The BIG UNANSWERED QUESTION: Why was JFK murdered?

[Mervyn Hagger]

1 hour ago, Adam Johnson said:

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.

Hi Adam.

I don't know how much clearer I can make my reason for starting this thread, but I will try:

1. I stated that I am playing judge, not jury and that my sole purpose in this is to 'maintain order in court' (lol).

2. The case has been brought due to the unlawful killing (murder) of JFK on November 22, 1963.

3. The USA maintains as Prosecutor, that LHO killed JFK all by himself.

4. In a court of law MOTIVE is not necessary, but it can help with either the prosecution or defense side of the case.

So what I did was pose a question (well, I suppose it is a split question in two parts):

Who killed JFK and why?

Forget all the entangled storytelling involving guilt by association.

Let's look at the case as if it is being presented in a court of law (in Texas, since that is where the crime took place). It can be a Federal or a State case - you choose.

But In Limine comes into play: no rambling guilt by association and "I think this" or "I think that".

That's all ruled inadmissible in this court room.

I know that many who don't understand the way courts work, think that "Donald Trump" lost in a US Supreme Court case very recently. He wasn't even a party to the suit. It was brought by the State of Texas and the USSC ruled that due to "Latches" (timing, it could have been brought earlier by someone in one of the defendant States), and because of "Standing" (it was not brought by someone in one of the defendant States), there was no case to be heard. End of.

So we are not playing by the interpretation of the popular press (which in the Trump instance above is just downright silly and wrong), we are going by the rules of a Texas court.

With all that restated: who killed JFK and why?

Back to you.

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Mervyn Hagger

[Chuck Schwartz]

JFK was killed because he was in the process of de-escalating the war in Vietnam and the Military (read LeMay) viewed that as appeasement to communism (see John Newman's *JFK and VietnaM"). The lone nut gunman theory was developed hours after the assassination. The "autopsy" had to agree with this theory. That is why the official "autopsy" was done under Military (read LeMay) direction.  Paul O'Connor was a witness to the "autopsy" in Bethesda. He described a cigar smoking general that was barking orders. LeMay and Dulles were friends.  Dulles made sure the official cover up occurred via the WC. There were many sub-plots, but I believe that this was the JFK hit explained in a nutshell.

[Mervyn Hagger]

2 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

JFK was killed because he was in the process of de-escalating the war in Vietnam and the Military (read LeMay) viewed that as appeasement to communism (see John Newman's *JFK and VietnaM"). The lone nut gunman theory was developed hours after the assassination. The "autopsy" had to agree with this theory. That is why the official "autopsy" was done under Military (read LeMay) direction.  Paul O'Connor was a witness to the "autopsy" in Bethesda. He described a cigar smoking general that was barking orders. LeMay and Dulles were friends.  Dulles made sure the official cover up occurred via the WC. There were many sub-plots, but I believe that this was the JFK hit explained in a nutshell.

Chuck, I don't buy your answer. WHO exactly was threatened by this? Forget the "autopsy", stick to item number one: WHY? and then go to WHO? There is no motive. NONE. Look at all of the corresponding variations of policy. JFK and his brother were lying war mongers. A nuclear war with China was even discussed. Robert Kennedy was waging this same war against Cuba - AFTER the Bay of Pigs. People kill for personal reasons and most of them are about money. I want to know WHO was to gain?

[Chuck Schwartz]

Mervyn, I respectfully disagree with you.  I believe there were certain conservatives in the military that felt that communism had to be stopped in Vietnam. They felt that WW2 occurred because we appeased Hitler and did not want to make the same mistake twice. JFK was standing between them and the contiuation/escalation of the war in Vietnam.  Thus, I feel that the motive was patriotism, not money. (in my opinion that patriotism was greatly misplaced)

[David Boylan]

There is always this - https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Tipping_Point.html

 

Or this - https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_The_Wheaton_Lead.html

[Mervyn Hagger]

29 minutes ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Mervyn, I respectfully disagree with you.  I believe there were certain conservatives in the military that felt that communism had to be stopped in Vietnam. They felt that WW2 occurred because we appeased Hitler and did not want to make the same mistake twice. JFK was standing between them and the contiuation/escalation of the war in Vietnam.  Thus, I feel that the motive was patriotism, not money. (in my opinion that patriotism was greatly misplaced)

Chuck - you wrote: "Thus, I feel that the motive was patriotism, not money."

