JFK Grand Jury

[William Kelly]

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.

To keep people questioning, to allow multiple theories to abound, to let time slip away and drag on before applying the basic and routine legal procedures for investigating and solving such a crime is only a reflection of the institutional unwillingness, resistance and refusal to challenge the powers that took over the government on November 22, 1963.

The feeling of citizen helplessness is reflected in the subtitle of the book by one of the living victims of the same criminals – James Tague, whose book is called The Truth Withheld – A Survivor’s Story – Why We Will Never Know the Truth About the Assassination. But those responsible for JFK’s murder win and go free only if they die before being exposed, and escape justice.

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.

Despite the institutional unwillingness to make the effort to solve the crime, a strong regiment of independent researchers, determined investigators, honest witnesses and ordinary citizens have taken upon themselves to determine the truth, solve the crime, but justice has yet to take its course.

“We need not accept (the) view that mankind…..is doomed,” JFK said in his landmark June 10, 1963 ‘Peace Speech’ at American University. We need not accept, “that we are gripped by forces we cannot control…Our problems are manmade – therefore, they can be solved by man….No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable – and we believe man can do it again.”

American political assassinations and murders were committed by men, and therefore can be solved by men, if only the effort to do so is taken to do so. However belatedly, there has been a new trend to at least attempt to resolve the civil rights and political murders of the 1960s, with the assassination of Medgar Evers, the murders of the Philadelphia, Mississippi Freedom Riders, the York, Pennsylvania race riot killings, and the MLK assassination civil trial have all utilized the judicial system to solve crimes that were thought to be untouchable a decade ago.

The assassination of President Kennedy was not an accident of history or an act of God, but the act of man, and men can solve the crime if only the effort is made to do so.

Whether the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman as the official report alleges or a patsy as he claimed, he was a former U.S. Marine who worked with the U2 program in Japan, was trained in the Russian language, defected to the USSR, returned with a Russian wife, reportedly took a pot shot at General Walker, participated in covert Cuban operations in New Orleans and Mexico City, and fits the covert operative profile that makes the assassination a covert intelligence operation. As former Senator Richard Schweikder (R. Pa.) put it, the case has “the fingerprints of intelligence.”

Just because covert operations are designed to conceal the actual perpetuators doesn’t mean that they can’t be exposed, identified and brought to justice, just as other, similar covert crimes have been exposed – Watergate, Iran-Contra and the assassination of the former Chilean ambassador to the U.S. in Washington.

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.”

Well, besides determining the truth and seeking justice, it would be useful and fruitful to determine who killed President Kennedy, why they did it, and how they accomplished it, so such a thing can never happen again. If the assassination of Medgar Evers was immediately pursued and justice resolved, President Kennedy would not have been killed in the same way, and if JFK’s assassination was properly resolved immediately, RFK and MLK probably would never have died the way the did.

Political assassination remain an effective tool for controlling policy only because the true perpetuators of these crimes are permitted to remain hidden in the background, pulling the strings of the puppets and moving the pawns as they have for centuries. The assassination of President Kennedy has maintained its watershed mark as the single most significant political event of the past century because it remains unresolved. Despite the tremendous amount of information that is now available, it remains an unresolved enigma and unsolved cold case homicide because there is no institutional willingness, motive or desire to simply solve it.

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.

A grand jury is asked to decide, not guilt or innocence, but whether there is enough evidence to have a person brought to trial for a crime. The grand jury only hears evidence of guilt, but does not render a verdict. Its decision is whether to indict, which is merely an accusation, or not to indict. Guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law; where the rules of evidence preclude hearsay evidence and allows the defense attorney the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Hearsay is allowed, and witnesses must testify before a grand jury without counsel, as all attorneys other than the prosecutor are not permitted in the grand jury room.

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 Grand Jury process, which stems from English Cannon law, has been refined by the United States Constitutional system as an extension of the prosecutor’s will, though historically the grand jury can investigate official corruption, review and develop evidence, attempt to answer questions, subpoena records and witnesses, order forensic autopsies and specialized tests and follow the evidence where ever it leads.

While grand juries composed of ordinary American citizens do not have the knowledge of the history and powers of a grand jury, and are often merely tools of the prosecutors, sometimes a prosecutor will lose control of a grand jury that begins to ask questions and make requests of its own. Such a grand jury is called a “Runaway Grand Jury,” and often goes beyond the original intent of the prosecutors, such as the Rocky Mountain Flats Runaway Grand Jury. When the Colorado prosecutors refused to issued the indictments against major defense contractors for environmental contamination, the grand jury leaked its report to the press [see: Westword Rocky Mountain Flats ]

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 Webb, 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 Webb, “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.”

Another reason that District Attorneys are reluctant to investigate and prosecute political assassination, besides opposing the criminal effort behind the murder, is the effort and manpower it takes to solve it, which takes away from the normal, day-to-day prosecutions that the District Attorney is also responsible for.

This can be compensated by including the most significant evidence, lists of documents and witnesses, and outstanding questions with the Petition-Request, laying out the case for crimes and conspiracy and reducing the work of the prosecutors. Such a convincing attachment would also help persuade a prosecutor to accept the case and take it to a grand jury.

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.

Of the dozens of the potential jurisdictions, it will be easiest to convene a Special Federal Grand Jury in Washington D.C., where most of the original evidence is located at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the body of the victim can be exhumed for a proper forensic autopsy.

Although conspiracy and homicide are the crimes being investigated, once the grand jury begins to subpoena records and require the sworn testimony of witnesses, other crimes, such as perjury, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice come into play, and help persuade witnesses to tell the truth.

One aspect of the grand jury proceedings is their secrecy, which prevents the testimony from being made public before a trial. If there are no indictments, and there isn’t a trial, the grand jury could issue a report explaining what it learned and the reasons behind its action or inaction.

Historically, traditionally and legally according to the Constitution of the United States, the evidence in a homicide is presented to a grand jury, which is where the evidence in the murder of John F. Kennedy must go before there can be justice.

“That we live as a nation of laws, and are not a ‘Banana Republic,’” said Warren Commissioner John McCloy, “requires us as individuals and as a society, to purse truth and justice, ‘even if the heaven’s may fall.’”

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.

William E. Kelly, Jr.

Bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Edited December 20, 2005 by William Kelly

[Pat Speer]

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. 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???

[Lynne Foster]

Joe DiMaggio: Marilyn's real-life Hero

By Mat Wilson

Joe DiMaggio met Marilyn Monroe in 1952, he was thirty-seven, she was twenty-five. He was the original, Broadway Joe the dominant force in the New York Yankees dynasty and the most famous star in Baseball history. Marilyn Monroe would become the most famous star in Hollywood history, but when she met Joe, he was the star.

Joe DiMaggio married Marilyn Monroe On January 14, 1954, and it was the dawn of the most touching love story in American history. Unfortunately, the zeal to assassinate the character of President John F. Kennedy effectively buried the truth about the genuine love that Marilyn and Joe shared. According to popular misconception, it was the President, not Joe DiMaggio who was supposed to be Marilyn Monroe's love interest on the day she died.

The reason behind the depth of the love between Joe DiMaggio and Marilyn Monroe is succinctly captured by Richard Ben Cramer. According to the author of Joe DiMaggio: The Hero's Life:

Joe and Marilyn had one thing big thing in common. Both were living inside the vast personages that the hero machine had created for them. And inside those personages, those enormous idols for the nation, Marilyn and Joe were only small and struggling, fearful to be seen and alone always. They were like kids left in a giant house, who must not be discovered, or it would all come crashing down. In their loneliness they might have been brother and sister, it was Joe's insistence, made them husband and wife.

Joe wanted to meet Marilyn as soon as he saw a cute photo of her in a short-skirted baseball outfit and the attraction proved to be mutual. They were destined to meet for the sheer publicity of it all. He was a folk hero, she was the most publicized, swiftly rising movie star in the world, and an appearance with Joe DiMaggio was just business. Romance and marriage was personal, and their initial introduction at an Italian restaurant on Sunset Boulevard turned personal, because in the words of Marilyn Monroe:

I was surprised to be so crazy about Joe. I expected a flashy New York sports type, and instead I met this reserved guy who didn't make a pass at me right away. I had dinner with him almost every night for two weeks. He treated me like something special. Joe is a very decent man, and he makes other people feel decent, too.

"I don't know if I'm in love with him yet," Marilyn said, "but I know I like him more than any man I've ever met."

The flame of the passionate romance that was ignited shortly after they met was never extinguished. It predictably dampened once or twice, but it was never extinguished. Joe was the one that Marilyn always called whenever she needed him and Joe never let Marilyn down.

