FEAR: why the witnesses hesitated to come forward

[Gil Jesus]

Witnesses describe how fear due to publication of the "strange deaths" caused them to hesitate to come forward with information that was contrary to the official narrative.

 

 

[Joe Bauer]

This aspect of held back witness testimony has never been adequately quantified imo.

I always believed that for every person who came forward with knowledge of any aspect or main player involvement in the JFKA there were 5 or even 10 that didn't.

I think the average person would probably NOT want to place themselves in a position of danger through perceived fear of doing so by coming forward.

I would imagine such held back testimony could be so hugely revealing it might have shaken the official JFKA story to it's core.

[William Paris]

On a virtual presentation at Pittsburgh Talbot made a reference to the fact that 60 Min (Hewitt) and Wapo (Bradlee) bigs didn't use their platform to push for JFK truth because they were afraid it would destroy their careers.   Fear.... isn't that how LBJ bullied Warren into a corner... 

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, William Paris said:

On a virtual presentation at Pittsburgh Talbot made a reference to the fact that 60 Min (Hewitt) and Wapo (Bradlee) bigs didn't use their platform to push for JFK truth because they were afraid it would destroy their careers.   Fear.... isn't that how LBJ bullied Warren into a corner... 

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

[Benjamin Cole]

In addition to fear, many did not want to even appear to be sympathetic in the smallest degree to a "communist." 

The LHO story quickly (in the 1960s) became one of only lefties asking questions, and then being bullied "as communist sympathizers who just want to blame the right-wing." 

You can see the same treatment today, in reverse, of those who question more-recent official narratives. 

As the screw turns....

 

 

[Mark Ulrik]

11 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Witnesses describe how fear due to publication of the "strange deaths" caused them to hesitate to come forward with information that was contrary to the official narrative.

Do these witnesses (Goldstrich, Salyer) cite publication of the "strange deaths" as the reason they hesitated to come forward? Not specifically, it seems, but maybe the interjected newspaper items could give you that impression. It would be mildly ironic, however, if (as suggested) early conspiracy authors like Penn Jones inadvertently aided the evil conspirators by contributing to a paranoid climate that kept people from talking.

[Pat Speer]

16 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Do these witnesses (Goldstrich, Salyer) cite publication of the "strange deaths" as the reason they hesitated to come forward? Not specifically, it seems, but maybe the interjected newspaper items could give you that impression. It would be mildly ironic, however, if (as suggested) early conspiracy authors like Penn Jones inadvertently aided the evil conspirators by contributing to a paranoid climate that kept people from talking.

While it's true some witnesses tried to avoid public attention, for fear of their safety or careers, it's also true that many witnesses sought and seek anonymity to avoid contact with buggy-eyed theorists. I can draw an example from my own life. After attending a book signing by Bugliosi at a local library, and identifying myself and chatting with him afterwards, someone in line recognized my name, and followed my wife and I out to the parking lot. I thought I'd be nice and talk with him a bit but he just wouldn't stop talking, and all he wanted to talk about was chem-trails. So my wife got in the car, and turned on the engine, and I tried to join her, but the fellow jumped between the open door and the car as I sat down. And kept talking, on and on, about chem-trails. I gave him numerous hints, like "Alright, well we must be going" but he wouldn't budge. He had us trapped, and he knew it. Well, finally, I was able to get him to move aside, so I could shut the door. But that wasn't enough. He ran along the side of the car along my window as we drove through the lot, still babbling about chem-trails, and actually followed us out onto a busy street. In any event, the point is this. After that, my wife has refused to attend any book reading, conference or movie involving the JFK Assassination. It's not so much she's uninterested, or is embarrassed by me, as she is uncomfortable with zealots, of all stripes. 

I suspect many witnesses feel the same. 

P.S. I met Goldstrich and Salyer and neither one said anything they should have been fearful about. They both said the neck wound was small and gave the appearance of an entrance wound. Everyone viewing this wound said the same. And neither one saw a blow-out wound on the back of the head, or that they felt certain shots came from the front. So why would anyone care? 

Now, fearful of conspiracy theorists? Maybe. I've said it many times now but it bears repeating that there were grumblings within the crowd during their Lancer appearance, due to some attendees feeling ripped off when all three doctors in attendance failed to claim the back of the head was missing. This came as a shock to some, who had been fooled into believing all the doctors said the back of the head was missing by best-selling authors such as Lifton, Livingstone, and Groden. 

 

Edited January 5 by Pat Speer

[Denis Morissette]

It's quite obvious that many witnesses and official investigators have stopped talking after being part of the conspiracy, a CIA agent, a xxxx, etc by CTers.

[Pat Speer]

On 1/5/2024 at 5:36 PM, Denis Morissette said:

It's quite obvious that many witnesses and official investigators have stopped talking after being part of the conspiracy, a CIA agent, a xxxx, etc by CTers.

I think you meant "after being accused of being part of a conspiracy". And you are correct. 

[Joe Bauer]

On 1/5/2024 at 1:37 AM, Pat Speer said:

While it's true some witnesses tried to avoid public attention, for fear of their safety or careers, it's also true that many witnesses sought and seek anonymity to avoid contact with buggy-eyed theorists.

