JFK Grand Jury

[William Kelly]

Bill,

An excellent article to be sure. What certainly is needed is a team to put together the evidence. Not hearsay, speculation, theories, and innuendo, but hard evidence and documentation. It IS out there afterall, and it will be necessary for this "team" to put aside the theories and concentrate on the facts. This forum apparently has members who are lawyers or affiliated with lawyers or prosecutors in Texas. Perhaps that's a good place to start. Seems to me if I was an attorney licensed to practice in the state of Texas, and called myself a JFK researcher, I'd be all over this. So someone should grab the bull by the proverbial horns and get moving.

RJS

PS: Is your on-line grand jury petition still active? I recall we discussed this a few years ago.

Hello Richard,

Yes indeed, a team killed JFK and it will take a team to bring them to justice. I am not alone on this, and have been working with researcher and lawyers since a Dallas COPA conference a few years ago when the JFK Grand Jury Project was announced by myself, Phil Melanson and John Judge.

The evidence that can be presented in court to the grand jury is limited - though hearsay is admissible. We want to put the real BEST Evidence before them, request they subpoena specific records and require the testimony of living witnesses, with issues outlined in the request as well as suggested questions should be asked and answered.

So far there are about a half-dozen lawyers who are or have worked on this project and while I hesitate to identify them yet, they are working towards a legally acceptable and convincing petition-request, the details of which have yet to be compiled.

I am getting ready to begin an online seminar here, with John Simkin's permission, that will explore the amount of evidence that is available, which should be included in the petition-request along with the living witnesses and what questions they should be asked, when called.

While the lawyers in Texas, especially those District Attorneys with unquestionable jursdiction, have never been inclined to act, I believe that once a Special Federal Grand Jury request is submitted and accepted, they will suddenly decide that hey, that's in our court, and try to take over the game, but it will be too late.

And yes, the on-lone petition is active - and while it is designed for US Citizens, anyone - including foreigners can sign it -as long as they mention their residence so they can be appraised of the petition's progress - [ http://www.petitiononline.com/jfkgjury/petition.html ] .

Thanks for all your interests in this project,

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

[Mark Stapleton]

Bill,

Forgive my ignorance as I'm not trained in law, especially the American kind, but there's a few things I don't understand--don't get me wrong, if it's a possible way of leading to a prosecution in this case and ultimately discovering the truth then I'm all for it.

Does the DA determine whether the petition leads to the formation of the Grand Jury? If not who does?

Has this avenue been explored in the past?

Why didn't Garrison use it or was he prevented from doing this by some legal technicality?

Does the Grand Jury consist of all those on the petition and if not who determines its makeup? Thanks in advance.

Hi Mark, In answer to your questions, Yes, the District Attorney in each jurisdiction determines if the petition will be presented to a grand jury.

This avenue has been explored in the past on the RFK assassination, and was used by Garrison in New Orleans, a grand jury that voted to indict Clay Shaw and ordered him to stand trial. When Harry Connick took over the NO DA office from Garrison he ordered the grand jury records destroyed, but the clerk responsible kept them and turned them over to the ARRB and NARA, and the entire proceedings are now available on line [ I think they are at Historymatters.com ]

Those who sign the petition that is presented to the District Attorney become part of the official record if the petition is accepted, the request is granted and the grand jury conviened, and are informed of the progress of the grand jury but are not a part of it. The grand jury proceedings are secret.

To sign on the petition see: [ http://www.petitiononline.com/jfkgjury/petition.html ], which is addressed to the Federal Attorneys in three relevant jurisdictions - North Texas, La. and DC, and will be presented to them, one at a time, when the requests and convincing briefs and attachments are ready.

The grand jury is chosen by the court like ordinary jurors are chosen, except there are 23 jurors and 23 alternates, all ordinary citizens selected from among the district's voter and driver registraiton records, with a jury foreman chosen by them from among their ranks. Their term last 18 months, and they meet periodically, usually two or three times a week.