We are discussing KILLING someone and not just any someone, in broad daylight surrounded on all sides by witnesses, and that is NOT the way the secret forces operate.

They work in stealth so that the hit takes place and everyone later wonders what happened.

This was a ridiculous killing.

Consequently you don't name the person who masterminded this killing.

But even the daft way in which it took place would require massive cooperation and money to shut people up.

Patriotism is something so nebulous that it is difficult to get any two people to agree as to what it is.

Money talks, bullshit walks.

This was more akin to a Mob hit and there is a name that others have suggested and according to some, this individual had both a personal grudge and therefore a motive and the means to carry out a hit, and according to some, this person also admitted for ordering the hit to take place.

Now that is something that could be heard in a court.

But to refer back to your reply, who are you suggesting should be prosecuted?

[Greg Doudna]

9 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

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".  

 

I do not think your default assumption is correct that an organized assassination (not lone-nut) would necessarily be about money, even though that is very common and plausible. One need only note prominent counterexamples to show you are too narrowly restricting, in the absence of evidence, what could have motivated the JFK assassination. The MLK assassination was a contract hit by some organized group--in my mind I am satisfied James Earl Ray was the shooter; that as a professional criminal his shooting of MLK for hire was no different; that James Earl Ray was hired or contracted (via intermediary or other means of shielding Ray from knowledge of the identity of originators); and that pay for hire, not ideological racism, was James Earl Ray's personal reason for carrying out the hit. Yet whoever was behind the contract on MLK (which was successfully carried out) did not, in any clear or obvious manner that we can see anyway, do so for economic reasons. The reason is most plausibly understood in terms of J Edgar Hoover's--and HL Hunt's Lifeline et al--almost pathological hatred of MLK as being "the most dangerous man in America"--because he was not only threatening real fundamental social change but was, even more importantly, successful and likely to be even more successful as he did not stop simply with civil rights but started to go after the War in Vietnam and issues of poverty and redistribution of wealth. The MLK hit was both organized and ideological--whether racist (that is ideological), or because MLK was bringing about fundamental and unwelcome social change--either way, it was ideological, not economic (except in the most general sense that socialism is considered an economic threat ideologically).

Similarly, the example of d'Aubuisson in El Salvador and the death squads (e.g. off-duty police freelancing for hire at night paid by wealthy landowners) abducting and executing lists of names broadcast by d'Aubuisson to the nation as "subversives"--labor leaders, physicians, teachers, priests, leftists, etc. These executions were ideological and not directly about money--one gang rubbing out competition from another--except again, as with MLK, in the indirect sense that peasant-advocacy, liberation theology, leftist ideology et al was regarded as viscerally threatening. 

In the case of JFK, there was severe ideological criticism of JFK combined with JFK, unlike perhaps any president past or since in recent times, NOT significantly carrying out basic recommendations of the joint chiefs regarding the security of the nation and its interests in the world, i.e. JFK, from the point of view of the nation's military commanders, as a loose cannon out of control. No direct money motivation need be invoked, any more than the Lincoln organized assassination was motivated by money in any direct sense--that too was ideological. 

Therefore not only is money not the only credible motivation for an organized JFK hit, I am not sure it should even be considered the leading possibility. (Unless by an indirect line of argument that all ideology is economic, but I am referring to your more direct sense of meaning.)