DiMaggio was the dago who failed to tame the dame during their official marriage, but when they divorced and Marilyn married Arthur Miller, she turned nostalgic for Joe. Compared to Joe, Arthur Miller was the wimp who took her abuse and refused to slug her, because --in her own words, "Joe never beat me without a good reason." Marilyn did not miss the physical abuse, but Joe learned to control his anger, and that made it acceptable to be nostalgic about being slapped around by Joe. If Marilyn Monroe tormented Arthur Miller, it was payback for his arrogance. Miller's arrogance was the persistent, psychological abuse that smothered love, and that made divorce a necessary escape.

The divorce from Miller was an escape, the divorce from Joe, was a pause. Joe and Marilyn were not just divorced after nine turbulent months of marriage, as widely reported. A marriage is an affair of the heart, and the Yankee Clipper and Marilyn Monroe acted like husband and wife because they wanted to, not because they were married. When Marilyn died, it was Joe who organized Monroe’s funeral and had white roses delivered to her grave twice a week, the divorce was rather meaningless because on August 8, 1962, Marilyn Monroe and Joe Dimaggio would marry again, her death, just days earlier, was not the predictable consequence of her inner-turmoil, as is popularly assumed. Character assassination-based, rumor and innuendo delayed the opportunity to understand the genuine nature of the relationship between Joe and Marilyn, affirming the authority of Mark Twain's adage, "a lie will travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

The cold war was not conducive to reporting the truth. It produced bizarre, government plots like the plan to poison Fidel Castro with the aid of Chicago gangsters like Sam Giancana, and when that failed to pan out, the patriotic mobsters who were valued because they were ruthless and secretive, were even used to distort the truth about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Likewise, the truth about Marilyn Monroe is mired in a similar brew of distortion, deception, mystery and confusion. In the midst of it all, Joe and Marilyn were merely two grade ten high school drop-outs who fell in love, fought over colliding ambitions, divorced, fell in love again, and matured to the point where they planned to spend the rest of their lives as husband and wife.

When they initially married in a small civil ceremony at San Francisco City Hall, Marilyn Monroe did not really quite understand why she had married Joe, but the reason for the divorce was clear. on January 14, 1954, they predictably divorced because, according to Marilyn Monroe, "Joe wanted me to be the beautiful ex-actress, just like he was the great former ballplayer. We were to ride into some sunset together. But I wasn’t ready for that kind of journey yet. I wasn’t even 30, for heaven’s sake."

DiMaggio had just retired from two decades of stardom when Marilyn came into his orbit, and she needed the room and the time to meet her own stride. Divorcing DiMaggio was not the end of their marriage, it was the beginning of a courtship that blossomed in 1962, after the release of movies like "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" and "How to Mary a Millionaire." When Marilyn Monroe surpassed the celebrity of the Yankee Clipper, the allure of celebrity faded, and Joe DiMaggio, her only family, became the only person who really mattered.

Marilyn did not really love Joe when she initially married him, that came later. Enamored by Joe's celebrity, infatuation trumped love and her honeymoon with Joe was scarcely over before she decided to marry Arthur Miller, probably because he was a different kind of celebrity -and maybe, she thought her marriage to Joe had failed because Joe was not the "right" celebrity.

Beyond the personal immaturity that made divorcing Joe inevitable, the interference of those who thrive on the misery of others proved to be the trigger of the divorce.

Walter Winchell, J. Edgar Hoover's close friend and regular conduit for celebrity news, stage-managed the timing of the divorce between Marilyn Monroe and Joe DiMaggio. It was Walter Winchell who called Joe in Beverley Hills, the evening before, to insist that Joe witness the incident that caused their breakup. On the prompting of Walter Winchell, Joe caught a plane to attend the spectacle, the next evening. When he arrived, Joe was exhausted, tired, frustrated, and Winchell had to practically drag him out to to view the incident that Richard Ben Cramer, Joe's biographer, described in the following terms:

Walter Winchell had wanted Joe to come with him, to watch Marilyn strut her stuff. Joe didn't think it was a good idea. "It would make her nervous and it would make me nervous too." But Winchell insisted. "Oh come on Joe, I have to be there. It might make some copy for me." The scene they went to witness would produce one of the most famous screen images in history. Marilyn Monroe, in simple summer white, standing on a subway grating, cooling herself with the wind from a train below. But what sent Joe DiMaggio into a fury was the scene around the scene. Fans were yelling and shoving at police barrickades as the train blew Marilyn's skirt around her ears. Actually it was a wind machine, manned beneath the street by a special effects crew. Each time it blew, the crowd would yell, "Higher!, More!" Her legs were bare from her high heels to her thin white panties. Photographers were stretched out on the pavement with their lenses pointing at his wife's crotch, the glare of their flashbulbs clearly outlining the shadow of her pubic hair. "What the hell is going on here?" Joe growled. The Director, Billy Wilder, would recall "the look of death" om DiMaggio's face. Joe turned and bulled his way through the crowd, on his way to a bar, with the delighted Winchell trodding at his heals. That night, there was a famous fight on the seventh floor of the St. Regis hotel. It was famous because none of the guests on that floor could sleep... her husband got very mad at her and he beat her up a little bit. And that fight would stay famous as the end of Joe and Marilyn's famous marriage.

The fact that Walter Winchell deliberately produced the famous fight did not get any press. Indeed, having been raised in a strict, Catholic household, there was no doubt that Joe would be absolutely enraged by watching air pump his wife's dress over her head, and Marilyn, who had endured abuse as a child, predictably refused to tolerate Joe's anger. Joe's indifference to moviemaking was a further assurance that he would not share the enthusiasm of the crowds that cheered, and Walter Winchell's cruel tweak proved that Hoover's treacherous pal was anything but Joe's friend.

The first marriage to Joe exposed the depth of the solid friendship between Walter Winchell and J. Edgar Hoover. The Director of the FBI wanted to destabilize Marilyn Monroe because that's what Hoover did to everybody who was branded a "Communist." Marilyn Monroe's marriage to Arthur Miller made her an even bigger target of Hoover's FBI, turning her already formidable, FBI file into a national security obsession [impossible to understand unless you are as paranoid as Hoover was] and according to Marilyn Monroe biographer, Donald Spoto, "J. Edgar Hoover demanded that every attempt by Marilyn to leave the country be carefully monitored-travels with or without Miller, and on whatever apparently personal business. The nation just might be thick with Russian spies masquerading as movie stars."

J. Edgar Hoover and Walter Winchell were even the hidden face of the House Un-American Activities. Everybody talks about Joe McCarthy, but J. Edgar Hoover was the investigative arm that targeted the "Communists" and Walter Winchell was his minister of propaganda. When Arthur Miller was summoned to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee to respond to accusations about Communist party affiliations, Hoover's friend, Walter Winchell tried to summon anti-Miller support by proclaiming that "Marilyn Monroe's new romance is a long-time pro-lefto."

J. Edgar Hoover and Walter Winchell survived the public humiliation, embarrassment and censure that Senator Joe McCarthy suffered. McCarthy was publicly hung out to dry, but the sinister, insane witchhunts continued to destroy FBI-file targets because the secrecy that J. Edgar Hoover managed to impose provided the opportunity to evade accountability.

J. Edgar Hoover erected a Berlin wall around Marilyn Monroe, she was meticulously tracked, from the east coast to the west, from one residence to the next, her every move was electronically recorded.

Marylin Monroe initially met Arthur Miller when she was twenty-five, he was ten years older. Having earned fame and awards for two successful plays, All My Sons (1947) AND Death of a Salesman (1948) he was considered one of America's great dramatic talents, along with Tennessee Williams and Eugene O'Neill. When Arthur Miller met Marilyn he was married to his college sweatheart, Mary Grace Slattery, and had two children.

Arthur Miller was Director, Eli Kazan's close companion, Marilyn Monroe was Kazan's lover, and the happy trio developed a close friendship. Miller would join Eli Kazan and Marilyn Monroe when they visited writers and composers, and they all frequently socialized, visiting bookstores, picnicking together and the like. It didn't take long for Miller to fall in love with Marilyn Monroe, Kazan's "delightful companion" because "the air around her was charged." An arrogant man with an air of superiority about him, it is difficult to determine whether Miller in fact loved Marilyn Monroe or whether he just felt sorry for her. In his own words, Miller was touched, "not only by Marilyn's beauty but by her orphanhood -she had literally nowhere to go and no one to go to." This idea that Miller was granting a privilege for being the sort who was gracious enough to share his time with an "orphan" like Marilyn Monroe, ultimately doomed the love affair and made Marilyn Monroe realize that Joe DiMaggio was indeed the love of her life.