Although there are local - Dallas - County - State and Federal Grand Juries - in three jurisdictions - that makes at least nine to twelve possible jurisdictions - and while some continue to argue that it wasn't a federal crime to kill the pres in 1963, it WAS a Federal Crime to CONSPIRE to kill a federal employee, whether a postman or a president, and conspiracy can be established. A Special Federal Grand Jury would be conviened just for this one case - The JFK Assassination and related crimes - similar to the grand juries that were conveined for the assassination of the former Chilian Ambassador to US, the CIA Leak and I am sure, the Chicago mob investigation now going on.

If you or anyone would like to sign on to the petition or assist in compiling the Request Brief - you can become familiar with the grand juries you can read the excellent site at the University of Dayton School of Law by Susan Brenner, who has agreed to assist us as a counselor.

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Thanks for that info, Bill. I'm a bit surprised that more Forum members aren't on it but FWIW, I'll sign on.

[Thomas Graves]

If you or anyone would like to sign on to the petition or assist in compiling the Request Brief - you can become familiar with the grand juries you can read the excellent site at the University of Dayton School of Law by Susan Brenner, who has agreed to assist us as a counselor.

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Thanks for that info, Bill. I'm a bit surprised that more Forum members aren't on it but FWIW, I'll sign on.

_____________________________________________

Hi Bill,

I took a look at the list and I noticed that most of the people didn't give their full address. Is that going to be a problem?

Thomas

_____________________________________________

[John Simkin]

I am getting ready to begin an online seminar here, with John Simkin's permission, that will explore the amount of evidence that is available, which should be included in the petition-request along with the living witnesses and what questions they should be asked, when called.

Great idea. I have been following this thread with great interest. I do not fully understand the US legal system but this seems a very sensible way forward.

[William Kelly]

If you or anyone would like to sign on to the petition or assist in compiling the Request Brief - you can become familiar with the grand juries you can read the excellent site at the University of Dayton School of Law by Susan Brenner, who has agreed to assist us as a counselor.

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Thanks for that info, Bill. I'm a bit surprised that more Forum members aren't on it but FWIW, I'll sign on.

MARK, IT IS NOT OUR PURPOSE TO GET THOUSANDS OF SIGNATURES, BUT RATHER A FEW HUNDRED, ESPECIALLY RECOGNIZABLE ONES - PHDS, ESQS, ESPECIALLY WELCOME.

_____________________________________________

Hi Bill,

I took a look at the list and I noticed that most of the people didn't give their full address. Is that going to be a problem?

Thomas

FULL ADDRESS AND EMAILS ARE KEPT OFF THE PUBLIC PETITION FOR SECURITY REASONS, AND EVERYONE WHO SIGNS ON LINE WILL BE CONTACTED BEFORE THE PETITON IS SUBMITTED TO A COURT. THE PETITONS WILL BE SUBMITTED ONE AT A TIME, AND EACH ATTACHMENT WILL BE DIFFERENT AND DIRECTED AT THAT PARTICULAR JURISDICTION.

THOSE WHO SIGN THE PETITION WILL BE KEPT POSTED ON ITS PROGRESS.

BK _____________________________________________

[William Kelly]

As I've attempted to show in my presentation, the accepted evidence, when properly interpreted, can be used to demonstrate the likelihood of more than one shooter. If we can get prosecutors to look at the evidence and not just at the official reports, officially regurgitated, maybe we can get a Grand Jury.

PAT

THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY MUST BE KEPT VERY BASIC AND CLEAR - NOT ONLY TO CONVINCE A PROSECUTOR - IT WILL BE EASIER TO CONVINCE AN YOUNG, NEW ASSISTANT DA WHO THEN MAKES THE CASE TO THE TOP DOG DA - BUT EACH ASPECT OF THE CASE MUST BE KEPT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR THE GRAND JURY - ORDINARY CITIZENS - TO UNDERSTAND - WHICH MEANS IN DALLAS, LA OR DC THAT THE 24 MEMBERS OF THE GRAND JURY WILL INCLUDE BLACK WOMEN AND OTHER MINORITIES. THOUGH THE MORE EDUCATED THE JURY THE BETTER.

