Hit List-- The Systematic Murders of JFK Witnesses

[Bill Simpich]

Greg Doudna wrote:  "In that interpretation that Givens was a real witness to a 6th floor shooter at the time of the shots, at 12:30 pm, how and when in that interpretation does Givens make his exit from the TSBD without anyone seeing him? At the point the building was sealed by officers minutes later Givens is not in the building."

Greg, look at TSBD employee Edward Shields' testimony to the Warren Commission:   "Did you see the motorcade?"  "I sure did."  "Where were you when you saw it?"  "I was just standing right around there at Mullendorf's Cafe."  "At what address?"  "At Record and Main."  "Who was with you?"  "Givens".  "Did you hear the shots?"  "Yes, I heard the shots."

Shields said that Givens had been there with him since about noon time that day.  Givens' story matched with Shields.

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

19 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

Greg Doudna wrote:  "In that interpretation that Givens was a real witness to a 6th floor shooter at the time of the shots, at 12:30 pm, how and when in that interpretation does Givens make his exit from the TSBD without anyone seeing him? At the point the building was sealed by officers minutes later Givens is not in the building."

Greg, look at TSBD employee Edward Shields' testimony to the Warren Commission:   "Did you see the motorcade?"  "I sure did."  "Where were you when you saw it?"  "I was just standing right around there at Mullendorf's Cafe."  "At what address?"  "At Record and Main."  "Who was with you?"  "Givens".  "Did you hear the shots?"  "Yes, I heard the shots."

Shields said that Givens had been there with him since about noon time that day.  Givens' story matched with Shields.

Thanks Bill.

[Bill Brown]

 

On the death of Lee Bowers...

file:///C:/Users/15136/Downloads/JFK-Assassination-Eyewitness_-R-Anita-Dickason-5%20(1).pdf

 

[Mark Ulrik]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

On the death of Lee Bowers...

file:///C:/Users/15136/Downloads/JFK-Assassination-Eyewitness_-R-Anita-Dickason-5%20(1).pdf

Can also be borrowed here:

JFK Assassination Eyewitness: Rush to Conspiracy (the Real Facts of Lee Bowers' Death)

[W. Niederhut]

Rush to Conspiracy?   Huh?   It has taken years for independent researchers to identify and publish all of the evidence debunking the Warren Commission cover up of the JFK assassination plot-- including the systematic murders of important witnesses.

And the Mockingbird contractors in the mainstream and social media have been working to discredit them for decades.

Meanwhile, I wonder if Bill Brown and Mark Ulrik have even studied the forensic data in Hit List.

Do they know what Lee Bowers said, privately, about what he had witnessed in the parking lot on 11/22/63?

 

 

[Kevin Balch]

In 1965 the clearance rate for homicide was around 80% meaning a murderer had approximately 20% chance of not getting caught. It’s much lower now.

https://projectcoldcase.org/cold-case-homicide-stats/

If this probability is applied to the supposed hit squad victims among the 15 JFKA witnesses mentioned in the Charnin analysis whose deaths are “suspicious”, there is only a 0.2^15 or 3X10-11 chance that the murderers would not be caught.

However we know of several serial killers who manage to kill 50-100 victims before they are caught. In the case of large body count serial killers, they almost always select victims that are on the margins of society whose deaths are considered unimportant and not investigated very enthusiastically.

One could say the success of serial killers justifies the mysterious death hypothesis.

On the other hand, the Poisson process used in the Charnin analysis is best applied to objects that are unambiguously homogeneous such as nuclear particles or situations where there is not much subtlety such as Prussian army deaths from horse kicks during the Franco-Prussian War which is where it was first applied.

My simplistic analysis of getting away with murder was mathematically correct but obviously broke down. I would have liked to have seen Charnin apply his methodology to a case where several witnesses were murdered to prevent testifying or another probabilistic approach taken with his data to see if he got the same approximate results. When you get numerical results ten orders of magnitude different from your input, at least some skepticism is called for.

The most important mysterious death is that of Oswald.

I checked out “Hit List” from the library and dug out my old probability and statistics books from deep storage so maybe I will have more to say on the matter.

[W. Niederhut]

1 minute ago, Kevin Balch said:

In 1965 the clearance rate for homicide was around 80% meaning a murderer had approximately 20% chance of not getting caught. It’s much lower now.

https://projectcoldcase.org/cold-case-homicide-stats/

If this probability is applied to the supposed hit squad victims among the 15 JFKA witnesses mentioned in the Charnin analysis whose deaths are “suspicious”, there is only a 0.2^15 or 3X10-11 chance that the murderers would not be caught.

