Hit List-- The Systematic Murders of JFK Witnesses

[Pat Speer]

1 minute ago, Joe Bauer said:

Agree totally with Rosselli, Giancana and others in the mid 70s' but Lee Bowers I can't dismiss wholeheartedly because of the preposterous circumstances of his death and illogically quick church memorial service and cremation. 1 day?

And some hick little Texas boondocks town Justice of the Peace so blatantly ignoring state law requiring an autopsy when the victim in killed in a violent manner.

Ferry and Banister totally suspicious to me.

Mary Meyer same thing.

And don't forget James Forrestal's 16th floor leap at Bethesda in 1954.

Of all the suspicious deaths of the sixties, the one I find most suspicious is Ferrie's. 

Due mostly to the timing... 

To be clear, when I was performing a deep dive on the LBJ/RFK rivalry I realized that Ramsey Clark told LBJ about Ferrie, and that Ferrie may have implicated him.

And then like four days later Ferrie was dead. 

It's hard for me to write that one off. 

[Kevin Balch]

25 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Agree totally with Rosselli, Giancana and others in the mid 70s' but Lee Bowers I can't dismiss wholeheartedly because of the preposterous circumstances of his death and illogically quick church memorial service and cremation. 1 day?

And some hick little Texas boondocks town Justice of the Peace so blatantly ignoring "state law" requiring an autopsy when the victim in killed in a violent manner.

Ferry and Banister totally suspicious to me.

Mary Meyer same thing.

And don't forget James Forrestal's 16th floor leap at Bethesda in 1954.

Lee Bowers was transported to Methodist Hospital in Dallas (where J D Tippit was brought) where he died about 3 1/2 hours after the accident. So the Justice of the Peace was from Dallas.

Has anyone read this book which goes into great detail about Bowers death?

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Eyewitness-Conspiracy-Bowers/dp/1480803359/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1416712989&sr=8-2&keywords=anita+dickason

[W. Niederhut]

Pat,

      I'm responding to your comments in red (below.)

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Much of that is gossip, or information that has been skewed to be creepy.

Pat, this statement is simply false.  The detailed facts described in Hit List are taken from autopsy and police reports.  They are often supplemented by the witness testimony of people who knew the murder victims-- like Dorothy Kilgallen's house servants, Ben Bradlee's autobiography, and Lee Bowers wife.

For instance, Angleton... Not exactly a hero of mine. But the evidence strongly suggests he was told about the diary by his wife, who was friends with Meyer, who didn't want the affair with JFK to become public. As I recall, he ran into Ben Bradlee and his wife (Meyer's sister) after confiscating the diary, and offered it to them, but they told him he should destroy it, or some such thing. IOW, he did not grab the diary as an employee for the CIA, but as a husband and friend. 

Angleton was in Mary Meyer's apartment, reading her diary, when Ben Bradlee and his wife later arrived.

Angleton never offered to give the diary to Bradlee, or handed it to him.

Also, Bradlee and Wistar Janney knew Meyer had been murdered by the noon hour, even though the police had not issued any reports about the murder until several hours later.  (see Mary's Mosaic.)

How did the CIA know she had been murdered?

As another example, Hunter. I seem to recall someone belatedly looked up his articles on the JFKA and they were all Oswald-did-it articles. There is no evidence he was a threat to anyone, and if he was well, geez, there are much simpler ways to kill someone than having them "accidentally" shot in a police station. 

As I recall, Hunter had been in Ruby's apartment.

How do you know that he wasn't planning to publish something damning about Ruby and Oswald?

Then a cop just happens to shoot him in the heart by dropping his gun?  Sure.

I have been way deep in the weeds of the JFKA for decades now, and there are two incredibly clear facts, IMO.

1. Most of the stuff spewed in JFK books and websites is nonsense. 

2. But not all of it.

I'm a latecomer to the JFKA literature.  It took me a while to separate the wheat from the CIA-funded chaff-- e.g., John McAdams, Posner, Bugliosi, and the CIA-funded disinformation.