One problem: who do you go after? It seems to me that Hunt is the only one with the track record...blackmailer... perjurer...his involvement in the Bay of Pigs thing...his assassination planning on Anderson...Lorenz testimony placing him in Dallas, etc, who might reasonably be prosecuted. Maybe such a case can be built against Jenkins and Qunitero, provided Wheaton testifies. But at this point???

WHILE I DON'T THINK IT IS NECESSARY TO TARGET ANY SPECIFIC SUSPECTS, THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFY WILL LEAD TO THE SUSPECTS - THOSE WHO ARE SUBJECTS THAT BECOME TARGETS MUST BE ADVISED THAT THEY ARE TARGETS.

"A 'TARGET' IS A PERSON AS TO WHOM THE PROSECUTOR OR THE GRAND JURY HAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE LINKING HIM OR HER TO THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME AND WHO, IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE PROSECUTOR, IS A PUTATIVE DEFENDANT...."

-[ 9-11.150-151 - SUBPOENAING TARGETS OF THE INVESTIGATION - USAM 9-11000 GRAND JURY http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_readi...le9/11mcrm.html ]

BK

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

[Duke Lane]

Hello Richard,

Yes indeed, a team killed JFK and it will take a team to bring them to justice. I am not alone on this, and have been working with researcher and lawyers since a Dallas COPA conference a few years ago when the JFK Grand Jury Project was announced by myself, Phil Melanson and John Judge.

... While the lawyers in Texas, especially those District Attorneys with unquestionable jursdiction, have never been inclined to act, I believe that once a Special Federal Grand Jury request is submitted and accepted, they will suddenly decide that hey, that's in our court, and try to take over the game, but it will be too late.

And yes, the on-lone petition is active - and while it is designed for US Citizens, anyone - including foreigners can sign it -as long as they mention their residence so they can be appraised of the petition's progress - [ http://www.petitiononline.com/jfkgjury/petition.html ] .

Bill,

If you stand any chance of having this petition be successful and not laughed out of court (so to speak), might I suggest that you supress some of the more ridiculous comments that people have added, and that you stick to a very narrow script such that you don't end up tying the JFK assassination to everything that's come along since, from the Vietnam War to the high price of gasoline?

I wonder, even, at the wisdom of trying to get a large number of signatories to the petition since many will want, most likely, to make some contribution to what eventually finds its way to a DA, which would include each's pet theory on how the mob/CIA/right wing/USSS/FBI/USSR/Cuba/Jim Files/Roscoe White did it ... to the point where there'd be so many directions to look that there wouldn't be any direction to go ... or half the world would be indicted!

If you wonder why nobody has been willing to act, perhaps it's because of all the nutty theories out there ... and the nuts who propound them! Be careful whom you associate with this and what you allow them to say, and keep the superfluous comments to a bare, bare minimum.

As if you asked for - or I'm allowed to give - any advice!!

[Stuart Wexler]

Duke,

Many of us are very interested in the possibility of a Texas Court of Inquiry. Could you ask your friend:

How one might go about getting a TC of I? Who do you have to persuade and how do you go about getting access?

I've heard that a TC of I would be less controversial because there is no real risk of prosecution. Is that true? And if so, is there at least a penalty of perjury that would face witnesses?

Would a Texas Court of Inquiry have the ability to subpoena evidence, including material in federal hands?

How realistic does your friend think this avenue of pursuit is?

Thanks,

Stu

THE JFK ASSASSINATION – BASIS FOR LEGAL ACTION. – By William Kelly – bkjfk3@yahoo.com

It is a myth that the assassination of President Kennedy will always remain an enduring mystery. Though justice may never be served, the murder of John F. Kenney is not an unsolvable crime, but rather a homicide that can be solved to a moral and legal certainty.

...

The reason for the Congressional law that established the “50 year rule” on the classification of all Congressional documents is that is the amount of time it is estimated for the people mentioned in the documents to be dead. Since it is not yet 50 years after the assassination of President Kennedy, some of those suspects are therefore still alive.

It is simply not true that the murder of JFK will forever remain a mystery, and we’ll never know the truth, since thanks to the JFK Act, we have most of the evidence, the documentary records and witness testimony in the public domain.