However we know of several serial killers who manage to kill 50-100 victims before they are caught. In the case of large body count serial killers, they almost always select victims that are on the margins of society whose deaths are considered unimportant and not investigated very enthusiastically.

One could say the success of serial killers justifies the mysterious death hypothesis.

On the other hand, the Poisson process used in the Charnin analysis is best applied to objects that are unambiguously homogeneous such as nuclear particles or situations where there is not much subtlety such as Prussian army deaths from horse kicks during the Franco-Prussian War which is where it was first applied.

My simplistic analysis of getting away with murder was mathematically correct but obviously broke down. I would have liked to have seen Charnin apply his methodology to a case where several witnesses were murdered to prevent testifying or another probabilistic approach taken with his data to see if he got the same approximate results. When you get numerical results ten orders of magnitude different from your input, at least some skepticism is called for.

The most important mysterious death is that of Oswald.

I checked out “Hit List” from the library and dug out my old probability and statistics books from deep storage so maybe I will have more to say on the matter.

Kevin,

     The issue of actuarial probabilities is one interesting aspect of these cases, but the specific forensic details are more telling, IMO.   As an example, we could look at the actuarial probabilities that Sam Giancana and George De Mohrenschildt would be shot in the head at a particular age.    But what are the actuarial probabilities that they would be shot in the head immediately before their scheduled testimony about the JFKA assassination?

     Related forensic examples are endless here.

     As another example, we could focus on the actuarial probability that Koethe would be killed by a karate chop, but a more salient question might be, "Why did the alleged burglar steal Koethe's notes about the JFK assassination?"

     The same question could be asked about James Angleton's theft of Mary Pinchot Meyer's diary, or the theft of Dorothy Killgallen's (and Florence Pritchard Smith's) notes about Jack Ruby, after these women were murdered.

[Bill Fite]

1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:

In 1965 the clearance rate for homicide was around 80% meaning a murderer had approximately 20% chance of not getting caught. It’s much lower now.

Hi Kevin - it's interesting to think about this, at least for me.

 

Edited April 23 by Bill Fite

[W. Niederhut]

19 minutes ago, Bill Fite said:

Hi Kevin - it's interesting to think about this, at least for me.

 

Bill,

    Getting back to my point (above) about the salience of forensic details, how would we calculate the probability that both Sam Giancana and George De Mohrenschildt would have been murdered, by chance, one day prior to their scheduled testimony about the JFK assassination?

[Bill Fite]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

  Getting back to my point (above) about the salience of forensic details, how would we calculate the probability that both Sam Giancana and George De Mohrenschildt would have been murdered, by chance, one day prior to their scheduled testimony about the JFK assassination?

Hi W

First thoughts: I think that there are 2 probability estimates you would need.

I might estimate them using simulation if all the data was readily available.

Data needed:

* witness list 

* witness sex and age

* time frame to use

* categories of cause of death of witnesses in that time frame

* dates of death

* mortality rates by sex and age in each of the categories of death, maybe just the mortality rate alone by murder

* dates witnesses were being called to testify or give a statement

So the first probability that I would look at is the number of expected deaths in each category vs. actual deaths in that category.

I would simulate 100K instances with the following steps.

1. Set  count of more_than_observed deaths = 0
2. Loop = 0
3. Set simulated_deaths = 0
4. for each witness generate a uniform random number in the 0 to 1 range -- call this u
5. for each witness look up the appropriate mortality rate by sex and age -- call this p
6. for each witness if their u < p then simulated_deaths = simulated_deaths + 1
7. if simulated deaths >= observed deaths in category then more_than_observed_deaths = more_than_observed_deaths
8. loop = loop + 1
9. if loop = 100K STOP else GOTO step 3

After 100k simulations the probability of getting at least the observed number of deaths in the category = more_than_observed_deaths / 100K.

************************

For the second probability - witness death in some time period immediately before testifying (lets say 14 days) I might do this:

N = number of days between JFKA and scheduled investigation appearance

p = 14 / N

then use the cumulative binomial probability distribution to get the probability of at least the observed witness deaths in that short time period.

I think those estimates would work and hope that I've explained it well enough.

 

 

[Kevin Balch]

Going through “Hit List” entry regarding George DeMohrenschildt, it’s claimed that a doctor who treated DeMohrenschildt for bronchitis apparently induced his mental collapse. It further states that this doctor started this treatment in April 1976 at the time the House Select Committee on Assassinations was beginning to be funded (page 234, hardcover edition). I checked and found that the HSCA was not even created by vote in congress until September 17, 1976.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/94-1976/h1183

It’s further claimed that his wife Jeanne continued to believe he was murdered to silence him. However, the clean up squad let her live for another 16 years.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/160217231/jeanne-de_mohrenschildt

DeMohrenschildt was staying at the residence where he died as a guest. It was quite fortuitous for the clean up squad that there was already a shotgun present in the home. You would think that someone covertly entering an occupied home they were presumably unfamiliar with and had intruder alarms to kill someone and make it look like a suicide would stage it as a self-hanging perhaps withe the aid of a hard to detect tranquilizing agent. Although the shotgun blast was apparently not heard by those present elsewhere in the house, how would a presumptive killer know this? Did the presumptive killer have cooperation of one of the occupants?