As for JFK and RFK hagiography cult, as a member of the JFK romanticization cult myself, I would like to comment on that too. First of all, I agree with you that JFK and RFK had to have known, and were witting, of assassination operations against Castro and others. Your analysis strikes me as analogous to that of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky briefly considered JFK assassination conspiracy theories but quickly decided (a) what he saw of such seemed unconvincing and nuts; and (b) why should he care who killed JFK--JFK was a war criminal like every other president, before or since, who in a just world would have been charged and convicted of very serious war crimes. And (c) Chomsky's consistent message since then has been that conspiracy theories which are unproven and unestablished are rabbit holes and function to derail popular mobilization concerning serious and substantive issues of human rights and power structures in the world which should be confronted on the basis of plenty of known and uncontested evidence. I do not think Chomsky is a lone-nut advocate, rather than a "who cares" advocate, concerning who killed JFK. I did read Chomsky saying somewhere that the JFK assassination would be of interest to him if it was indeed a state hit--the coup interpretation--but that would be the one exception to his lack of interest in "who killed JFK" (and while not excluding the possibility, he did not see it as established on the basis of evidence or worth social activists' time in spending huge amounts of energy on what was unproven--if it did become proven, Chomsky's position presumably would be different on that issue). In other words, if JFK was killed by the Mob (acting on their own initiative), a jealous husband, a disaffected fired employee for revenge, etc and etc, "who cares?" This was Chomsky's view. I myself was part of a linguistics department at the U. of Oregon for my undergraduate major, which was anti-Chomsky in linguistics theory and pro-Chomsky politically. That sounds paradoxical but it is not, since (as I verified to my own satisfaction, and counterintuitively) there is no known relationship between Chomsky's linguistics theories and his political views, they are completely independent variables. 

When you say JFK risked nuclear war, I have difficulty in seeing evidence of that in some exclusive or personal sense, as distinguished from as carrying out prevailing policy at the top of the chain of command--joint chiefs et al--risking nuclear war in the Cold War. I buy the basic interpretation of JFK, after becoming president, going off the reservation in serious intent to reduce those risks, against opposition. Without disputing your (and Chomsky's) accurate, in my view, assessment that JFK no less than all other presidents have been war criminals, I see JFK as analogous to Gorbachev, a reformer from within the ranks. Reform--civil rights; sympathy for indigenous movements in other parts of the world; the nuclear test-ban treaty; the (probably true) exploratory moves and intent to do the seemingly unthinkable: end the Cold War. The resonance of that reform with common people--a statement someone made long ago, travellng through and staying overnight in many poor African-American households in the South, commenting on how on every mantle there were pictures of John F. Kennedy. Was that veneration--what you call a cult phenomenon--unearned? I do not think so. I think it was merited, just as Gorbachev will go down favorably in history is also merited. Despite that JFK, like Gorbachev, were part of systems carrying out war crimes, of which they were culpable.  

[Mervyn Hagger]

6 minutes ago, David Boylan said:

There is always this - https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Tipping_Point.html

 

Or this - https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_The_Wheaton_Lead.html

David, with all due respect to Larry whose works I have purchased and read and used as a means to follow my own investigation, citing Mary Ferrell is no response on your part. I subscribe to Mary Ferrell, so no dispute with that source either.

I am tracking down a theme NO ONE else has followed to date. It interacts with other material but nevertheless due diligence is being carried out.

So are you agreeing or disagreeing with the Established Version (Warren/LHO), or what?