...

How can ordinary citizens force the hand of an entrenched judicial system? An examination of how the assassination of Medgar Evers and the other civil rights murders of the 1960s were resolved presents a legal road map to follow, and one of the first stops on the way to justice is the grand jury.

...

“As a general policy,” former Justice Department official Ben Civiletti testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in its last session, “the Department of Justice seldom turns down at least exploring, or reviewing a petition or reasonable request,…(and)…to some extent it becomes a matter of public will…but also a matter of judgment that falls within the duties of any particular department or agency of government…as to how far questions…can be explored to a useful or fruitful purpose.”

...

Unsolved cold cases, especially homicides, are reviewed every few years, sometimes by a new detective who looks over old evidence to see if there is anything that has been overlooked, or if there is any previously unknown evidence or witnesses, or recently developed scientific tools that could be used to help solve the crime. There is no statute of limitations on murder, under the rules of criminal procedure homicide is given precedence over all other crimes, and once accumulated, the evidence in a homicide is presented to a grand jury

Independent researchers, journalists and ordinary citizens can identify evidence, uncover conspiracies and witness crimes, but if there is no case, no grand jury, no place to present the evidence, then there is no justice. As Mr. Civiletti explained to the HSCA, the DOJ “seldom turns down exploring at least, or reviewing a petition or reasonable request…”

Towards the development of a legal case, the grand jury Petition-Request is a citizen’s petition to a District Attorney responsible for prosecuting offenders to request a grand jury be convened to review the facts of a case and determine if there is enough evidence to indict someone for a crime.

...

If the grand jury determines there is enough evidence, they vote a “True Bill” and indict someone for a crime.

The DA can simply ignore such a citizen’s petition and request and not present the evidence to a grand jury, or even if a grand jury votes to indict, it is still up to the DA to issue the indictment and proceed to take the matter to court.

...

The previous reluctance of district attorneys to prosecute political assassinations, especially decades old crimes, is being overcome by new, young and diversified blood in official positions of authority. Although those District Attorneys at the top of their profession know that investigating political assassinations is detrimental to furthering their careers, and witnessed what happened to New Orleans DA Jim Garrison, there is a younger generation of assistant prosecutors who look upon solving such major crimes as an achievement that will advance their future careers.

Former HSCA attorney, Dean Browning, Esq., who specializes in RICO litigation, said that such indictments are possible and that, “I am especially interested in developing an approach to seek indictments of those who conspired to murder the President.”

“I believe that a prosecution is feasible,” says Browning, “especially when invoking the Pinkerton Doctrine,” which holds that “a person associated with a conspiracy culpable for any criminal act committed by a co-conspirator if the act is within the scope of the conspiracy and is a foreseeable result of the criminal scheme.” Agency theory holds that “all conspirators act as the agent or represent the other conspirators involved in the criminal scheme, and are liable for all criminal acts committed by the other conspirators.”

...

It will only take one such JFK grand jury, and there are dozens of potential jurisdictions. There are Federal, State and County grand juries, each with many assistant district attorneys who work under the District Attorney, providing dozens of individuals in which to present the Petition Request.

Establishing jurisdiction in any particular district will not be difficult. Although some will argue that it was not a federal crime to kill the president in 1963, it was a federal crime to conspire to kill a federal employee, whether it is a postman or a president.

Besides the local Dallas district, there are Texas State grand juries, as well as the North Texas Federal District court, which is located in Dallas. The reluctance of any Dallas or Texas official to investigate the assassination will probably make other jurisdictions more inviting, New Orleans in particular, where a new District Attorney recently took over from former DA Harry Connick.

...

It is not too late now, but soon, this case will slip slowly from an unsolved homicide to an historical mystery, unless we act now, and present the best evidence in a Petition-Request to convene a special JFK Grand Jury, and let the legal action take its course, wherever it may go.

Interestingly, long-time Dallas DA Bill Hill has decided not to seek (a shoo-in) re-election, and several candidates are beginning to emerge for next year's election, including one or two judges. More will undoubtedly file in coming months.

