this <Kennedy> must die" (takeoff from "Jesus Christ Superstar").  

However there is no evidence tying the assassination to the joint chiefs, nor would that be alleged. The charge in court would be: Marcello of New Orleans. The evidence would be: two testimonies of confession after the fact, and one testimony of stated overt intent before the fact, to assassinate JFK. 

There would be argument of means: he was one of the most powerful Mob bosses in the US, the Mob boss over several states including Dallas, Texas, where the assassination occurred.  

Evidence would be brought forth that Marcello was behind Ruby's gangland execution of Oswald immediately after Oswald appeared to have shot JFK. Evidence would be brought forth that Marcello was financially in control of Ruby's Carousel Lounge. That Marcello partly through Ruby had useful contacts in the Dallas Police Department. Phone calls, Ruby contacts, extremely compelling circumstantial evidence combined with overt testimony of Marcello confessing directly control of Ruby in the immediate time frame of the assassination.

It would be argued that "who was behind Ruby killing Oswald, also is likely to have been behind the killing of JFK", q.e.d.

Motive: Marcello in league with other Mob bosses hated RFK and JFK for prosecutions, and in Marcello's case, deporting Marcello to central America in a way that had almost gotten Marcello killed. 

However, it would be conceded that no sensible Mob figure, such as Marcello, would on his own or in concert with others decide on their own to kill a president. That would be suicidal, declaration of war on the entire US government with the wrath of God falling on them. It can be assumed, though there was and is no proof, that Marcello or associates received some form of green light, "OK", "go". In a normal prosecution, Marcello would be charged and encouraged to tell who gave the green light. Marcello however is dead today. The prosecution therefore would be limited solely to Marcello, even though we privately consider it certain that it went higher.

Testimony would be brought forward that Oswald was connected to Marcello or his organization. Testimony from a witness would be brought forward that Marcello confessed to having employed both Oswald's uncle and Oswald himself, making Oswald easy to deploy or use as a patsy (take the blame) for the assassination, and witness testimony that Marcello confessed that that was exactly what Oswald's role was in Marcello's eyes.

That would be the gist of the argument. Filled out with familiar details from e.g. David Scheim, Contract on America. Basically it would be the HSCA investigation's conclusion that Marcello (and 2-3 other Mob heavies) had means, motive, and opportunity to do the assassination, but the HSCA committee lacked evidence that they did. That was before the confessions of Marcello, however. So this would essentially be a Blakey case plus the addition of a Marcello confession. 

Official coverup would not be argued in this case, only the case for conviction of Marcello.

The key confession evidence is that of van Laningham's testimony and FBI tapes at the time van Laningham was an informant in Marcello's cell, which would be subpoened (have those tapes ever been brought to light? I don't think so). The second confession testimony would be Frank Ragano, the attorney for Trafficante. There is also a hilarious story that later Marcello at the end of his life, suffering from dementia and at home, confused his nurses with aides in his better days and, out of his mind, was giving them orders related to carrying out the JFK assassination. But as I understand it courts do not admit testimony into evidence including confessions from someone not in their right mind. 

Would this be in the ballpark of what you had in mind Mervyn?

Hi Greg.

Let me address your second point, first. I basically agree with it ("Marcello of New Orleans").

On your first point I find it too wooly, it is not something that people kill for.

Money is why Americans (primarily) kill. (There are secondary reasons of course.)

Money got JFK killed and my finger is pointing at the ownership control of oil and (natural) gas.

Bobby Kennedy was also a factor, and RFK lied through his teeth about what he was doing with a faction of CIA, and because I don't think JFK was ignorant, I think that he was a dangerous two face bastard who almost triggered a nuclear World War III.

Too many on this Forum worship the memories of JFK and RFK, but that is what happens when cults form.

I am not a member of that cult and the cult members hate what I write - which is, as Jack Webb might have said, composed of "just the facts".  

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

1 hour ago, Adam Johnson said:

Mervyn,  in your guise as a prosecution attorney or DPD detective assisting the prosecution please prove one, just one fact for me and you can have my further attention:

Please prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 people on this forum that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the TSBD 6th floor window, firing a rifle at the time of the assassination!

I await your scholarly legal eagle reply.

Hi Adam.

Now where did you get the idea that I am playing the part of a prosecuting attorney or a DPD detective, from?

Not from me!

Please read what I had (consistently) written on this thread.

[Adam Johnson]

On 12/13/2020 at 11:31 PM, Mervyn Hagger said:

Mervyn asks: 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?

Hi Mervyn, you've stated from the first post you want a who and why in a tone that infers you believe it was Lee Harvey Oswald and he alone for motives known only to LHO. (If i am wrong as to your beliefs i apologise).

Your asking we here on this forum to supply you with an alternative who and why that could stand up to a court room trial held today as shown by your first post above.

I am asking you before we have to provide you with the much more difficult and involved answer to these questions to simply prove one fact.....prove beyond a reasonable doubt that LHO was firing from the TSBD 6th floor window during the assassination!

Regards Adam.

Edited December 15, 2020 by Adam Johnson