The authors of “Hit List” ask why such an upscale man would use such a gruesome instrument such as a shotgun to commit suicide (page 237). But didn’t Ernest Hemmingway and Philip Graham of the Washington Post use a shotgun to commit suicide?

Here is an detailed report into the investigation of DeMohrenschildt’s death. I realize it has been taken from McAdams site but it appears to be the work of the local police, perhaps at the behest of the HSCA.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/death2.txt

[Bill Simpich]

I would respectfully suggest not including de Mohrenschildt for the reasons stated and more.  The facts are contested.
 

I think if you limit it to six people or something like to start with - Koethe, Hunter, Kilgallen, Pritchett Smith, Giancana and Rosselli - you will obtain a very positive result.

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

Hi W

First thoughts: I think that there are 2 probability estimates you would need.

I might estimate them using simulation if all the data was readily available.

Data needed:

* witness list 

* witness sex and age

* time frame to use

* categories of cause of death of witnesses in that time frame

* dates of death

* mortality rates by sex and age in each of the categories of death, maybe just the mortality rate alone by murder

* dates witnesses were being called to testify or give a statement

So the first probability that I would look at is the number of expected deaths in each category vs. actual deaths in that category.

I would simulate 100K instances with the following steps.

1. Set  count of more_than_observed deaths = 0
2. Loop = 0
3. Set simulated_deaths = 0
4. for each witness generate a uniform random number in the 0 to 1 range -- call this u
5. for each witness look up the appropriate mortality rate by sex and age -- call this p
6. for each witness if their u < p then simulated_deaths = simulated_deaths + 1
7. if simulated deaths >= observed deaths in category then more_than_observed_deaths = more_than_observed_deaths
8. loop = loop + 1
9. if loop = 100K STOP else GOTO step 3

After 100k simulations the probability of getting at least the observed number of deaths in the category = more_than_observed_deaths / 100K.

************************

For the second probability - witness death in some time period immediately before testifying (lets say 14 days) I might do this:

N = number of days between JFKA and scheduled investigation appearance

p = 14 / N

then use the cumulative binomial probability distribution to get the probability of at least the observed witness deaths in that short time period.

I think those estimates would work and hope that I've explained it well enough.

 

 

Bill,

     My point is that the specific forensic details of many of these deaths render mere actuarial probabilities less than significant-- although the actuarial stats indicate high improbability.

     For example, it's one thing to estimate the actuarial probability of George De Mohrenschildt suddenly dying at age 66, and another thing to estimate the probability that he would suddenly die of a gun shot wound to the head the day before his scheduled testimony about the JFK assassination.  Why did De Mohrenschildt die on that particular day, rather than on one of the other 5,100+ days that had elapsed after JFK's murder?

     The same probabilistic logic applies to Giancana's murder, and most of these JFK witness murder cases.

      So, yes, we can get a composite number about the actuarial probabilities of all of these witness deaths-- as Beltzer and Wayne did, in Hit List -- but what is even more improbable are the strange, specific circumstances of the murders occurring when, and how, they did by mere chance.

      What is the probability that Giancana would have been murdered, by chance, by multiple gunshot wounds spelling an "O" around his mouth-- for "Omerta"-- the day before his scheduled testimony about the JFK assassination?

      What is the probability that a random burglar would have stolen Koethe's JFK assassination notes, by mere chance, after killing Koethe with a karate chop?  (We could ask the same question about the Killgallen and Pritchard Smith murders.)  Aside from actuarial mortality stats, how frequently do burglars steal manuscripts and notes written by their victims?

       

Edited April 23 by W. Niederhut

[Michael Crane]

I'm debating on hiring a ghost writer for a book idea I have called "Turn In Your Man Card" so,I'm just shopping around.

Edited April 24 by Michael Crane

[Ron Bulman]

What are the odds John Roselli shortly before his HSCA testimony would disappear and later be found having been garroted, stabbed and shot.  Legs cut off and stuffed in a 55 gallon oil drum with holes cut in it and wrapped in heavy chain.  Dropped in the ocean.  With all those contingences, probably pretty high. 

Separately, what are the chances the gases in his own decomposing body would be enough to lift it, the drum and chains to the surface to be washed up near shore?