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

5 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I do not think your default assumption is correct that an organized assassination (not lone-nut) would necessarily be about money, even though that is very common and plausible. One need only note prominent counterexamples to show you are too narrowly restricting, in the absence of evidence, what could have motivated the JFK assassination. The MLK assassination was a contract hit by some organized group--in my mind I am satisfied James Earl Ray was the shooter; that as a professional criminal his shooting of MLK for hire was no different; that James Earl Ray was hired or contracted (via intermediary or other means of shielding Ray from knowledge of the identity of originators); and that pay for hire, not ideological racism, was James Earl Ray's personal reason for carrying out the hit. Yet whoever was behind the contract on MLK (which was successfully carried out) did not, in any clear or obvious manner that we can see anyway, do so for economic reasons. The reason is most plausibly understood in terms of J Edgar Hoover's--and HL Hunt's Lifeline et al--almost pathological hatred of MLK as being "the most dangerous man in America"--because he was not only threatening real fundamental social change but was, even more importantly, successful and likely to be even more successful as he did not stop simply with civil rights but started to go after the War in Vietnam and issues of poverty and redistribution of wealth. The MLK hit was both organized and ideological--whether racist (that is ideological), or because MLK was bringing about fundamental and unwelcome social change--either way, it was ideological, not economic (except in the most general sense that socialism is considered an economic threat ideologically).

Similarly, the example of d'Aubuisson in El Salvador and the death squads (e.g. off-duty police freelancing for hire at night paid by wealthy landowners) abducting and executing lists of names broadcast by d'Aubuisson to the nation as "subversives"--labor leaders, physicians, teachers, priests, leftists, etc. These executions were ideological and not directly about money--one gang rubbing out competition from another--except again, as with MLK, in the indirect sense that peasant-advocacy, liberation theology, leftist ideology et al was regarded as viscerally threatening. 

In the case of JFK, there was severe ideological criticism of JFK combined with JFK, unlike perhaps any president past or since in recent times, NOT significantly carrying out basic recommendations of the joint chiefs regarding the security of the nation and its interests in the world, i.e. JFK, from the point of view of the nation's military commanders, as a loose cannon out of control. No direct money motivation need be invoked, any more than the Lincoln organized assassination was motivated by money in any direct sense--that too was ideological. 

Therefore not only is money not the only credible motivation for an organized JFK hit, I am not sure it should even be considered the leading possibility. (Unless by an indirect line of argument that all ideology is economic, but I am referring to your more direct sense of meaning.)

As for JFK and RFK hagiography cult, as a member of the JFK romanticization cult myself, I would like to comment on that too. First of all, I agree with you that JFK and RFK had to have known, and were witting, of assassination operations against Castro and others. Your analysis strikes me as analogous to that of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky briefly considered JFK assassination conspiracy theories but quickly decided (a) what he saw of such seemed unconvincing and nuts; and (b) why should he care who killed JFK--JFK was a war criminal like every other president, before or since, who in a just world would have been charged and convicted of very serious war crimes. And (c) Chomsky's consistent message since then has been that conspiracy theories which are unproven and unestablished are rabbit holes and function to derail popular mobilization concerning serious and substantive issues of human rights and power structures in the world which should be confronted on the basis of plenty of known and uncontested evidence. I do not think Chomsky is a lone-nut advocate, rather than a "who cares" advocate, concerning who killed JFK. I did read Chomsky saying somewhere that the JFK assassination would be of interest to him if it was indeed a state hit--the coup interpretation--but that would be the one exception to his lack of interest in "who killed JFK" (and while not excluding the possibility, he did not see it as established on the basis of evidence or worth social activists' time in spending huge amounts of energy on what was unproven--if it did become proven, Chomsky's position presumably would be different on that issue). In other words, if JFK was killed by the Mob (acting on their own initiative), a jealous husband, a disaffected fired employee for revenge, etc and etc, "who cares?" This was Chomsky's view. I myself was part of a linguistics department at the U. of Oregon for my undergraduate major, which was anti-Chomsky in linguistics theory and pro-Chomsky politically. That sounds paradoxical but it is not, since (as I verified to my own satisfaction, and counterintuitively) there is no known relationship between Chomsky's linguistics theories and his political views, they are completely independent variables. 

