Truth is the Only Client?

[James DiEugenio]

Matt Douhthit exposes this late, and hopefully, last attempt by the Commission survivors to conceal what they really did.

Which was to construct an official story that I do not even think they really bought into.

They got the late VInce Bugliosi and Blakey to appear as talking heads on this debacle.  They never give up.  Howard Willens might be the worst of what is left. Shameful.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/truth-is-the-only-client

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Matt Douhthit exposes this late, and hopefully, last attempt by the Commission survivors to conceal what they really did.

Which was to construct an official story that I do not even think they really bought into.

They got the last VInce Bugliosi and Blakey to appear as talking heads on this debacle.  They never give up.  Howard Willens might be the worst of what is left. Shameful.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/truth-is-the-only-client

 

Thanks to James DiEugenio and Matt Douhthit, and the rest of the indefatigable band of earnest researchers who have actually tried to pry the JFK assassination truth from government hands, or unyielding circumstance. 

There seems to be a spate of this JFKA-disinformation in the media lately, the Woolsey book and so on. 

My guess is that the renewed (again) JFKA disinformation campaign is groundwork for October, when Biden must decide whether to open the remaining 15,834 JFK files or not. 

https://jfkfacts.org/cia-director-bill-burns-will-advise-biden-on-secret-jfk-files/#more-30908

So, you see, since the WC was right, or the Russians did it, or the JFKA community is just a bunch of kooks, then it won't matter if Biden opens up the remaining JFK files. 

The betting is, come October, Biden will keep the JFK files from the public eye. You know, why should the voters and taxpayers see these documents? Besides, national security will collapse if these half-century-old documents are released. 

I can all but guarantee that the mainstream media will not  make a cause celebre in October about opening up the JFK files. 

My congrats to the JFKA community. It's easy to win, to own or work for the New York Times, Disney or CBS, and "go along to get along."

It is lot harder to get beaten every day in the mass media, and keep coming back.

I know who I admire. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

I've never read that bit about Ruth said "I'll help these officers in whatever way they need".  Where's that from?  A devastatingly good article that cuts to the bone.  JFK 101 indeed.  We all still learn. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by Ron Bulman

[Lawrence Schnapf]

great piece by a young researcher! The WC supporters always try to explain away conspiracy theorists as being emotionally unable to accept that a nobody could take down a president. But it is the WC supporters who are operating under emotional bias. Indeed, in his own book Bugliosi revealed what is really the animating reason for supporting the WC. It is called "false patriotism". Buglosi bared his soul at pages 986-87 where he discusses the implications of a conspiracy. it would mean that America is no different than the Europeans and that its institutions would be no better than a third world country. A conspiracy would put the lie to American Exceptionalism.

This is also supported by Matt's excerpt of Governor Connolly's 1982 quote. He loved his country too much to tell the truth.   

[Joe Bauer]

7 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

 

This is also supported by Matt's excerpt of Governor Connolly's 1982 quote.

  >>>  " He loved his country too much to tell the truth. " <<<

Now there's the ultimate oximoron.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

That quote from JBC is just devastating.

The Commission did not like him because of his insistence that he heard the first shot.

Can you imagine if he had said what he really thought!

Namely that the WC was a pile of malarkey.  And he never believed its conclusions for five seconds.

 

BTW,   he was joined by Nellie Connally

Bobby Kennedy

Richard Russell

Jackie Kennedy

Lyndon Johnson

Dave Powers

(And secretly) Jerry Ford

Edited March 16, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Ken Davies]

And and by  few million others who can think!

[James DiEugenio]

I'd say more than a few Ken.

More like hundreds.

[Joe Bauer]

Regards Bugliosi's dismissing Oswald possibly being a part of any group conspiracy ...

"Bugliosi avows that Oswald would’ve been “one of the last people” the CIA or Mob would pick to kill Kennedy."

What a laughably stupid proposition by Bugliosi.

In reality, Oswald may have been "the perfect person" to pick and set up as the patsy in a high profile political figure assassination lone gunman scenario.

In so many highest profile assassinations and attempts to assassinate, a single politically fanatical, frustrated or mentally disturbed patsy is most often picked and groomed to do the actual up close shooting ( a diversionary one? ) and take the fall. 

Oswald couldn't have been more instantly and perfectly fitting of this profile if he had held a large sign on a pole saying "JFK MUST DIE" while wearing a Castro army cap on his lunch break from work right in front of the Texas Schoolbook Depository building for 3 days straight before 11,22,1963.

