The Very First Word in the 26 Volumes is a Lie.

[Gil Jesus]

This was no criminal investigation. It was a gathering of evidence against one suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald. Witnesses who had evidence to the contrary were ignored. FBI reports of other possible perpetrators were suppressed as Commission Documents. Physical evidence disappeared only to be replaced by evidence that had a dubious chain of possession. Witness statements were altered. Witnesses were intimidated and threatened. The autopsy photographs and xrays are in conflict.

Police kept secret what was said during Oswald's interrogation by choosing not to record or have present a stenographer to keep a record. Police lineups were conducted unfairly making Oswald the only choice a witness could make. One lineup showed Oswald with teenagers and a Mexican. Oswald was questioned off and on for 48 hours in spite of his "lawyering up". Police officers lied under oath. Clearly marked evidence was misidentified and later "corrected".

And Oswald was denied legal representation, a fact he made known to the Press every chance he got.

No my friends, this was not a criminal investigation. And the very first word on the very first page in the very first volume of the 26 Volumes is, in fact, a lie.

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Paul Cummings]

Thanks Gill. Lets be clear this had to be nicely tucked away before the 1964 Presidential election.

[Gil Jesus]

9 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Thanks Gill. Lets be clear this had to be nicely tucked away before the 1964 Presidential election.

I agree. Just to put it in its proper perspective, the government has been investigating Donald Trump for what, 7 years ?

What have they concluded ?

But the FBI completed an investigation on the assassination of the President in 13 days ?

That's BS. In fact, the FBI continued to interview witnesses well into 1964, long after its Summary Report of 12/5/63 was released. That Summary Report was supposed to have closed the case.

How do you close a case before you interview all of the witnesses ?

How do you close the case before you test fire the rifle ?

How do you close the case before all of the evidence is in ?

You're right. This was a coverup.

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Michaleen Kilroy]

And it appears the CIA, per the recently released Heath memo, embarked on the only true investigation of the crime but of course all details and results were closed off long ago.

Noteworthy from the memo: the agency didn’t believe the lone nut angle and assumed it was a complex and well-financed operation of men, guns and logistics.

Which tells me somebody somewhere in the CIA beyond the handful of conspirators found out exactly how this thing went down. And there is the outside chance though remote that documentation of the investigation and its conclusions still exists.

Edited March 14, 2023 by Michaleen Kilroy

[Benjamin Cole]

You can disagree with Gil Jesus, but I hope not in this case, or on principles involved in his post here. 

---

Very belatedly, I am concluding that all official "investigations" are essentially kangaroo trials. 

---

1. Witnesses are selected, but only by prosecutors. The same with evidence.

2. Abundant and worthless, but narrative-affirming, hearsay evidence is included. Telegenic or charismatic, or authority-figure witnesses are favored.

3. The official investigators control the flow of information, leaked or otherwise, to the media, which is largely compliant.

4. Investigators control the narrative, usually appealing to political or emotional biases, or serving expedient ends. 

5. Conjecture is presented as fact. 

---

IMHO, regardless of your political beliefs, never accept a government investigation on faith.

In fact, official investigations may flatter your biases, as they are often intended to---then, be extra circumspect. 

For me, before I accept that anyone---anyone---is guilty, I prefer an open trial in court of law, with rules of evidence, and adequate robust defense counsel. Then let the chips fall where they may. 

I accept such court decisions, as I contend all civil people must. 

Otherwise, we devolve into witch-hunts. 

Sometimes I disagree with Gil Jesus. So what? Maybe I am wrong, maybe not. 

Not in this case, which involves matters of principle.

Everyone---everyone, high or low---is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 

 

 

 

[Pete Mellor]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

IMHO, regardless of your political beliefs, never accept a government investigation on faith.

Reminds me of what the late Jim Marrs wrote in my 2015 edition of Crossfire, 'Always question authority!'

[Benjamin Cole]

25 minutes ago, Pete Mellor said:

Reminds me of what the late Jim Marrs wrote in my 2015 edition of Crossfire, 'Always question authority!'

Well, yes. 

But especially "investigations." They are like prosecutions with defense counsel absent (think the WC).

In other words, kangaroo trials. 

The pattern shows up again and again.