When you say JFK risked nuclear war, I have difficulty in seeing evidence of that in some exclusive or personal sense, as distinguished from as carrying out prevailing policy at the top of the chain of command--joint chiefs et al--risking nuclear war in the Cold War. I buy the basic interpretation of JFK, after becoming president, going off the reservation in serious intent to reduce those risks, against opposition. Without disputing your (and Chomsky's) accurate, in my view, assessment that JFK no less than all other presidents have been war criminals, I see JFK as analogous to Gorbachev, a reformer from within the ranks. Reform--civil rights; sympathy for indigenous movements in other parts of the world; the nuclear test-ban treaty; the (probably true) exploratory moves and intent to do the seemingly unthinkable: end the Cold War. The resonance of that reform with common people--a statement someone made long ago, travellng through and staying overnight in many poor African-American households in the South, commenting on how on every mantle there were pictures of John F. Kennedy. Was that veneration--what you call a cult phenomenon--unearned? I do not think so. I think it was merited, just as Gorbachev will go down favorably in history is also merited. Despite that JFK, like Gorbachev, were part of systems carrying out war crimes, of which they were culpable.  

 

6 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I do not think your default assumption is correct that an organized assassination (not lone-nut) would necessarily be about money, even though that is very common and plausible. One need only note prominent counterexamples to show you are too narrowly restricting, in the absence of evidence, what could have motivated the JFK assassination. The MLK assassination was a contract hit by some organized group--in my mind I am satisfied James Earl Ray was the shooter; that as a professional criminal his shooting of MLK for hire was no different; that James Earl Ray was hired or contracted (via intermediary or other means of shielding Ray from knowledge of the identity of originators); and that pay for hire, not ideological racism, was James Earl Ray's personal reason for carrying out the hit. Yet whoever was behind the contract on MLK (which was successfully carried out) did not, in any clear or obvious manner that we can see anyway, do so for economic reasons. The reason is most plausibly understood in terms of J Edgar Hoover's--and HL Hunt's Lifeline et al--almost pathological hatred of MLK as being "the most dangerous man in America"--because he was not only threatening real fundamental social change but was, even more importantly, successful and likely to be even more successful as he did not stop simply with civil rights but started to go after the War in Vietnam and issues of poverty and redistribution of wealth. The MLK hit was both organized and ideological--whether racist (that is ideological), or because MLK was bringing about fundamental and unwelcome social change--either way, it was ideological, not economic (except in the most general sense that socialism is considered an economic threat ideologically).

Similarly, the example of d'Aubuisson in El Salvador and the death squads (e.g. off-duty police freelancing for hire at night paid by wealthy landowners) abducting and executing lists of names broadcast by d'Aubuisson to the nation as "subversives"--labor leaders, physicians, teachers, priests, leftists, etc. These executions were ideological and not directly about money--one gang rubbing out competition from another--except again, as with MLK, in the indirect sense that peasant-advocacy, liberation theology, leftist ideology et al was regarded as viscerally threatening. 

In the case of JFK, there was severe ideological criticism of JFK combined with JFK, unlike perhaps any president past or since in recent times, NOT significantly carrying out basic recommendations of the joint chiefs regarding the security of the nation and its interests in the world, i.e. JFK, from the point of view of the nation's military commanders, as a loose cannon out of control. No direct money motivation need be invoked, any more than the Lincoln organized assassination was motivated by money in any direct sense--that too was ideological. 

Therefore not only is money not the only credible motivation for an organized JFK hit, I am not sure it should even be considered the leading possibility. (Unless by an indirect line of argument that all ideology is economic, but I am referring to your more direct sense of meaning.)