His highly visible and publicized pro-Castro leaflet passing ( and even radio interview ) in downtown New Orleans just months before, his Cuba visa seeking trip to Mexico, his gun packing and Marxist news paper holding backyard photos, his fascination with Communist Russia and learning their language and on and on.

And the final and "most important set up" of the perfect patsy? Kill him within hours of his supposed vile and mentally deranged crime.  No court trial. Case closed.  

And get rid of any Oswald connection evidence immediately as FBI agent James Hosty ( author of the book "Assignment Oswald" ) said he did on orders from his superior. "I flushed it down the toilet." And one can reasonably assume other agencies performed similar Oswald evidence destroying as well.

Asked years later why he didn't mention this Oswald information evidence destroying action to the Warren Commission in his sworn testimony appearance before them, Hosty said simply ( and smugly - seriously with a smile ) "they didn't ask." !!!

Oswald's extremely public antagonistic Castro promoting political activities and actions in hot headed Castro hating New Orleans in the spring and summer of 1963 shout out a contrived double life portrayal.

And this very public FPFC promoting effort on Oswald's part was so illogical in it's being undertaken in one of the most hot headed Castro hating locales anywhere except Miami, the equivalent would have been conducting U.S. Marine recruitment sign-ups on the Cal Berkeley campus in 1969.

You are then forced to consider and question it's true motivation.

Oswald must have known this. It was like begging to be spit upon or dodging a punch in the face. Oswald wasn't so naive and ignorant that he could not see the futility of promoting such activities in N.O.

Oswald did many strange illogical things in secrecy.  Creating phony IDs, meeting with political activists like Carlos Bringuier, printing up commie sympathizing pamphlets in the same building housing super anti-commie Guy Banister.

Taking a 125 mile drive up to Clinton, Louisiana and trying to get a job in the East Louisiana state mental hospital. If you believe even one of the eight or so Clinton resident eyewitnesses who volunteered their seeing either Oswald or someone looking just like Clay Shaw arriving to the voter registration drive event downtown that day. One witness said he approached the Clay Shaw look-alike sitting in the driver's seat of a new black Cadillac parked for hours there obviously waiting for someone, and upon asking the Clay Shaw look-alike where he was from, the driver stated he worked for the International Trade Mart in New Orleans!

Oswald was just involved in too many strange activities that made no sense in their stated purposes and goals and that were so contrary to his most pressing immediate need to help his financially struggling family to "not" consider their true agenda as something secretly and importantly nefarious imo.

Oswald very seldom did things impulsively it seems. Lots of pre-planning before hand was his MO.

His trip to Russia. His efforts to be allowed to stay there. His efforts to leave Russia with his wife and child. His trip to Mexico. His attempt on Walker and his escape and rifle burying plan. 

Maps, photos, itineraries, financial budgeting, dairy entries, language studying, lots of reading.

To say Oswald did the JFK job on a lucky chance whim by being employed on the parade route just when JFK would be driven directly underneath a perfect deserted 6th floor window sniper's perch location does not fit his much more thought out action profile history.

Oswald obviously did not want to die in the Texas Schoolbook Depository building that afternoon. He wasn't on a suicide mission. Knowing he wanted to stay alive, he would have planned a much less risky post shooting escape plan if he really was intent in carrying out an act that was this risky. Hundreds of bystanders and a small army of security and press people within yards right below him? 

Jack Ruby destroyed America's only real chance at knowing the truth about Lee Harvey Oswald. He spared Jackie Kennedy an Oswald trial, proved Jews had guts and did what he thought the Dallas police really wanted to do but couldn't themselves, get this fellow cop killer gone before a trial.

And who in their right mind could ever believe that dirt poor childhood, hard scrapple, prison record James Earl Ray could have made an easy escape from prison and ended up with thousands of dollars and flying overseas in a suit and tie right after Memphis in April, 1968 without outside help and planning?

Amazing how little effort was truly made to find his enablers.

But, again, like Oswald, the official record states racist MLK hating James Earl Ray was simply just another "lone gun" nutcase killer who just got lucky all by himself.    ???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2021 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

Bugliosi's book seems even worse to me today.  Even though I am one of the maybe ten people in America who actually read the whole thing, including the footnotes.

It is largely an argument by length, and an argument by invective.

Two of the worst parts of the book are when he says that:

1.) He would be able to get all of the evidence that the WC used into a court of law

2.) He will present the critics' case as they want it presented, not by cherry picking what he wants to present.

Any objective person reading his book would have to say VInce was up a tree in writing both statements.  And its hard to imagine that he did not know both of these were utterly phony declarations.