As stated, those interested in "suspicious deaths" should focus on the deaths of the 70's. I remember Gary Hart speaking about this and claiming he wasn't convinced there was a conspiracy to kill JFK until the witnesses he wanted to bring before the Church Committee started dying. 

What about the dead Garrison witnesses, and the cases from the 60s I mentioned above?

Incidentally, I'm an old Gary Hart fan/donor from Colorado.  IMO, Gary never really came clean about his Church Committee experiences, other than hinting that there were a lot of unanswered questions about Oswald.  Duh.

And, to be honest, I later wondered if Gary had possibly been recruited by the Company during his years in New Haven.  (BTW, his Uncle Eberhard was a high-level Naval official.)

It would be good to have a book on those deaths, IMO, that was not filled with the speculation rampant in the claims about the suspicious deaths of the 60's. 

This is a false summary of the forensic facts in Hit List.

Repeating the falsehoods doesn't make them true.

[Pat Speer]

11 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

Lee Bowers was transported to Methodist Hospital in Dallas (where J D Tippit was brought) where he died about 3 1/2 hours after the accident. So the Justice of the Peace was from Dallas.

Has anyone read this book which goes into great detail about Bowers death?

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Eyewitness-Conspiracy-Bowers/dp/1480803359/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1416712989&sr=8-2&keywords=anita+dickason

I met the author at a conference and spoke to her for a half-hour or so. If I recall she was totally open-minded about the Bowers case but ultimately concluded his death was sad but not suspicious. 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

Lee Bowers was transported to Methodist Hospital in Dallas (where J D Tippit was brought) where he died about 3 1/2 hours after the accident. So the Justice of the Peace was from Dallas.

Has anyone read this book which goes into great detail about Bowers death?

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Eyewitness-Conspiracy-Bowers/dp/1480803359/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1416712989&sr=8-2&keywords=anita+dickason

I think there may be a topic on this book or it was discussed in a thread on Bowers here on the forum some years ago.  I remember checking it out on amazon shortly after it came out.  I wondered about her sudden interest in one aspect of the JFK assassination in relation to her years at the DPD, then going on to write fiction.  Gary Shaw's (whose work I respect) review convinced me not to buy it.

Gary Shaw

1.0 out of 5 stars A Rush to Hush... but doesn't work !!!!!

Reviewed in the United States on November 26, 2013

 

Don't waste your time and money on this book. It is a feeble effort to debunk the "strange death" scenario that surrounds the tragic automobile death of an extremely important eyewitness who saw sinister and suspicious men behind the stockade fence in Dealey Plaza at the time of President Kennedy's assassination. The "who" and "what" Lee Bowers saw that fateful day was one of the most damaging pieces of evidence against the government's "lone assassin" theory. And a "Johnny-Come-Lately" attempt at investigating this 45-plus year-old accident is "no accident."

 

 

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

Lee Bowers was transported to Methodist Hospital in Dallas (where J D Tippit was brought) where he died about 3 1/2 hours after the accident. So the Justice of the Peace was from Dallas.

The Justice Of The Peace coming from a large city makes his ignoring state law requiring an autopsy upon violent death circumstances even more suspicious.

Does the book author go into Bower's Life and Death insurance policy controversy?

Did Bower's family decide on cremation in just that short of time?

Heck, that wouldn't be enough time to notify anyone (outside his most immediate family ) such as friends, co-workers, etc. who knew and cared about Bowers to even know of such a service let alone attend such.

Seems to me that Bower's family would be so distraught and discombobulated by his sudden brutal death ( and at just 41 years of age ) they may not have had the emotional recovery strength to make such decisions in less than 24 hours time.

Wasn't Bowers declared dead by a local doctor?

 

Edited July 29 by Joe Bauer

[Kevin Balch]

52 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I think there may be a topic on this book or it was discussed in a thread on Bowers here on the forum some years ago.  I remember checking it out on amazon shortly after it came out.  I wondered about her sudden interest in one aspect of the JFK assassination in relation to her years at the DPD, then going on to write fiction.  Gary Shaw's (whose work I respect) review convinced me not to buy it.

Gary Shaw

1.0 out of 5 stars A Rush to Hush... but doesn't work !!!!!