I have a friend who is a former Dallas prosecutor, and he and I will be having lunch in the course of the next couple of weeks. Any questions, comments or suggestions that would be beneficial to pursuing this avenue of thought?

[John Simkin]

An excellent article to be sure. What certainly is needed is a team to put together the evidence. Not hearsay, speculation, theories, and innuendo, but hard evidence and documentation. It IS out there afterall, and it will be necessary for this "team" to put aside the theories and concentrate on the facts. This forum apparently has members who are lawyers or affiliated with lawyers or prosecutors in Texas. Perhaps that's a good place to start. Seems to me if I was an attorney licensed to practice in the state of Texas, and called myself a JFK researcher, I'd be all over this. So someone should grab the bull by the proverbial horns and get moving.

Richard makes a very important point. To be successful it needs to concentrate on the evidence produced by respectable researchers. I have started a thread where we can start placing evidence that supports the reopening of the case.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5659

[William Kelly]

An excellent article to be sure. What certainly is needed is a team to put together the evidence. Not hearsay, speculation, theories, and innuendo, but hard evidence and documentation. It IS out there afterall, and it will be necessary for this "team" to put aside the theories and concentrate on the facts. This forum apparently has members who are lawyers or affiliated with lawyers or prosecutors in Texas. Perhaps that's a good place to start. Seems to me if I was an attorney licensed to practice in the state of Texas, and called myself a JFK researcher, I'd be all over this. So someone should grab the bull by the proverbial horns and get moving.

Richard makes a very important point. To be successful it needs to concentrate on the evidence produced by respectable researchers. I have started a thread where we can start placing evidence that supports the reopening of the case.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5659

John, Thanks for starting the thread on JFK Grand Jury Evidence - and I hope that people stay on topic and consider only evidence that can be introduced before the grand jury - hearsay is okay by the way - but theories are not.

A witness can quote a dead person to get info on the record and to indict, though not admissible at trail; but hard evidence - fingerprints, dna, phone and credit card records, automobile, airplane and travel records are all good.

The New Orelans Grand Jury witness testimony is transcribed at HistoryMatters, though it is in alphebetical order, and the sequence the differnt categories of evidence is introduced is important for clarity - and each type of evidence should be considereded separately, but in a sequence where one builds upon the other - ie. Medical, photo, eyewitness - friendly witnesses first - then special witnesses and then reluctant witnesses/potential suspects.

Also be aware - as part of the way the rules are laid out - only evidence of crimes and guilt is presented, not exculptory, alibi or explanitory - evidence or testimony, nor cross examination by defense attornies - the witnesses can only answer questions put forth by the prosecutors OR Jurors.

Evidence that goes against the evidence of crime and guilt is presented at a trial, when witnesses can be cross examined.

BK

[John Dolva]

An excellent article to be sure. What certainly is needed is a team to put together the evidence. Not hearsay, speculation, theories, and innuendo, but hard evidence and documentation. It IS out there afterall, and it will be necessary for this "team" to put aside the theories and concentrate on the facts. This forum apparently has members who are lawyers or affiliated with lawyers or prosecutors in Texas. Perhaps that's a good place to start. Seems to me if I was an attorney licensed to practice in the state of Texas, and called myself a JFK researcher, I'd be all over this. So someone should grab the bull by the proverbial horns and get moving.

Richard makes a very important point. To be successful it needs to concentrate on the evidence produced by respectable researchers. I have started a thread where we can start placing evidence that supports the reopening of the case.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5659

John, Thanks for starting the thread on JFK Grand Jury Evidence - and I hope that people stay on topic and consider only evidence that can be introduced before the grand jury - hearsay is okay by the way - but theories are not.

A witness can quote a dead person to get info on the record and to indict, though not admissible at trail; but hard evidence - fingerprints, dna, phone and credit card records, automobile, airplane and travel records are all good.

The New Orelans Grand Jury witness testimony is transcribed at HistoryMatters, though it is in alphebetical order, and the sequence the differnt categories of evidence is introduced is important for clarity - and each type of evidence should be considereded separately, but in a sequence where one builds upon the other - ie. Medical, photo, eyewitness - friendly witnesses first - then special witnesses and then reluctant witnesses/potential suspects.