1.) Any lawyer understands what the doctrine of chain of custody means in the eyes of the court.  This is a rule that has been fashioned by judges in order  to prevent a rogue police department from railroading the defendant.  It is designed to make sure that the evidence collected at the scene is not  altered or substituted by the time it gets to its court presentation. That rule did not exist for the Commission, since there was no judge and no defense lawyer.  But, in the real world, the whole idea of the adversary system of law is that the defense can challenge either the exhibit or document if he suspects that it has been tampered with or switched. In California these are called 402 hearings, but they have them all over the country by different names. Do you know how many of these you would have in the JFK case?  But that phony trial in London, that Spence and Vince shamed themselves by appearing in, did not have any.

2.) To put it mildly, Vince did not present the evidence as the critics wanted it presented.  I once did a thread on this proving how, in 25 instances, Bugliosi knowingly broke that promise, which he wrote in the Intro to his book.  One of the worst instances was with the Ruby polygraph.  The HSCA report, which VInce referred to, named something like 11 or 12 violations of standard polygraph protocol that the FBI broke during that test. Vince named about three, and he left out the worst ones, like lowering the GSR meter during the examination.

Again, this is what happens in the JFK case.  What is standard legal procedure somehow gets thrown out into trash bin, discarded like a used napkin. We get stuck in an alternative universe in which everything and anything is allowed to be inducted as evidence: Anything to convict Oswald. After all, the guy is dead and we know he did it.  When in fact, the questions should have been:

1.) Why did Ruby do what he did on live TV? Knowing he would be caught red handed.

2.) How did he get into the area if everyone on the force knew him? And why was he hiding behind Blackie Harrison before Oswald came out?

3.) Why was Oswald trying to call John Hurt the night before and why did the Secret Service stop the call from going through?

If you try and answer those questions honestly, you will understand why the FBI had to rig the polygraph.

Edited March 18, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Richard Booth]

On 3/15/2021 at 8:44 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

October, when Biden must decide whether to open the remaining 15,834 JFK files or not. 

Assuming Biden even makes it to October. There is a good chance he'll resign before then and it will be Kamala Harris who has to decide, and I don't think she will open anything up.

Recently, Biden's people have started modifying their various websites, changing it from saying "Biden administration" to the "Biden-Harris Administration" -- this subtle change reflects how she's being groomed to take over, with the traditional quiet VP role being elevated in prominence.

Then we have Biden's own flubs in language, which can be considered merely mistakes ... or perhaps representative of what Biden knows he intends to. Like he said "I'll develop some disease and resign."

Biden has said more than once "President Harris" and even referred to his administration as "the Harris administration."  I don't think these were merely flubs, rather these were representative of what Biden knows.

I think there is a better chance that Biden would open the files than Harris. He's got nothing to lose and no long future career to worry about, to the contrary. Whereas Harris knows what's good for her and has to think about her future.

[Richard Booth]

On 3/18/2021 at 11:50 AM, James DiEugenio said:

In California these are called 402 hearings, but they have them all over the country by different names

I doubt that the government would be able to succeed in a basic "show cause" preliminary hearing. This is the first step, before jury selection or anything involving a trial happens. This is where the prosecutor must show that enough evidence exists to charge the defendant.

What evidence would they even be able to present there? No witnesses. No evidence putting a rifle in Oswald's hands. Nothing.

CE 399 is out, the shells from the Tippit scene are out, all the witnesses brought to the line-up are out after it's shown how the line-up was conducted. 

The only way this thing works is if there is no trial and Oswald is dead. 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Richard Booth said:

Assuming Biden even makes it to October. There is a good chance he'll resign before then and it will be Kamala Harris who has to decide, and I don't think she will open anything up.

Recently, Biden's people have started modifying their various websites, changing it from saying "Biden administration" to the "Biden-Harris Administration" -- this subtle change reflects how she's being groomed to take over, with the traditional quiet VP role being elevated in prominence.

Then we have Biden's own flubs in language, which can be considered merely mistakes ... or perhaps representative of what Biden knows he intends to. Like he said "I'll develop some disease and resign."

Biden has said more than once "President Harris" and even referred to his administration as "the Harris administration."  I don't think these were merely flubs, rather these were representative of what Biden knows.

I think there is a better chance that Biden would open the files than Harris. He's got nothing to lose and no long future career to worry about, to the contrary. Whereas Harris knows what's good for her and has to think about her future.

Unfortunately, you are probably right. Biden recently referred to the filibuster rule being different when he "arrived in the Senate 120 years ago."  

Harris is defined only by ambition, so her decision will reflect that. And no one ever crosses the national security state if they wish forward progress in their political careers.