Reviewed in the United States on November 26, 2013

 

Don't waste your time and money on this book. It is a feeble effort to debunk the "strange death" scenario that surrounds the tragic automobile death of an extremely important eyewitness who saw sinister and suspicious men behind the stockade fence in Dealey Plaza at the time of President Kennedy's assassination. The "who" and "what" Lee Bowers saw that fateful day was one of the most damaging pieces of evidence against the government's "lone assassin" theory. And a "Johnny-Come-Lately" attempt at investigating this 45-plus year-old accident is "no accident."

 

 

Amazon book reviews that say “don’t waste your time” rarely offer specific or thoughtful reasons why the book is a waste of time. Such as Gary Shaw’s review.

[Ron Bulman]

38 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

Amazon book reviews that say “don’t waste your time” rarely offer specific or thoughtful reasons why the book is a waste of time. Such as Gary Shaw’s review.

Here is some of why I respect Mr. Shaw's work/opinion.

SHAW LEGACY (projectjfk.com)

[Kevin Balch]

10 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Here is some of why I respect Mr. Shaw's work/opinion.

SHAW LEGACY (projectjfk.com)

Then he should have written a more factual rebuttal.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/28/2024 at 2:52 PM, W. Niederhut said:

On 7/28/2024 at 2:34 PM, Pat Speer said:

The vast majority of suspicious deaths, as I recall, are of people whose deaths were ruled to have been an accident, who ACTUALLY said very little to suggest a conspiracy.

On 7/28/2024 at 2:52 PM, W. Niederhut said:

C'mon, Pat.

I take it that you haven't read, or understood, the forensic details in the book?

 

W,

It should come as no surprise that Pat dismisses the accounts of these JFKA-coverup related deaths. Eyewitness testimonies and statistical analysis mean nothing to anti-alterationists like Pat when it comes to defending their precious preconceived notions.

Recall that anti-alterationists believe that nearly every witness to the gaping head wound (~40 of them) merely mass-hallucinated a large wound being on the back of the head, which they claim was really on the top of the head.

Statistical analysis proves that the odds of that happening naturally (i.e. without magic) is virtually zero. But that fact means nothing when put up against their preconceived notions.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

With all respect Sandy, your opinion on all this is not worth much. You have done no research or reading or study on cognitive psychology and have made up for your own gratification and amusement that one can cherry-pick statements from some people and calculate the odds of them being wrong or not wrong and then use this calculation to determine the truth. 

 

My statistical analysis has nothing to do with forensics. It is a purely mathematical analysis that has been proven to be correct... mathematically correct.

The only thing my statistical analysis does is calculate the odds of so many witnesses being wrong (which is what Pat claims) and yet corroborating one another.

Suppose you had 40 coins and you tossed them all. Would you be surprised if, say, 18 came up heads and 22 came up tails? No, you wouldn't.

But would you be surprised if all 40 coins came up heads (or tails)? I sure would be!

There is a formula that calculates the odds of a specified number of heads (or tails) that will come up. It is called the binomial distribution formula, and there are numerous such calculators online that can perform the calculation for you. (Here is one.)

I just used the calculator to determine what the odds are of all 40 coins coming up heads. The answer is one in 1,111,000,000,000. This means that you will have to toss the 40 coins 1.111 trillion times in order to expect all 40 coins to come up heads JUST ONE TIME.

Those odds would be the same for all 40 head wound witnesses to be wrong, and yet all say the wound was on the back of the head.

Hopefully by now the reader should be understanding the problem this statistical analysis presents for Pat's belief. It's virtually impossible for so many witnesses to be wrong and yet at the same time corroborate one another!

Now, there IS one hope remaining for Pat. And that is the fact that not every witnesses said they the gaping wound on the back of JFK's head. Approximately 5 of the witnesses said the wound was on the top or side of the head. We need to calculate the odds of 35 of 40 coins coming up heads.

I just ran the numbers and the calculator gave the odds being one in 1,446,537. That is also the odds of 35 wound witnesses being wrong, but still corroborating one another.