Also be aware - as part of the way the rules are laid out - only evidence of crimes and guilt is presented, not exculptory, alibi or explanitory - evidence or testimony, nor cross examination by defense attornies - the witnesses can only answer questions put forth by the prosecutors OR Jurors.

Evidence that goes against the evidence of crime and guilt is presented at a trial, when witnesses can be cross examined.

BK

(Bill, A very good idea that one should swing in behind, to help those who wish to help could you answer these questions?)

Bill, I wonder if, as an aid to understanding this, you could elaborate (in laymans terms) on 'hearsay', please.

* could you comment on 'circumstantial'.

*is 'weight of 'evidence'' a consideration. What I mean is, could a collection or group of perhaps seemingly unrelated unanswered questions or anomalies be taken as a whole to lend weight to an argument for a case going to full trial?

[William Kelly]

(Bill, A very good idea that one should swing in behind, to help those who wish to help could you answer these questions?)

Bill, I wonder if, as an aid to understanding this, you could elaborate (in laymans terms) on 'hearsay', please.

Hi, Thanks for your interest in this project.

Hearsay is the tesimony of someone who quotes another person - like somebody said "this" but that person is no longer available to testify themselves, especially if they are dead. Hearsay is permissible in Grand Jury testimony, but not in trial testimony, which requires a higher standard of evidence.

* could you comment on 'circumstantial'.

Circumstantial evidence is very strong, though not good on its on. Credit card or telephone evidence of someone being in a certain city or place of significance is circumstantial evidence that is not enough to establish guilt on its own but is enough to establish potential involvement to a grand jury. Ted Bundy was convicted of murder in Colorado and Utah based soly on his gas credit cards placing him at the scene of the crimes, though no witnesses could do so.

*is 'weight of 'evidence'' a consideration. What I mean is, could a collection or group of perhaps seemingly unrelated unanswered questions or anomalies be taken as a whole to lend weight to an argument for a case going to full trial?

I don't want to give anyone the hope that we could ever get to a trial, it would be a great leap for the truth if we could just get a hearing with new sworn testimony, and a JFK grand jury, whatever the jurisdiction would be the crack in the case that could take it to justice, though the hoops that must be jumped thru have yet to be seen.

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

[John Geraghty]

Hello all,

While we are on the topic of releasing documents and such I thought I would post this link which explains the Freedom of Information act as researchers are frequently asking how to go about obtaining information and making their voice heard.

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/nsa/foia/tips.html

John

[John Simkin]

Dave Perry has sent the following message:

An attempt was made to convene a Grand Jury back in 1992 by the late Joe West. And West's "basis for legal action" was much more succinct and to the point than Kelly's.

The District Attorney is the one responsible for submitting the evidence to the Grand Jury that is made up of ordinary citizens. If they feel the evidence warrants an indictment they will issue one. West's petition was filed in the Dallas County District Court and handled by Thomas Keever - Assistant District Attorney for Dallas County. See No. 92-10500-H Joe H. West v. Dr. Jeffrey J. Barnard in his official capacity as a Dallas County Medical Examiner.

The petition failed in part because claiming one is a "researcher" with appropriate evidence and proving it are two different things. Barnard countered by denying each and every allegation contained in West's 11 page petition. Barnard demanded "strict proof thereof" and West could not provide it.

[Duke Lane]

Duke,

Many of us are very interested in the possibility of a Texas Court of Inquiry. Could you ask your friend:

How one might go about getting a TC of I? Who do you have to persuade and how do you go about getting access?

I've heard that a TC of I would be less controversial because there is no real risk of prosecution. Is that true? And if so, is there at least a penalty of perjury that would face witnesses?

Would a Texas Court of Inquiry have the ability to subpoena evidence, including material in federal hands?

How realistic does your friend think this avenue of pursuit is?

Thanks,

Stu

I don't know these answers yet, but one question in return is: why would anyone at all be interested in any venue that has "no real risk of prosecution? That seems like an exercise only in satisfying curiosity, which doesn't seem likely for any number of reasons.