In the final analysis, it is safe to say that Arthur Miller married Marilyn Monroe for the same reason that Eli Kazan was having sex with her.

Marilyn Monroe was more complicated than Miller was and the primary reason she married Arthur Miller is best summarized by her gifted biographer, Donald Spoto, who wrote:

Her affinity for the weak was frequently remarked. She felt enormous empathy for crippled children, for whom she had upset her publicists' tour schedules, and more than once she inconvenienced others by stopping to attend a lame or stray animal. The sight of a homeless drunk on Hollywood Boulevard, the account of a black actor denied admission to a theater or restaurant, the plight of those at the fringes of conventional society (like her mother) -all these brought her to the point of tears and elicited a practical and sometimes monitor response. Now Arthur Miller seemed to her a champion of the lost and wounded, of those without a voice to speak of, and so he won her esteem.

While Miller won her admiration, Marilyn Monroe and her friends earned the wrath of red-baiters because the issues they championed were deemed to be Un-American. In 1951, Marilyn Monroe accompanied Kazan and Miller to the office of Harry Cohn, who was considering Arthur Miller's screenplay, The Hook for Columbia Studios. The script was turned over to Roy Brewer, head of Hollywood's stagehands union, and Brewer asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation to read The Hook "which was immediately labelled inflamatory and dangerously anti-American (perhaps even treasonous) at a time when the Korean War required problem-free shipping of men and arms to Asia." Out of principal, Arthur Miller rejected the demand to re-write the script to make Communists the villains and anticommunism the dominant theme, he withdrew the screenplay rather than to submit to absurd demands, and he won the admiration of Marilyn Monroe in the process -prompting the maddening irony that Marilyn Monroe fell in love with Arthur Miller because of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.

When Monroe divorced Arthur Miller, she was physically and mentally exhausted over a series of personal and professional setbacks that included feeling guilty over the sudden death of Clark Gable, and on February 4, 1961, she was admitted by her psychiatrist, Dr. Marianne Kris, into Manhattan's Payne-Whitney Clinic and placed in the ward for the most seriously disturbed. Joe DiMaggio's biographer described the experience in the following terms:

On February 6, 1961, her psychiatrist, Dr. Marianne Kris drove over to the Cornwell university's medical centre on New York's east side where Marilyn checked herself in for a rest. Immediately she was taken to the Payne Whitney Psychiatric division, where she was locked into a cell on a ward for truly psychotic patients, her screams of protest, her demands to be released were ignored or taken as evidence of her sickness. When she broke the payne of glass in her locked bathroom door, she was threatened with restraint and watched day and night. For Marilyn this was the worst fear of her life come true, she was locked away like her mother, a prisoner in a loonie bin. After three days, when she was finally permitted one call, she phoned to Florida. she called Joe DiMaggio. He was there the next day, at the Payne Whitney reception desk, six feet, one-and-a-half inches tall, wide at the shoulders, glowering darkly, and in no mood for talk. "I want my wife" DiMaggio said. No one pointed out to him that he and Marilyn Monroe had not been married for the last 6 years. Instead they tried to tell him that they had no authority to release Miss Monroe, to him or to anyone else."I want my wife" Joe DiMaggio said, with menacing precision. His large hands gripped the reception desk. "And if you do not release her to me, I will take this place apart, piece of wood by piece of wood." Suddenly, the Payne Whitney staff discovered that Miss Monroe was free to go. Joe had his wife transferred to another hospital, Columbia Presbyterian, where she could have a real rest, in a normal, private room which he would visit daily, and which he would fill with roses.

Marilyn Monroe was forced to endure six days of hell before Joe DiMaggio got her out.

Why was Marilyn placed behind bars, where she predictably broke down weeping and sobbing, shouting to be released and banging on the steel door until her fists were raw and bleeding? Why was Marilyn Monroe forced to claw and to scream in agony until Joe DiMaggio rescued her? Was that supposed to be the end of Marilyn Monroe? Admitted under the alias "Miss Faye Miller" she was placed behind bars at the Payne-Whitney Psychiatric Clinic where she was destined to perish, as her mother had before her, and nobody would have questioned her death because that's what happens in institutions for the hopelessly insane. When Marilyn Monroe yelled and screamed, she was not rescued, she was ignored, because the staff determined that she was indeed a psychotic case, just as her physician had attested.

Dr. Marianne Kris clearly understood the fact that the Payne Whitney incident with Marilyn Monroe was a serious error on her part as a psychoanalyst, and that very same terror that was imposed was revisited when her replacement, Dr. Greenson produced the "house arrest" version of the hell at Payne-Whitney. During her four years with Arthur Miller, Marilyn was continuously seeing Dr. Kris, and Hoover's FBI obviously followed her to the door of the Doctor's office, every single time, no doubt, tweaking the impression that "Communists" like Marilyn Monroe were mentally unstable. Clearly, the decision to lock Marilyn up for her own safety existed in the minds of tyrants like J. Edgar Hoover, a caring and competent psychoanalist like Dr. Marianne Kris was obviously manipulated, she did not invent the obsession to destroy Marilyn Monroe.

Marilyn's plea to escape her psychological tormentors fell on deaf ears until Joe rescued her. She was so frantic and disturbed, that a concerned nurse's aide handed her a notepad and agreed to deliver a message to friends, Lee and Paula Strasberg, who received the following note on February 8, 1961:

Dear Lee and Paula,

Dr. Kris has put me in the hospital under the care of two idiot

doctors. They both should not be my doctors. I'm locked up

with these poor nutty people. I'm sure to end up a nut too if I

stay in this nightmare. Please help me. This is the last place I

should be. I love you both.

Marilyn

P.S. I'm on the dangerous floor. It's like a cell. They had

my bathroom door locked and I couldn't get their key to get

into it, so I broke the glass. But outside of that I haven't

done anything that is uncooperative.

The Strasbergs were just friends, they were powerless to help, and Marilyn Monroe's pleas were all ignored, until Joe DiMaggio rescued Marilyn Monroe.

In a letter to Dr. Greenson, Marilyn Monroe described her experience in the following terms:

There was no empathy at Payne Whitney -it had a very bad effect on me. They put me in a cell (I mean cement blocks and all) for very disturbed depressed patients, except I felt I was in some kind of prison for a crime I hadn't committed. The inhumanity ther I found archaic. They asked me why I wasn't happy there (everything was under lock and key, things like electric lights, dresser drawers, bathrooms, closets, bars concealed on the windows -and the doors have windows so patients can be visible all the time.

If Joe DiMaggio had not rescued Marilyn Monroe from J. Edgar Hoover's Soviet-style Gulag, she would have died there, and Marilyn Monroe was neither the first nor the last target to be tormented by Hoover's FBI. Hoover's G-men subsequently encouraged the suicide of Martin Luther King, who declined to take their advice and when Hoover's G-men followed Hemingway to the Mayo clinic, they evidently managed to produce the consequence they had wished upon Martin Luther King.

Like Hemingway, Marilyn Monroe was treated like a lunatic on the false pretense that she was being treated for a physical ailment. Indeed, in a letter to Dr. Greenson, Marilyn Monroe wrote:

I forgot to tell you something yesterday. When they put me into the first room on the sixth floor I was not told it was a psychiatric floor. Dr. Kris said she was coming the next day. The nurse came in after the doctor, a psychiatrist, had given me a breast examination including examining the breast for lumps. I took exception to this but not violently, only explaining that the medical doctor who had put me there, a stupid man named Dr. Lipkin, had already done a complete physical less than thirty days before.

When Joe DiMaggio rescued Marilyn Monroe, their friends could not help but notice the depth of the love between them. According to Jerry Coleman, "Joe DiMaggio deeply loved that woman." According to Lois Smith, "The attraction to Joe remained great. Marilyn knew where she stood with him. He was always there, she could always call on him, lean on him depend on him, be certain of him. It was a marvelous feeling of confort for her." As Marilyn told a Danish journalist, "To know that Joe is there is like having a life guard", and Joe DiMaggio certainly proved that.

The basic decency of Joe DiMaggio matured to the point where he even took Marilyn Monroe's advice and sought therapy to deal with his anger. Monroe was very proud of Joe for seeking treatment, and she related her feelings to Dr. Greenson in the following terms:

By the way, I have some good news, sort of, since I guess I helped. He claims I did: Joe says I saved his life by sending him to a psycotherapist. Dr. Kris said that he is a very brilliant man, the doctor. Joe said he pulled himself by his own bootstraps after the divorce but he told me also that if he had been me he would have divorced him, too.