As for JFK and RFK hagiography cult, as a member of the JFK romanticization cult myself, I would like to comment on that too. First of all, I agree with you that JFK and RFK had to have known, and were witting, of assassination operations against Castro and others. Your analysis strikes me as analogous to that of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky briefly considered JFK assassination conspiracy theories but quickly decided (a) what he saw of such seemed unconvincing and nuts; and (b) why should he care who killed JFK--JFK was a war criminal like every other president, before or since, who in a just world would have been charged and convicted of very serious war crimes. And (c) Chomsky's consistent message since then has been that conspiracy theories which are unproven and unestablished are rabbit holes and function to derail popular mobilization concerning serious and substantive issues of human rights and power structures in the world which should be confronted on the basis of plenty of known and uncontested evidence. I do not think Chomsky is a lone-nut advocate, rather than a "who cares" advocate, concerning who killed JFK. I did read Chomsky saying somewhere that the JFK assassination would be of interest to him if it was indeed a state hit--the coup interpretation--but that would be the one exception to his lack of interest in "who killed JFK" (and while not excluding the possibility, he did not see it as established on the basis of evidence or worth social activists' time in spending huge amounts of energy on what was unproven--if it did become proven, Chomsky's position presumably would be different on that issue). In other words, if JFK was killed by the Mob (acting on their own initiative), a jealous husband, a disaffected fired employee for revenge, etc and etc, "who cares?" This was Chomsky's view. I myself was part of a linguistics department at the U. of Oregon for my undergraduate major, which was anti-Chomsky in linguistics theory and pro-Chomsky politically. That sounds paradoxical but it is not, since (as I verified to my own satisfaction, and counterintuitively) there is no known relationship between Chomsky's linguistics theories and his political views, they are completely independent variables. 

When you say JFK risked nuclear war, I have difficulty in seeing evidence of that in some exclusive or personal sense, as distinguished from as carrying out prevailing policy at the top of the chain of command--joint chiefs et al--risking nuclear war in the Cold War. I buy the basic interpretation of JFK, after becoming president, going off the reservation in serious intent to reduce those risks, against opposition. Without disputing your (and Chomsky's) accurate, in my view, assessment that JFK no less than all other presidents have been war criminals, I see JFK as analogous to Gorbachev, a reformer from within the ranks. Reform--civil rights; sympathy for indigenous movements in other parts of the world; the nuclear test-ban treaty; the (probably true) exploratory moves and intent to do the seemingly unthinkable: end the Cold War. The resonance of that reform with common people--a statement someone made long ago, travellng through and staying overnight in many poor African-American households in the South, commenting on how on every mantle there were pictures of John F. Kennedy. Was that veneration--what you call a cult phenomenon--unearned? I do not think so. I think it was merited, just as Gorbachev will go down favorably in history is also merited. Despite that JFK, like Gorbachev, were part of systems carrying out war crimes, of which they were culpable. 

Sorry David, you are obscuring the issues.

If JFK was not the work of a lone nut, any plan would take a lot of organization and that means a lot of money.

Who would gain?

This is not a discussion about a religious missionary endeavor, but the planning and carrying out of a crime.

Your slab of text quickly goes off course.

That is why I employed the court room scenario.

Your text would be ruled inadmissible using an In Limine motion. It covers a lot of words, but what does it say?

[Greg Doudna]

14 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

 

Sorry David, you are obscuring the issues.

If JFK was not the work of a lone nut, any plan would take a lot of organization and that means a lot of money.

Who would gain?

This is not a discussion about a religious missionary endeavor, but the planning and carrying out of a crime.

Your slab of text quickly goes off course.

That is why I employed the court room scenario.

Your text would be ruled inadmissible using an In Limine motion. It covers a lot of words, but what does it say?

(Its Greg not David) I was responding to your interpretation, as your personal view, that (a) an organized JFK assassination would have been motivated by money ("who would gain?" you ask, which seems to mean "financially"), and (b) JFK and RFK assessed as personally horrible and unsympathetic figures. 

I was not referring to a courtroom argument, which as outlined earlier--in response to your question on that--would have been confined solely to prosecution of Marcello. Neither of the "a" and "b" of the preceding paragraph would be raised in court, but was a response to your commentary external to what would be raised in court. In court, it would not be necessary to establish either that Marcello received a green light above his level, or why, or specifically how he benefitted from carrying out the assassination (if he did). Those questions would be left to historians outside the courtroom, and are not essential to conviction in court. So I do not think I was obscuring issues, if you understand I was responding to your outside-the-courtroom commentary.