 

So clearly Pat and his followers have reason to worry about their beliefs. The rest of us don't have a problem because we don't claim that those 35 out of 40 witnesses are wrong. In fact we claim they are right, and the other 5 are wrong.

 

[Pat Speer]

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

My statistical analysis has nothing to do with forensics. It is a purely mathematical analysis that has been proven to be correct... mathematically correct.

The only thing my statistical analysis does is calculate the odds of so many witnesses being wrong (which is what Pat claims) and yet corroborating one another.

Suppose you had 40 coins and you tossed them all. Would you be surprised if, say, 18 came up heads and 22 came up tails? No, you wouldn't.

But would you be surprised if all 40 coins came up heads (or tails)? I sure would be!

There is a formula that calculates the odds of a specified number of heads (or tails) that will come up. It is called the binomial distribution formula, and there are numerous such calculators online that can perform the calculation for you. (Here is one.)

I just used the calculator to determine what the odds are of all 40 coins coming up heads. The answer is one in 1,111,000,000,000. This means that you will have to toss the 40 coins 1.111 trillion times in order to expect all 40 coins to come up heads JUST ONE TIME.

Those odds would be the same for all 40 head wound witnesses to be wrong, and yet all say the wound was on the back of the head.

Hopefully by now the reader should be understanding the problem this statistical analysis presents for Pat's belief. It's virtually impossible for so many witnesses to be wrong and yet at the same time corroborate one another!

Now, there IS one hope remaining for Pat. And that is the fact that not every witnesses said they the gaping wound on the back of JFK's head. Approximately 5 of the witnesses said the wound was on the top or side of the head. We need to calculate the odds of 35 of 40 coins coming up heads.

I just ran the numbers and the calculator gave the odds being one in 1,446,537. That is also the odds of 35 wound witnesses being wrong, but still corroborating one another.

 

So clearly Pat and his followers have reason to worry about their beliefs. The rest of us don't have a problem because we don't claim that those 35 out of 40 witnesses are wrong. In fact we claim they are right, and the other 5 are wrong.

 

I actually went back and deleted my post within 2-3 minutes of posting it, as it's clear you have a brain-block on this issue which makes discussing this with you a total waste of time.

1. Cognitive psychologists and historians do not pretend people's perceptions are a roll of the dice or a turn of a card. They do not estimate "probabilities" of truth based on the number of people who have at one point in their life made a certain claim. 

2. Your numbers are skewed. You deliberately exclude the statements of men like Jenkins and Carrico, who would come to claim they were mistaken, and the testimony of men like Clark, who said their recollections were consistent with the official story. 

3. You perhaps inadvertently engage in a bait-and-switch. You use the statements of people stating the wound was high on the back of the head to debunk photos you think show a wound on the top of the head, and then claim their statements support the work of men like Mantik and Horne, who hold that the wound was low on the back of the head. 

4. You obsessively attack those who agree with me by claiming they are "followers" when, in fact, they have just followed common sense. I noticed this awhile back. I think it was last year sometime when you began claiming that I was holding the research community back by disavowing the nonsense of men like Doug Horne, who you apparently "follow." You failed to realize that Horne is on the fringe, that relatively mainstream CTs like Aguilar and Thompson think his theories are mostly nonsense, and that the Fetzer-Mantik-Horne wing holding that everything has been altered by the deep state is currently aligning itself with the Neo-fascists. 

Edited July 31 by Pat Speer

[Kevin Balch]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

My statistical analysis has nothing to do with forensics. It is a purely mathematical analysis that has been proven to be correct... mathematically correct.

The only thing my statistical analysis does is calculate the odds of so many witnesses being wrong (which is what Pat claims) and yet corroborating one another.

Suppose you had 40 coins and you tossed them all. Would you be surprised if, say, 18 came up heads and 22 came up tails? No, you wouldn't.

But would you be surprised if all 40 coins came up heads (or tails)? I sure would be!

There is a formula that calculates the odds of a specified number of heads (or tails) that will come up. It is called the binomial distribution formula, and there are numerous such calculators online that can perform the calculation for you. (Here is one.)