Indeed, in March 1961, when Marilyn was rescued, Joe was different, calmer, and with Marilyn "he showed no swagger of possession." His years of exile had taught him a few things and he was serious about the claim that Marilyn had saved his life by sending him to a psychiatrist. He had stuck with the therapy long enough to convince him that the rage inside of him could ruin lives -his first and foremost, and at age forty-six, he meant it when he said, with a rueful laugh, that if he had been married to that guy he was seven years ago, well, he would have divorced him too.

The years changed Marilyn as well, and as she approached her 35th birthday, she was ready to settle down. In Florida, Joe and Marilyn took care of each other like an old married couple. In conversation, Marilyn Monroe blasted her New York psychiatrist which she resolved not to speak to ever again, and began to revere Dr. Greenson, her LA psychiatrist. Little did she realize that Dr. Greenson would succeed where Dr. Kris had failed -to facilitate suicide, and Joe DiMaggio was oblivious to the fact, or he would have taken Dr. Greenson and J. Edgar Hoover apart, piece by piece.

On Aug. 5, 1962, the body of Marilyn Monroe was found in the bedroom of her Brentwood home. The 36-year-old movie star was naked and facedown on her bed.

An autopsy conducted by Dr. Thomas Noguchi, then deputy medical examiner, concluded that death was due to acute barbiturate poisoning, and a psychiatric team tied to the investigation termed it a "probable suicide."

The police did not find a suicide note, and when Joe arrived, he received his final gift from Marilyn Monroe, a folded love letter addressed to Joe:

Dear Joe,

If I can only succeed in making you happy, I will have succeeded in the biggest and most difficult thing there is. That is, to make one person completely happy. Your happiness means my happiness and... [she did not get the opportunity to complete her letter]

Marilyn Monroe had scheduled the final fitting for her wedding gown for Monday August 6, 1962 and the radiant, would-be bride could hardly contain her joy. She had gone from wanting to conquer the world to wanting to please Joe, and this was the marriage that would last forever. Joe called every night from the east coast, they planned the wedding for Wednesday August 8th, 1962. Marilyn Monroe had even dismissed Eunice Murray, the spy who reported her every move, but it didn't make any difference because Marilyn Monroe was murdered before Eunice Murray left, making her Brentwood home the Soviet Gulag that Marilyn Monroe had tried, but failed to escape.

Joe and Marilyn had come a long way since 1961, when Marilyn was repeatedly hospitalized for a gall bladder operation and other health problems, and Joe DiMaggio was by her bedside as usual. When Marilyn was finally released from the hospital, Joe went to New York on business and Marilyn flew to LA, happy to be back in Sinatra's town, and happier still to be with Dr. Greenson because he cast himself as her protector and she needed that, but she did not expect him to take over her life.

Greenson isolated Marilyn from friends, colleagues and staff and what he called "bad influences."

Writing to a colleague, Greenson justified isolating Marilyn from all her friends by saying "this is the kind of planning you do with an adolescent girl who needs guidance, friendliness and firmness, and she seams to be taking it very well. Of course, she doesn't think about cancelling several hours to go to Palm Springs to be with Mr. F.S. [Frank Sinatra]"

While Joe made a charity ballroom appearance on August 4th with Dom and Vince, a reunion of the famous baseball brothers, Marilyn called the atelier of her designer, Jean Louis, who had famously dressed her some three months before...now Marilyn had ordered a new gown, but this one would be for Joe -her wedding dress. On August 5, 1962, the body of Marilyn Monroe was found in the bedroom of her Brentwood home. The 36-year-old movie star was naked and facedown on her bed and when Joe DiMaggio learned about the death, he howled like an animal. Joe rented a room, locked the door behind him and the roar came out from inside of him wasn't words at all, it was tears and animal pain. That's how biographer, Richard Ben Cramer described it.

An autopsy conducted by Dr. Thomas Noguchi, then deputy medical examiner, concluded that death was due to acute barbiturate poisoning, and a psychiatric team tied to the investigation termed it a "probable suicide," a creative way to cover up murder. Dr. Greenson certainly knew that Marilyn Monroe was not crazy, he was a trained psychiatrist. If anybody wanted to prove that Marilyn Monroe was mad, it was J. Edgar Hoover.

Dr. Greenson was not a typical psycotherapist, he was all things to all people, and that was very dangerous in the midst of a cold war that sucked the marrow out of unsuspecting targets. In Marilyn Monroe; The Biograpy, Donald Spoto lists a catalogue of the lectures that reflected Dr. Greenson's intended audience, and it obviously included a peculiar mix because he lectured about things like, "Why Men Like War," "The Devil Made Me Do It, Dr. Freud," "Sex Without Passion," and "People in Search of a Family." Dr. Greenson sounded like he was in greater need of therapy than Marilyn Monroe was, and while that may be subject to debate, the simple fact that he did not live up to the expectations of a serious profession, is conclusive.

Dr. Greenson's professional scruples left a great deal to be desired. A psychologist is not supposed to bring a patient into his home and to make her a member of his family, to the exclusion of his or her own friends and family, and that is what Dr. Greenson did. Any vigilante psychiatric community or professional body would have censured him for this blatant, unprofessional conduct. A therapist exercises enormous power, and in the final analysis, it would be naive to suggest that J. Edgar Hoover was not the source of Dr. Greenson's power. Indeed, if Dr. Greenson was not protected by a corrupt, law enforcement authority like J. Edgar Hoover, he would have been charged with the murder of Marilyn Monroe.

Like J. Edgar Hoover, who used his professional reputation to abuse his power, Dr. Greenson used his professional reputation to promote the claim that Marilyn Monroe was "schizophrenic" [Marilyn Monroe: Donald Spoto, p. 502] and not capable of making decisions for herself, and this rather sophisticated smokescreen gave him the opportunity to bypass the criticism of colleaugues who would have been in a better position to determine how crazy or sane Marilyn Monroe was, if they had his access.

When Marilyn Monroe died, Jack Clemmons, the first police officer on the scene immediately determined that the so-called suicide scene looked more staged than real and the testimony of Dr. Greenson and Marilyn's housekeeper, Eunice Murray was more evasive than believable. Marilyn Monroe's blacked out, FBI files, were equally evasive.

The fact that Dr. Greenson and Eunice Murray obstructed justice and covered up the truth about the murder of Marilyn Monroe is so transparent, it is astonishing they were able to get away with it. Indeed, Dr. Greenson and Eunice Murray dominated Marilyn Monroe to the point where they were intercepting her telephone calls, just before she was murdered. Marilyn Monroe's biographer, Donald Spoto, describes two of the intercepted calls, in the following passage:

But there were two other calls that Marilyn was not able to intercept. The first came from Isadore Miller, to whom Eunice said that Marilyn was dressing and would call him back; Isadore never received a return call. The second call was from Ralph Roberts, at about five-forty or five-forty five, just before he drove to Jurgensen's in Beverley Hills to purchase the food for their barbecue next evening. "But it was Greenson who picked up the phone," according to Roberts. "When I asked for Marilyn, he said abruptly, 'Not here,' and immediately hung up on me without asking if I wanted to leave a message. Nothing else , just a blunt 'Not here,' and he put down the receiver." Donald Spoto further indicates, Dr. Greenson and Eunice Murray are responsible for a "series of inconsistencies, misrepresentations and outright lies masking the truth of the tragic and unecessary death of Marilyn Monroe."

Marilyn Monroe was radiant with thoughts about her pending marriage and her love for Joe on the day she was murdered and only somebody like J. Edgar Hoover and Dr. Greenson could explain away the bizarre disconnect between the claim that depression claimed the life of Marilyn Monroe and the fact that she was happier than she had ever been at any time of her entire life. Even the coroner noted what he called "the strangest fact of the case" -in his own words:

Monroe was laughing and chatting on the telephone with Joe DiMaggio's son...and not thirty minutes after this happy conversation, Marilyn Monroe was dying...This was one of the strangest facts of the case Marilyn Monroe was dead or near-dead when she or somebody who was pretending to be Marilyn, placed a frantic and almost inaudible call to Peter Lawford. Whoever it was that called, inhaled the words, "Say goodbye to Pat, say goodbye to the President, and say goodbye to yourself, because you're a nice guy." It sounded like Dr. Greenson had substituted reality with a cheap, phone imitation of "Happy Birthday Mr. President." Remember that?