Edited December 15, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Mervyn Hagger]

13 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

(Its Greg not David) I was responding to your interpretation, as your personal view, that (a) an organized JFK assassination would have been motivated by money ("who would gain?" you ask, which seems to mean "financially"), and (b) JFK and RFK assessed as personally horrible and unsympathetic figures. 

I was not referring to a courtroom argument, which as outlined earlier--in response to your question on that--would have been confined solely to prosecution of Marcello. Neither of the "a" and "b" of the preceding paragraph would be raised in court, but was a response to your commentary external to what would be raised in court. In court, it would not be necessary to establish either that Marcello received a green light above his level, or why, or specifically how he benefitted from carrying out the assassination (if he did). Those questions would be left to historians outside the courtroom, and are not essential to conviction in court. So I do not think I was obscuring issues, if you understand I was responding to your outside-the-courtroom commentary.

Sorry Greg, my mistake.

I went back to read your original comment that precipitated your current comment, and then I reread my original response.

I stand by what I wrote since that is within the scope of this thread.

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

Perhaps my initial question itself poses a problem for many people, because that which is known - the murder of JFK in broad daylight on November 22, 1963 in front of witnesses surrounding him on all sides - is a very clear and precise bit of information.

The official answer is that a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed JFK.

That is very precise.

However, the response to that same information is anything but precise, and therein is the problem.

LHO was arrested and held in custody only to be shot by Jack Ruby, again in full view of not just ordinary witnesses, but newspaper; radio and television reporters, as well as a bevy of police officials.

So it would seem that everything is crystal clear, until those who dispute this chain of events try to explain an alternative interpretation.

Instead of basic statements of fact, huge slabs of text appear that go off course into many other issues unrelated to these instant acts.

From these slabs of text a huge 'industry' emerges that utilizes printed and electronic publishing to bury clarity in mists of obfuscation.

Can anyone stick to the facts and explain who shot JFK and why - without involving a massive organization that requires a command structure and an equally massive amount of money to pull it off?

If that kind of money had to be expended, then it had to be financially worth more money to someone, over and above the amount that which was expended.

No one wants to address that issue.

Who funded this enormous operation, if indeed the official version is untrue, and why did they fund it?

Surely no one is going to suggest patriotism out of the goodness of their hearts galvanized such an operation?

No charity that I know of runs on thin air.

Was the killing of JFK a unique act of some charity?

I don't think so, and I am sure you don't either.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Mervyn Hagger
To clarify the original text in light of the responses received so far.

[Mervyn Hagger]

Clearly a LOT of people are scared stiff of this issue!

It is EASY to come up with all manner of wild stories regarding the murder of JFK, but it is difficult to pin any of these people down as to WHO killed JFK and WHY?

It could be this person or that person or this motive or that motive, but when you ask them to put up or shut up as though they were entering a court of law.... what then?

Silence.

Then a flood of additional rubbish to bury this question: who murdered JFK (and why?)

It is indeed a challenge for the great unwashed to be specific, but few are willing to do that.

[Cliff Varnell]

I don’t think there’s enough evidence against anyone for a formal charge.

JFK was murdered in a military-style ambush involving at least two shooters.  This fact wouldn’t carry us into a courtroom — the WHO and WHY will always be shrouded in speculation.

 

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I don’t think there’s enough evidence against anyone for a formal charge.

JFK was murdered in a military-style ambush involving at least two shooters.  This fact wouldn’t carry us into a courtroom — the WHO and WHY will always be shrouded in speculation.

 

 

That spells money. Big money and big money leaves trails in places and ties to people. Many gang members got their own training in the military. That spells organization and organization creates its own records that touch base with the world at large.

With modern technology and information now available, there is already a wealth of new information that can be fitted into a framework. But to do that requires an open mind, and too many seem to have a dreamy hero-worship view of the Kennedys which is both unreal and untrue.

The same people who worship the Kennedys are the same people obstructing a resolution of this case.