I just used the calculator to determine what the odds are of all 40 coins coming up heads. The answer is one in 1,111,000,000,000. This means that you will have to toss the 40 coins 1.111 trillion times in order to expect all 40 coins to come up heads JUST ONE TIME.

Those odds would be the same for all 40 head wound witnesses to be wrong, and yet all say the wound was on the back of the head.

Hopefully by now the reader should be understanding the problem this statistical analysis presents for Pat's belief. It's virtually impossible for so many witnesses to be wrong and yet at the same time corroborate one another!

Now, there IS one hope remaining for Pat. And that is the fact that not every witnesses said they the gaping wound on the back of JFK's head. Approximately 5 of the witnesses said the wound was on the top or side of the head. We need to calculate the odds of 35 of 40 coins coming up heads.

I just ran the numbers and the calculator gave the odds being one in 1,446,537. That is also the odds of 35 wound witnesses being wrong, but still corroborating one another.

 

So clearly Pat and his followers have reason to worry about their beliefs. The rest of us don't have a problem because we don't claim that those 35 out of 40 witnesses are wrong. In fact we claim they are right, and the other 5 are wrong.

 

What is the probability that the cleanup squad could murder 120 of the 1400 witnesses between 1963-1978 and not get caught once? Other than Jack Ruby whose murder of Oswald IS suspicious.

Do you know the total number of deaths among the 1400 witnesses between 1963-1978? I ask because there are reliable total death probabilities from the population at large that should be applicable to a population of 1400 witnesses (typically a very good sample size for political polling. 

[Robert Morrow]

On 3/6/2024 at 12:16 PM, W. Niederhut said:

     I started a thread on the forum last year, on the occasion of the death of American comedian, Richard Belzer, who had co-authored the popular book, Hit List, about the suspicious deaths of numerous witnesses with knowledge of the JFK assassination.  Belzer, et.al., included forensics data and actuarial estimates in the book.

      I noticed, in the archives, that Douglas Caddy started a forum thread about Hit List in 2013, but hardly anyone commented on that original thread, or reviewed the book.  

      In any case, I was somewhat surprised recently to hear a JFK researcher deny that there was anything suspicious about all of these untimely deaths-- including those of Dorothy Killgallen, Rose Cheramie, Lee Bowers, Mary Pinchot Meyer, William Sullivan, Sam Giancana, George De Mohrenschildt, et.al.

      One of the most obvious was the "Omerta" murder of Giancana on the night before his scheduled meeting with members of Congress, almost simultaneous with DeMohrenschildt's "suicide" before his Congressional testimony.

      Do most forum members consider the Hit List data (also published on various websites) accurate-- i.e., reliable reference material?

My *opinion* is that virtually NONE of the so-called victims on the "Hit List of the JFK Assassination" are deaths that relate in any way whatsoever to the JFK assassination. The lone exception would be LEE HARVEY OSWALD, who the Dallas Police were framing for the murder of JFK by 12:44PM, and Jack Ruby, although he died of a "pulmonary embolism" on January 3, 1967, I think the LBJ and the U.S. Government were trying to murder Jack Ruby by injecting him with cancer.

Furthermore, it was JACK RUBY'S OWN LAWYERS (who were not working in his interest) who asked JOLYON WEST to be a mental doctor for Jack Ruby. I believe that Jack Ruby's lawyers were ultimately controlled by Lyndon Johnson and Ed Clark, two perps in the JFK assassination.

Joe Tanahill, if I am correct, WAS A FRIEND OF LYNDON JOHNSON and furthermore Ed Clark's law firm represented Joe Tanahill in a tax evasion case. So Tanahill, Jack Ruby's lawyer, one of them, was totally controlled by Lyndon Johnson.

Jack Ruby hated Joe Tanahill and tried over and over again to get rid of him, but Tanahill - controlled by LBJ and Clark- was maniacally determined to keep representing (controlling) Jack Ruby for the perps of the JFK assassination.

 

 

[Joe Bauer]

Heck, take out Oswald in less than 48 hours after JFK and you've eliminated the need to kill too many others.