In June, Jean Louis, had dressed her famously to sing happy birthday to the President, and while the entire world thought that was personal, it was just show business. When Marilyn ordered a new gown for Joe, that was personal -it was her wedding dress, but she did not get the opportunity to wear it because she was murdered. Moreover, front page publicity eclipsed the truth, and that is what the call to Peter Lawford sounded like -it was front page publicity. The truth is, Marilyn Monroe was in love and was preparing to Mary Joe DiMaggio, the President was not even on her mind, unless Dr. Greenson put him there.

On August 5, 1962, Marilyn Monroe was essentially imprisoned, like Elian Gonzalez on April 22, 2000, just before Janet Reno authorized agents from the INS (U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services) to storm the home of Elian's Miami relatives, to seize the six year old boy and to reunite him with his father for the first time since November. Elian Gonzalez had Janet Reno and the INS. Marilyn Monroe had Joe DiMaggio, but Dr. Greenson and J. Edgar Hoover refused to allow the reunion. If Hoover and Greenson were not as radical as the Miami relatives who refused to release Elian Gonzalez, Marilyn Monroe and Joe DiMaggio would have been married, on August 8, 1962.

Joe DiMaggio did not fail Marilyn, aside from the occasional broohaha that Walter Winchell joyfully tweaked. On a chilly Christmas Eve, Marilyn returned alone and lonely from a studio party to her Beverly Hills Hotel suite, unlocked the door, and was surprised to find Joe, reaching to place a silver ornament atop a lavishly decorated tree he had brought for Marilyn. There was champagne in a silver bucket, logs blazing in the fireplace and the Chrismas tree, which made an otherwise lonely existence, Marilyn Monroe's merriest Chrismas, and that is what she had to look forward to, without outside interference.

Marilyn Monroe did not need a therapist to manipulate her, but J. Edgar Hoover routinely used the psychiatric profession in attempt to destabilize his targets. He he did it with Hemingway, when his G-men followed him to the door of the Mayo clinic where shock therapy treatment was bizarrely administered, to treat liver disease, he did it with Martin Luther King, when FBI agents encouraged the civil rights leader to commit suicide and he did it with Marilyn Monroe.

When Marilyn Monroe was murdered, right wing fanatics like Frank A. Capell promoted the claim that Marilyn Monroe and Robert Kennedy were in love -forget about Joe. Robert Kennedy had allegedly promised to marry Marilyn Monroe and when he changed his mind, the Kennedys allegedly murdered Marilyn Monroe to shut her up.

Hoover's friend, Walter Winchell, used his column to promote Capell's book and J. Edgar Hoover gleefully wrote to Robert Kennedy: "Capell's book will make reference to your alleged friendship with the late Miss Monroe. Mr. Capell stated that he will indicate in his book that you and Miss Monroe were intimate, and that you were in Monroe's home at the time of her death."

J.Edgar Hoover's defamatory, political attacks established a "Kennedy-killed-Monroe" crescendo that smacked the summit in 1973 when Norman Mailer joined the chorus with his trashy book, Marilyn. The compendium of lies that has been repeated without pause since Marilyn Monroe was murdered is routinely embellished and in 1985, even Anthony Summers promoted nonsensical gossip in his book Goddess: The Secret Lives of Marilyn Monroe. The truth is not that intriguing. Hoover-killed-Monroe and it's not a chorus. It's a tragic murder that should have been solved in 1962.

It is easy to get sidetracked by all the disinformation about Marilyn Monroe, and in Preserving the Legacy erroneous claims about the death of Marilyn Monroe were prompted by the common failure to acknowledge the significance of the fact that Marilyn Monroe and Joe DiMaggio were wildly in love and planned to remarry on August 8, 1962.

The character assassination of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy refuses to abate. The compassionate civil rights champion has been converted, in the public's mind, into an amoral character who murdered to save his reputation. ABC News commentator, Hugh Downs loftily claims that Marilyn's affairs with both Kennedy brothers are "not in dispute and known to everyone." To be expected. This is the same organization that censures journalists like Dan Rather for demonstrating the courage to tell the truth. It does not behoove the credibility of any organization to parrot J. Edgar Hoover's treachery or to attack the credibility of competent journalists who struggle to expose the truth.

Geraldo, Sally Jessy Raphael, Donahuue and Hard Copy have all produced segments about the "historically accepted fact" that Monroe and both Kennedy brothers had a tempestuous relationship. The lure of this storytelling is obvious and Norman Mailer frankly admitted it when he said he wrote Marilyn for the money. Marilyn's biographer, Donald Spoto, recorded the genuine cost of this whoresome conduct when he said, "the price runs higher than cash paid for shameful books. The cost includes the erosion of ideals, a loss of faith in good men and women, a cavalier disregard for the reputations of decent people and a profound indifference to the truth."

Armed with a Ph.D. from Fordham University, Donald Spoto has lectured and taught worldwide, he is the author of nineteen thoroughly researched, published books, including International, bestselling biographies of Ingrid Bergman, Laurence Olivier, Alfred Hitchcock, Tenessee Williams and Marlene Deitrich, amongst others and he wrote the unrivalled work, Marilyn Monroe: The Biography because he opposed the otherwise "grim cyclorama of deceit and sensation."

Donald Spoto is an exceptional biographer with advanced skills best understood by what he has to say:

The biographer is obliged to tell the truth --even at the risk of saying something good about someone. I know it's not popular today, for we are part of a culture of gossip and innuendo, and professionalism in writing has taken a back seat.

Good biographers understand the necessity to give a human context to the mere facts of a person's life. It's not enough to say "she went there or made this movie or traveled here and there." Rather, the biographer must ferret out the motifs, the themes of a life. A good historian doesn't impose his own ideas from the beginning, certainly I never do. As I go along in my interviews, travel, archival studies, the life of my subject emerges. It is a constant series of astonishments and surprises. If there are no surprises, then you're not doing the research.

It is, therefore, almost impossible to be objective, and perhaps it may not even be desirable. What is important is to have an understanding of a human life, the patterns of meaning of the life lived according to a certain value system, theirs.

We live our lives, you and I, by interaction of what happens to us and the inner workings of our reactions, stirrings, and motivations. These are so much more useful to understanding a character than just the bare facts. If you just want the facts you can get those in any almanac or encyclopedia.

The un-American Activivities, Paranoia Period was a time when official norms were trumped by secret alliances with the Mafia and unethical psychiatrists were merely a tool that was used to torment the "enemy." It was not uncommon for a target who warranted a huge FBI file to become the victim of an unsolved homicide or a staged suicide, Marilyn Monroe is merely the most famous target of all.

The murder of Marilyn Monroe is not filled with nonsense, mystery and Mafia-style intrigue by accident. In Double Cross it is alleged that mobsters nicknamed Needles and Mugsy traveled to Los Angeles on orders from Giancana and slipped into her home to administer a fatal barbiturate suppository. The Mafia sponsored book blames Robert Kennedy for the murder of Marilyn Monroe, but the trail of manufactured disassembly leads to J. Edgar Hoover. J. Edgar Hoover was the source of Giancana's power, because as long as he did not recognize the existence of organized crime, the murder of a target like Marilyn Monroe was an unsolved homicide, by design.

Hoover's lackey, Dr. Greenson did not provide a live-in housekeeper/spy who oversaw every move that Marilyn made and reported every detail about her personal life, because he was an ethical psychiatrist. Eunice Murray was placed in the homes of Dr Greenson's most important clients as "monitor, companion and nursemaid", and according to Greenson's instructions, she was to obediently report every detail of his clients' private lives. Pat Newcomb, who saw Murray tag along when she and Marilyn went shopping, described the intrusive set up in the following terms: "It wasn't hard to understand. Eunice was simply Greenson's spy, sent down to report everything Marilyn did. Soon even Marilyn began to see this."

When Marilyn Monroe's FBI files were released for public scrutiny, every single word, except for the word "Marilyn Monroe" was covered in black ink.

Between July and August 4 when she died [police were not notified until August 5], Dr Greenson treated Marilyn on twenty-eight separate occasions, according to his own records. And after this intensive psychiatric treatment, Dr. Greenson officially claimed that Marilyn Monroe committed suicide. Eunice Murray allegedly discovered Marilyn's lifeless body and instead of contacting the police, she obediently called Doctor Greenson and he did not call the police until at least four and a half hours after the body was allegedly discovered.

Greenson's phony suicide verdict was flatly disputed by Police Sergeant Clemmons who said: "It was unquestionably a murder. The reason being quite simply the fact that the coroner's report did not show a trace of barbiturates any place in the digestive tract."

