How many government investigations into JFK assassination?

[Gerry Down]

As far as I can tell there were 6. They were:

1 - The Warren Commission
2 - The Ramsey Clark Investigation
3 - The Rockefeller Commission
4 - The Church Committee
5 - The HSCA Investigation
6 - The ARRB (yes I know, not really an "investigation", but it kinda was)

There was also the Pike Committee report in the 1970’s. However I’m not sure if that report investigated any part of the JFK assassination. Does anyone know?

There were also other investigations such as:

Texas Supplemental Report on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the Serious Wounding of Governor John B. Connally
(LINK: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=20 )
Investigation of The Operational Security Involving The Transfer of Lee Harvey Oswald – November 24, 1963 1963
(LINK: https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/75604.pdf )
Kennedy, John Fitzgerald Assassination – Nov. 22, 1963 Investigation By J. E. Bill Decker, Sheriff Dallas County, Texas
(LINK: https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/75604.pdf )

But these 3 would not be considered government investigations? Perhaps you could call them "official" investigations but not "government" investigations. The same with the FBI investigation. The FBIs 5 volume Dec 1963 report would be considered an "official" investigation but not necessarily a government investigation. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by Gerry Down

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

As far as I can tell there were 6. They were:

1 - The Warren Commission
2 - The Ramsey Clark Investigation
3 - The Rockefeller Commission
4 - The Church Committee
5 - The HSCA Investigation
6 - The ARRB (yes I know, not really an "investigation", but it kinda was)

There was also the Pike Committee report in the 1970’s. However I’m not sure if that report investigated any part of the JFK assassination. Does anyone know?

There were also other investigations such as:

Texas Supplemental Report on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the Serious Wounding of Governor John B. Connally
(LINK: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=20 )
Investigation of The Operational Security Involving The Transfer of Lee Harvey Oswald – November 24, 1963 1963
(LINK: https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/75604.pdf )
Kennedy, John Fitzgerald Assassination – Nov. 22, 1963 Investigation By J. E. Bill Decker, Sheriff Dallas County, Texas
(LINK: https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/75604.pdf )

But these 3 would not be considered government investigations? Perhaps you could call them "official" investigations but not "government" investigations. The same with the FBI investigation. The FBIs 5 volume Dec 1963 report would be considered an "official" investigation but not necessarily a government investigation. 

There were really six investigations into the overall case. 

1. The DPD investigation over the first few days.

2. The FBI investigation, which took place over the next month or so.

3. The SS investigation, which took place over the next month or so.

4. The WC investigation, built upon the three previous investigations. 

5. The Garrison investigation. 

6. The HSCA investigation. 

 

The Clark Panel and Rockefeller commission panels were narrow panels in which supposed experts on the medical evidence were consulted. A photo analysis was also performed on the three tramps. But these were not full-blown investigations involving crime scene evidence and possible motive, etc. The Ramsey Panel on the dictabelt was of a similar nature--limited in scope.

The ARRB simply reviewed and released documents. Some testimony and reports were taken and written re the medical evidence, but no conclusions were made, as the ARRB was not equipped or allowed to re-open the case, no matter what these witnesses had to say. They were not allowed to follow leads beyond leads to witnesses who could add to the record. Nor were they allowed to re-examine conclusions made by earlier panels. If they believed the record was vague on something, they could take new testimony, or run new tests. But if the record was clear on something that was obviously incorrect, they had to step aside and pretend they didn't notice. 

P.S. The Church Committee and Pike Committee were formed to investigate the CIA's activities, with the first mostly focusing on the CIA's involvement in political assassinations, and the second mostly focused on the CIA's funding of cover companies, and manipulation of the press. They did not investigate the assassination itself. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Benjamin Cole]

I disagree. 

I do not consider the Warren Commission to be an "investigation."  

It was a posthumous prosecution, and no defense counsel present. 

[Chuck Schwartz]

I agree, Benjamin.   And, Oswald, besides telling everyone he was a patsy, made these denials, https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/21/us/interrogator-s-notes-say-oswald-denied-assassination-role.html. to the Dallas Police.  

[Chuck Schwartz]

I agree that the Warren commission was not an investigation.  I think of it as more like a cover up ( of  who really killed JFK).

[Benjamin Cole]

13 minutes ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

I agree, Benjamin.   And, Oswald, besides telling everyone he was a patsy, made these denials, https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/21/us/interrogator-s-notes-say-oswald-denied-assassination-role.html. to the Dallas Police.  

If the decision is made to destroy a public figure or political rival, an investigation is much better than a trial. 

In a trial, there is a defense, and alternative narratives. Witnesses get cross-examined. Hearsay evidence is not admitted. 

An investigation has carte blanche, no annoying hindrances, like proving something beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence is controlled.  Conjecture becomes fact.

With LHO dead....