Yes, that proposition is probably true ... to a degree.

Yet, the fear of others in positions of power and influence and with nefarious intentions would for sure be another ( and in my opinion far greater) motivation for not coming forward.

You must acknowledge the following truth:

Tens of millions of Americans instantly felt great suspicion about the Dallas police department ( and more broadly other involved police agencies ) after watching Jack Ruby shoot Oswald in their own PD building basement on live national TV the morning of 11,24,1963.

The huge majority of Americans "rationally" felt that event stunk to high heaven.

And that this security failure was so impossibly improbable that they had to consider the possibility that someone on the inside was involved.

The most "important" and "threatened" criminal suspect in American history was Lee Harvey Oswald. And he is gunned down less than 48 hours after JFK right inside the Dallas PD building ... and by whom?

A local sleazy strip joint owner? Who was able to slip into the Dallas PD building basement unchecked and unnoticed? And get within feet of a poorly guarded, wide-open Oswald, while 70 other armed police officers are right there inside or at the basement entrances and exits?

"NO WAY, NO WAY, NO WAY" I shouted out upon seeing Oswald gunned down... and as you can be sure tens of millions of others who watched that event on live TV like me (or seconds later on taped replay) also shouted out.

Thousands of national and regional news articles soon exploded with conspiracy talk after Ruby shot Oswald.

Why announce Oswald's transfer and even a general time frame of it to the public ahead of time? Why do this in broad daylight, instead of under the cover of night...unannounced?

Oswald's killer was a known and at times presence tolerated and even favor granted shady occasional legal line crossing character to the Dallas PD?

For years?

He is allowed access into the press crowd inside the DPD both nights "before" the morning of 11,24,1963? He is armed both times? He is stalking Oswald?

The worst case scenario security failures in American history took place "both" on 11,22,1963 AND on the morning of 11/24,1963.

Of course the majority of Americans are going to instantly feel great suspicion after those impossibly improbable "double whammy" shock events and about almost every area of our government who's responsibility it was to protect our president and then Oswald.

Especially right inside our own country, in broad daylight, in front of hundreds of bystanders in a public place - an "announced ahead of time" one?

Right after Ruby shot Oswald is when I believe most Americans truly felt unsure about their own government. As well as huge areas of JFK hating power and wealth.

Organized crime, big oil, Texas political power groups, segregationists, right wing political organizations ( based right inside Dallas!), LBJ and Hoover and Dulles, members of our highest ranking military...you name it.

There is a scene in Oliver Stone's film "JFK" ( fictionalized ) that resonates the fear that witnesses truly felt about coming forward to share things they may have known about the JFKA and many characters who may have been connected to any number of events related to it.

Kevin Costner's Jim Garrison is asking a witness connected to Jack Ruby and his Carousel Club ( Beverly Oliver ) to come to New Orleans and share what she heard or saw there that seemed suspicious to her regards Oswald and Ruby.

After giving Garrison's request some paused and worried thought she said "If they can kill the President of the United States and get away with it"...then something close to..."well, they could easily get to little ole me." And she turns down Garrison's request.

As made up as that scene and those dialogue lines were and as non-credible the real Beverly Oliver may have been, it was a metaphorical statement as to the real fear witnesses felt back in those times.

The following is part of an interview of the actress who played Rose Cherami in Stone's JFK - Sally Kirkland?

It's quite interesting.

Sally Kirkland (Rose Cherami)⁽¹⁾

 

"I do feel very strongly about filmmakers. If there's a certain filmmaker [I admire], then I will do whatever they ask me to do. Oliver Stone, we created that little role in JFK. It wasn't in the script. I told him, "Hey, I want to work with you so badly. Just tell me what to do."⁽²⁾

"In JFK, when the film opens up and you see this woman being thrown out of a car and she's screaming all kinds of obscenities, that's me. Then you see the documentary with Jackie O and Jack, and then you go to the hospital and there's this woman bandaged up, screaming about 'Kennedy's going to be assassinated,' and this and that, that's me on withdrawal. There's the reporters and doctors with me. Then I give out this blood-curdling scream which pretty much sets the tone of the film. Then they come back to me and are going to have to testify that I'm dead, on the way, on that same road where you see me.

"It was a small cameo role, but the interesting thing is that Oliver [Stone] created it for me. The back story on that is that I told him, 'I've got to be in this film,' and I sent him and Kevin [Costner] flowers. So Oliver called me up and said, 'Come to my office and tell me what you want to do.' He said, 'These six women were assassinated.' I don't remember the names. He said, 'Improvise all of them.' So I improvised and he said, 'The one I liked best was Rose Cherami.' He had his people who work for him do research and send me all the information. She was drug runner and a hooker. She had a child. She was doing whatever she could to support herself and that child. She did not want Kennedy to die. She was the first person to go public and say, 'The President's going to be killed.' She wigged out. Newsweek opened up their review and said, 'One of the most authentic moments in the whole film was Rose Cherami.' If you check out the Newsweek article. They don't mention me by name, but they give it all to my character.⁽³⁾

 

 

 

Edited January 10 by Joe Bauer