Her empty stomach indicated that the drugs in her bloodstream were administered, not through the empty pill box deliberately placed by her bedside to promote a fraudulent suicide verdict but through an alternative method like a hypodermic needle or a suppository. The death scene, fraught with an empty pill bottle to suggest suicide, was staged.

Using words that echo the secrecy that Hemingway's butcher, Dr. Rome maintained, when he refused to explain the reason behind unecessary shock therapy treatment, Greenson exposed the fact that he was subject to the control of an authority like Hoover's FBI when he said: "I can't explain myself or defend myself without revealing things that I don't want to reveal. It's a terrible position to be in, to say I can't talk about it. I just can't tell the whole story."

The whole story is that Marilyn Monroe was not suicidal, she was deeply in love with Joe DiMaggio and J. Edgar Hoover decided that it was time for her to commit suicide. Did Greenson administer shock therapy treatment and try to re-program her brain, to convince her that the Kennedys were in love with her and that she should not marry Joe DiMaggio? It would be unthinkable to suggest, if another prominment target, Hemingway had not been a victim of unecessary shock therapy treatment. At the very least, Dr. Greenson discouraged the relationship between Marilyn Monroe and Joe DiMaggio, how far he went in that regard, he refused to say, but Hemingway's experience provides plenty of food for thought.

On November 30, 1960, suffering from high blood pressure, liver and kidney diseases and haemochromatosis, Hemingway entered the Mayo clinic and hoped to return home by Christmas. The FBI was carefully monitoring Hemingway's treatment at the Mayo clinic and "a letter from special agent in Minneapolis to J. Edgar Hoover on January 13, 1960 reported that Hemingway had secretly entered the Mayo Clinic and the FBI knew about his treatment." Indeed "the FBI had, in fact, tracked Hemingway to the walls of the Mayo Clinic and discussed his case with his psychiatrist."

At the Mayo Clinic, Hemingway was given a series of electric shocks to the brain. Electro-convulsive therapy treatment is for hopeless psychiatric patients and Dr. Bonnie Burstow, an outspoken critic of ECT, describes the treatment in the following terms.

Why am I opposed to shock treatment... To begin with, because of what it is, intrinsically a brain damaging treatment. To understand this, it is important to know how the treatment works. Shock treatment is one in which sufficient electricity is passed through the brain to produce a grand mal seizure, thereby resulting in cell death. This is what it does; this is all it does. Brain damage, to be clear, is not a side-effect of shock treatment. It is the primary effect.

Hemingway did not voluntarily submit to such a radical method of treatment, his lifelong scorn of psychiatrists prompted him to say that his analyst was "portable Corona No. 3." and the treatment he received at the Mayo Clinic was a direct violation of everything he believed in. Clearly, Dr. Rome was not legitimately authorized to treat Hemingway and Anthony Burgess has in fact indicated, Dr. Rome "was a psychiatrist but did not present himself as one."

Hoover's FBI manipulated psychiatrists in effort to destabilize their targets and the police state that J. Edgar Hoover produced was as treacherous as any Soviet Gulag. According to former FBI agent, Gordon Liddy, illegal FBI operations were always staged in a manner that made it appear as though the FBI was absolutely blameless and the suggestion that the psychiatrists who tortured Hemingway and Monroe were acting on their own free will is not credible. In fact, they admitted otherwise.

Sadly, Dr. Greenson controlled Marilyn Monroe and isolated her from the people she cared about. Monroe was not treated in a psychiatrist's office as most legitimate patients are but at Dr. Greenson's own house, on a daily basis. After her treatment, she often stayed for dinner, and after dinner she stayed for drinks. Dr. Greenson even tried to control the movies that Marilyn was allowed to star in. In particular, philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, who believed that Marilyn Monroe was "one of the greatest actresses alive" wanted her to star in his screenplay, Freud which John Huston was about to make into a film, but Dr. Greenson objected. Needless to say, a legitimate psychiatrist who was not controlled by J. Edgar Hoover's bizarre paranoia, would have agreed with Jean Paul Sartre -what a missed opportunity.

The love affair between Marilyn Monroe and Joe DiMaggio has been distorted beyond recognition because Marilyn Monroe's life and death was supposed to be prescribed by her FBI file. Ideally, from J. Edgar Hoover's perspective, her life should have ended as expected, in the mental asylum that claimed her mother -but Joe DiMaggio forcefully thwarted that particular plan. In the end, her death was used to assassinate the character of President John F. Kennedy, and that is rather ironic because red-baiting zealots disturbed and angered Monroe and it was her hatred of anti-Communist rabble-rousers like Hoover and Nixon, that drove her towards the Kennedy camp. In her own words: "some of those bastards in Hollywood wanted me to drop Arthur. Said it would ruin my career. They're born cowards and want you to be like them. One reason I want to see Kennedy win is that Nixon's associated with that whole scene."

Indeed, "that whole scene" publicizes non-stop distortions. Mimicking lies about the phantom affair between Robert Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe, Robert Blackey and Judith Campbell alleged a two-and-a-half year, sexual relationship, between Mafia Party Queen, Judith Campbell and President Kennedy. Judith Campbell is a self-admitted perjuror who had a great deal of trouble keeping her lies straight. According to Judith Campbell:

Kennedy met with Giancana [the murderer] at the Fontainbleau on April 12. "I was not present," says Exner [Judith Campbell], "but Jack came to my suite afterward, and I asked him how the meeting had gone. He seemed very happy about it and thanked me for making the arrangements. He then stayed with me for an hour or so, and we talked about the campaign. Jack told me that if he didn't get the nomination in July, he and his wife would get a divorce. He didn't say he was leaving her for me or for any other woman, or that Jackie was leaving him for any other man. He simply said their marriage was unhappy and the divorce was a mutual decision between them." As Kennedy was leaving, he handed Exner an envelope, telling her not to open it until he was gone. Inside, she found two $1,000 bills. "Jack said he wanted to pay for the new mink coat that I had worn to his house in Georgetown," says Exner, "or if I wouldn't let him do that, then he wanted me to buy something special." She kept the cash and later deposited it in her checking account.

According to Blakey, "not known for being a lavish gift-giver, Kennedy made at least one contribution to Campbell's livelihood in the form of a check for $2,000.47."

The glaring contradiction between the claim that Kennedy donated money/no he donated a cheque, speaks for itself. The delightful Kennedy aide, Dave Powers, who was not kidding when he said, the only Campbell he knows is "chunky soup," deserves the final word.

It is childish to claim that President Kennedy was having a two-and-a-half year relationship with the lunatic who had a nervous breakdown because Robert Kennedy's war against the murdererous thugs she slept with [sam Giancana and Johnny Roselli] drove her up the wall. Judith Campbell and John F. Kennedy were not lovers, they were enemies, and if she called White House switch board operators, hoping to receive lavish gifts from the President, she didn't get any.

Judith Campbell certainly proved that hell hath no fury like a Mafia Queen's scorn, when she said, "I was followed, hounded, harrassed, accosted, spied upon, intimidated, burglarized, embarrassed, humiliated, denigrated, and... finally driven to the brink of death." Reasonable people applauded Robert Kennedy's war against organized crime, Judith Campbell falsely claimed that the President was in bed with the Mafia and the Mafia Queen was supposed to be the fringe benefit.

Robert Blakey, who was Chief Counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations when it determined that Hoover's FBI was "morally reprehensible, illegal, felonious, and unconstitutional," should know better than to give credence to the Hoover-sponsored, Mafia-supported falsehoods that are designed to assassinate the character of President Kennedy.

The Kennedys had declared war against the Mafia, but according to Campbell, for eighteen months between 1960 and 1961, she regularly carried envelopes back and forth between President Kennedy and Sam Giancana, giving the Mafia direct access to the White House. According to federal wire taps however, as late as December 6, 1961, Giancana was angry over the fact that Frank Sinatra had failed to use the Kennedys to get them off his back and the allegation that Campbell was a direct link to John F. Kennedy was just a Mafia pipe dream. The following surreptitiously recorded conversation between Sam Giancana and Johnny Roselli speaks for itself:

Roselli: ... He [Frank Sinatra] was real nice to me... He says: "Johnny, I took Sam's name, and wrote it down, and told Bobby Kennedy, 'This is my buddy, this is what I want you to know Bob'. "Between you and I, Frank saw Joe Kennedy three different times-Joe Kennedy, the father. He called him three times... He [Frank] says he's got an idea that you're mad at him. I says: "That, I wouldn't know".

Giancana: He must have a guilty conscience. I never said nothing... Well, I don't know who the xxxx he's [Frank's] talking to, but if I'm gonna talk to... after all, if I'm taking somebody's money, I'm gonna make sure that this money is gonna do something, like, do you want it or don't you want it. If the money is accepted, maybe one of these days the guy will do you a favour.

Roselli: That's right, He [Frank] says he wrote your name down...

Giancana: Well, one minute he [Frank] tells me this and then he tells me that and then the last time I talked to him was at the hotel in Florida a month before he left, and he said, "Don't worry about it. If I can't talk to the old man [Joseph Kennedy], I'm gonna talk to the man [President Kennedy." One minute he says he's talked to Robert, and the next minute he says he hasn't talked to him. So, he never did talk to him. It's a lot of xxxx. Why lie to me? I haven't got that coming.

Roselli: I can imagine... Tsk, tsk, ...... if he can't deliver, I want him to tell me: "John, the load's too heavy.

Giancana: That's all right. At least then you know how to work. You won't let your guard down then, know what I mean... Ask him [Frank] if I'm going to be invited to his New Year's party.

Campbell's fraudulent claim that she was a conduit between Giancana and Kennedy is clearly a reflection of Mafia frustration. Indeed, when the Kennedys had placed the FBI on the tail of Sam Giancana, he would angrily denounce the scrutiny with comments like, "Hey, we're supposed to be on the same side aren't we?" and "Why don't you xxxxs go out and investigate Communists?" The difference between Hoover's FBI and Robert Kennedy's Justice Department was driving Sam Giancana and Judith Campbell crazy.

Robert Blakey was a prosecutor with the Department of Justice in 1963 and the fact that he promotes Mafia propaganda betrays the unofficial, sinister loyalties that Hoover cultivated -the kind that made people like Judith Campbell, Sam Giancana and J. Edgar Hoover, covert, sinister allies in the illegal war against Communists, real or perceived..

As the Director and Chief Counsel of the Select Committee that studied the Kennedy and King murders, Robert Blakey diverted attention away from J. Edgar Hoover's obvious complicity in the Kennedy assassination cover up by asking questions like: "Why did Yuri Nosenko, the KGB defector, lie about his knowledge of Oswald?" and "Did anti-Castro Cuban exiles put Oswald up to killing the president?" Blakey sowed the seeds of future propagandists who continue to blame Fidel Castro for the assassination of President Kennedy. Indeed, Robert Blakey even claimed that Carlos Marcello and Fidel Castro were responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy --you know, all the traditional, bad guys.

Castro and the Mafia did not murder President Kennedy. J. Edgar Hoover used Mafia assets to destroy "Communists" like Marilyn Monroe and if Justice Department officials like Hoover and Blakey did not ignore their authorized duty, thugs like Carlos Marcello would not be in a position to murder anybody. We are supposed to believe the Mafia that allegedly did not even exist, had the motive, the means and the opportunity to murder the President of the United States. The truth is, J. Edgar Hoover manufactured the false premise which was the source of Mafia power [the Mafia did not exist]and he used the Mafia to do all his dirty work. That's why Marcello said: "Hey, we're supposed to be on the same side aren't we?"

What is most egregious about the perpetual plot to assassinate the character of President John F. Kennedy is that former, Justice Department officials like Robert Blakey encouraged the distortions of self-admitted perjurors like Judith Campbell, and that is not acceptable.

In the last interview before her death, Marilyn pleaded unsucessfully with a reporter to end his article like this: "What I really want to say: That what the world really needs is a real feeling of kinship. Everybody: stars, labourers, Negroes, Jews, Arabs. We are all brothers. Please don't make me a joke. End the interview with what I believe". The media always ignored Marilyn Monroe's genuine feelings. In 1960, Marilyn Monroe sponsored the SANE, the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy. Her strong feelings for civil rights, for black equality and for peace had made her J. Edgar Hoover's mortal enemy, but nobody reported that. The fact that she was the target of every red-baiter in town was the fiercely ignored reality which explains the Soviet Gulag that she was rescued from in 1961, and that is not supposed to be what the United States of America is all about.

In 1961, J. Edgar Hoover should have been placed in Marilyn Monroe's locked and padded room for the most disturbed patients, that is where he belonged. In 1962, Hoover was directly responsible for the lapse that Donald Spoto described in the following terms:

An explanation is still required of exactly what happened in Marilyn Monroe's bedroom between the end of her conversation with Joe DiMaggio, Jr., at seven-twenty or seven twenty-five, and her almost incoherent replies to Peter Lawford at seven-forty or seven-forty-five.

Despite the official claim that Marilyn killed herself, even Dr. Greenson admitted the fact that in 1962, Marilyn Monroe "had put everything bad behind her and could now go forward with her life." She was, in the words of Donal Spoto, so absolutely sane that "she recognized her popularity was caused by an image she hated-and that now, for the first time in 1962, was openly admitting-showed how clearly she realized the split in herself. This can hardly, however, be called 'schizophrenic'; in fact it reveals a remarkable clarity of self-perception." J. Edgar Hoover on the other hand, epitomized the self-delusion of the most hopeless, psychiatric patient -and that is why he is obviously responsible for the psychiatric, Whitewash Committee that deliberately mischaracterized Marilyn Monroe's emotional maturity.

Indeed, it would be naive to suggest that J. Edgar Hoover was not directly responsible for misrepresenting Marilyn Monroe's emotional maturity on the day she was murdered. Moreover, when J. Edgar Hoover approached Robert Kennedy to plant the false suggestion that the Attorney general was having an affair with Marilyn, the glaring attempt to obstruct justice is merely an extension of the plot to use psychology to get away with the murder of Marilyn Monroe and to blame the Kennedys in the process. The truth is not that complicated.

J. Edgar Hoover is the law enforcement official who is directly responsible for stalking, torturing and staging a false suicide verdict to blame the Kennedys for the murder of Marilyn Monroe. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was indeed the cold blooded murderer who scripted the death of Marilyn Monroe and it is not even remotely plausible to suggest the well publicized alternative.

KEY EVIDENCE FOR ANY SUCCESSFUL, CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

Edited December 19, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[John Dolva]

I think Robert Blakey is rather vague in the history books section, what is he hiding?

I dont know, Lynne. Is it relevant?

________________________

A thought:

I've been pushing an idea from a civil rights angle (with the newly funded justice department bill enabling reopening of unsolved civil rights cases in mind) for some time now. Some of these may overlap into the JFK assassination (as far as I am concerned it IS an unsolved murder of a civil rights activist, but that's another story).

Anway, the point is that there may be disappeared/murdered witnesses that could fall under this particular umbrella. One idea I had was to use Clyde Snows method of identifying 'disappeared' in Argentina following the reign of the Generals, by studying cemetery records and noting statistical anomalies for relevant periods. This was used successfully in prosecution. Perhaps a rise in unidentified burials around Dallas for the period following the assassination could indicate something that could be added to the 'ammunition' used to persuade a relevant person to do the Grand Jury thing?

[Lynne Foster]

If you take that angle, you can prosecute somebody like Gordon Liddy in a heart beat, but you would have to do it without his cooperation because he will refuse to testify.

That's just my opinion, from a historical perspective, I think the evidence is there, but I have no experience with rules of evidence in courts of law where judges are biased enough to steal elections.

But I wouldn't hold my breath, there's a scandal a second these days... I think the Kennedy assassination is history now, there is no prospect for conviction in a case where the effort to cover up the truth outweighs the determination to expose it by a factor of 1000 to 1.

THAT'S HISTORY

Edited December 18, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Duke Lane]

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?

[Harry J.Dean]

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.

To keep people questioning, to allow multiple theories to abound, to let time slip away and drag on before applying the basic and routine legal procedures for investigating and solving such a crime is only a reflection of the institutional unwillingness, resistance and refusal to challenge the powers that took over the government on November 22, 1963.

The feeling of citizen helplessness is reflected in the subtitle of the book by one of the living victims of the same criminals – James Tague, whose book is called The Truth Withheld – A Survivor’s Story – Why We Will Never Know the Truth About the Assassination. But those responsible for JFK’s murder win and go free only if they die before being exposed, and escape justice.

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.

Despite the institutional unwillingness to make the effort to solve the crime, a strong regiment of independent researchers, determined investigators, honest witnesses and ordinary citizens have taken upon themselves to determine the truth, solve the crime, but justice has yet to take its course.

“We need not accept (the) view that mankind…..is doomed,” JFK said in his landmark June 10, 1963 ‘Peace Speech’ at American University. We need not accept, “that we are gripped by forces we cannot control…Our problems are manmade – therefore, they can be solved by man….No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable – and we believe man can do it again.”

American political assassinations and murders were committed by men, and therefore can be solved by men, if only the effort to do so is taken to do so. However belatedly, there has been a new trend to at least attempt to resolve the civil rights and political murders of the 1960s, with the assassination of Medgar Evers, the murders of the Philadelphia, Mississippi Freedom Riders, the York, Pennsylvania race riot killings, and the MLK assassination civil trial have all utilized the judicial system to solve crimes that were thought to be untouchable a decade ago.

The assassination of President Kennedy was not an accident of history or an act of God, but the act of man, and men can solve the crime if only the effort is made to do so.

Whether the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman as the official report alleges or a patsy as he claimed, he was a former U.S. Marine who worked with the U2 program in Japan, was trained in the Russian language, defected to the USSR, returned with a Russian wife, reportedly took a pot shot at General Walker, participated in covert Cuban operations in New Orleans and Mexico City, and fits the covert operative profile that makes the assassination a covert intelligence operation. As former Senator Richard Schweikder (R. Pa.) put it, the case has “the fingerprints of intelligence.”

Just because covert operations are designed to conceal the actual perpetuators doesn’t mean that they can’t be exposed, identified and brought to justice, just as other, similar covert crimes have been exposed – Watergate, Iran-Contra and the assassination of the former Chilean ambassador to the U.S. in Washington.

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.”

Well, besides determining the truth and seeking justice, it would be useful and fruitful to determine who killed President Kennedy, why they did it, and how they accomplished it, so such a thing can never happen again. If the assassination of Medgar Evers was immediately pursued and justice resolved, President Kennedy would not have been killed in the same way, and if JFK’s assassination was properly resolved immediately, RFK and MLK probably would never have died the way the did.

Political assassination remain an effective tool for controlling policy only because the true perpetuators of these crimes are permitted to remain hidden in the background, pulling the strings of the puppets and moving the pawns as they have for centuries. The assassination of President Kennedy has maintained its watershed mark as the single most significant political event of the past century because it remains unresolved. Despite the tremendous amount of information that is now available, it remains an unresolved enigma and unsolved cold case homicide because there is no institutional willingness, motive or desire to simply solve it.

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.

A grand jury is asked to decide, not guilt or innocence, but whether there is enough evidence to have a person brought to trial for a crime. The grand jury only hears evidence of guilt, but does not render a verdict. Its decision is whether to indict, which is merely an accusation, or not to indict. Guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law; where the rules of evidence preclude hearsay evidence and allows the defense attorney the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Hearsay is allowed, and witnesses must testify before a grand jury without counsel, as all attorneys other than the prosecutor are not permitted in the grand jury room.

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 Grand Jury process, which stems from English Cannon law, has been refined by the United States Constitutional system as an extension of the prosecutor’s will, though historically the grand jury can investigate official corruption, review and develop evidence, attempt to answer questions, subpoena records and witnesses, order forensic autopsies and specialized tests and follow the evidence where ever it leads.

While grand juries composed of ordinary American citizens do not have the knowledge of the history and powers of a grand jury, and are often merely tools of the prosecutors, sometimes a prosecutor will lose control of a grand jury that begins to ask questions and make requests of its own. Such a grand jury is called a “Runaway Grand Jury,” and often goes beyond the original intent of the prosecutors, such as the Rocky Mountain Flats Runaway Grand Jury. When the Colorado prosecutors refused to issued the indictments against a major defense contractors for environmental contamination, the grand jury leaked its report to the press [see: Westword Rocky Mountain Flats ]

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.”

Another reason that District Attorneys are reluctant to investigate and prosecute political assassination, besides opposing the criminal effort behind the murder, is the effort and manpower it takes to solve it, which takes away from the normal, day-to-day prosecutions that the District Attorney is also responsible for. J

This can be compensated by including the most significant evidence, lists of documents and witnesses, and outstanding questions with the Petition-Request, laying out the case for crimes and conspiracy and reducing the work of the prosecutors. Such a convincing attachment would also help persuade a prosecutor to accept the case and take it to a grand jury.

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.

Of the dozens of the potential jurisdictions, it will be easiest to convene a Special Federal Grand Jury in Washington D.C., where most of the original evidence is located at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the body of the victim can be exhumed for a proper forensic autopsy.

Although conspiracy and homicide are the crimes being investigated, once the grand jury begins to subpoena records and require the sworn testimony of witnesses, other crimes, such as perjury, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice come into play, and help persuade witnesses to tell the truth.

One aspect of the grand jury proceedings is their secrecy, which prevents the testimony from being made public before a trial. If there are no indictments, and there isn’t a trial, the grand jury could issue a report explaining what it learned and the reasons behind its action or inaction.

Historically, traditionally and legally according to the Constitution of the United States, the evidence in a homicide is presented to a grand jury, which is where the evidence in the murder of John F. Kennedy must go before there can be justice.

“That we live as a nation of laws, and are not a ‘Banana Republic,’” said Warren Commissioner John McCloy, “requires us as individuals and as a society, to purse truth and justice, ‘even if the heaven’s may fall.’”

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.

William E. Kelly, Jr.

Bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Part quote, re solving JFK assassination.

"....is only a reflection of the institutional unwillingness, resistance and refusal

to challenge the powers that took over the government on November 22, 1963"

I am in Total agreement with your Entire statement above!

Harry J. Dean

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Duke Lane' date='Dec 16 2005, 06:59 PM' post='49079']

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?

Duke:

Is your friend planning to get into the race? Have you ever discussed this case with him? If not perhaps that would be a good place to begin. Ask what he already knows and pass on some info, like the foolishness of the SBT, and a little history of prior investigations. Try to get him interested by presenting it as the most interesting unsolved homicide he will ever encounter.

I wrote to Bill Hill two years ago to try to get him to look into this case, but he did not respond.

(Big surprise). If much more time passes there will be no one left to indict...so this DA is the one we must all petition, both during the election (all the candidates- perhaps you can post that information, once it's become available)- and after the election.

Dawn

[Duke Lane]

Duke:

Is your friend planning to get into the race? Have you ever discussed this case with him? If not perhaps that would be a good place to begin. Ask what he already knows and pass on some info, like the foolishness of the SBT, and a little history of prior investigations. Try to get him interested by presenting it as the most interesting unsolved homicide he will ever encounter.

I wrote to Bill Hill two years ago to try to get him to look into this case, but he did not respond.

(Big surprise). If much more time passes there will be no one left to indict...so this DA is the one we must all petition, both during the election (all the candidates- perhaps you can post that information, once it's become available)- and after the election.

Dawn

My friend is not going to run for DA ... as far as I know, anyway. The currently declared candidates are:

Republicans

Vickers Cunningham - former State District Judge

Toby Shook - currently a prosecutor

Democrats

Craig Watkins - (don't know)

Undeclared (but probable)

Dan Wyde - criminal court judge

I've sent an email to the Dallas Morning News reporter that has been covering this to see if I can get their emails.

[Mark Stapleton]

It's a nice idea but hasn't history shown that an uncooperative Government can stymie official investigations whether they are held in a courtroom or even if they are legally constituted Commissions held in closed sessions?

The Government won't co-operate. They only answer to their corporate sponsors. They're the ones who finance the parties, aren't they?

[William Kelly]

It's a nice idea but hasn't history shown that an uncooperative Government can stymie official investigations whether they are held in a courtroom or even if they are legally constituted Commissions held in closed sessions?

The Government won't co-operate. They only answer to their corporate sponsors. They're the ones who finance the parties, aren't they?

Mark,

The whole idea of getting a grand jury inquiry is an end run around the Congress, FBI and all others who could run interference. Once the procedure is started, it won't be easy to stop. We don't need the government's permission - other than one Asst. District Attorney to get a grand jury of ordinary citizens asking questions of witness under oath and investigating crimes related to the assassination.

Thanks to all who are interested, and those who responded seriously. More to come.

Bill Kelly

GRAND JURY INFO FROM SUSAN BRENNER

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAW

This article explains why grand juries will be used in these investigations. It also seeks to demystify the grand jury, the least understood and most secretive component of the American justice system. And it outlines some of the challenges involved in conducting an international investigation.

Why use a grand jury? Why can’t federal agents just conduct the investigation?

Federal grand juries do two things: They investigate to determine if federal crimes have been committed; and they indict, or bring criminal charges against, those whom the grand jury believes committed federal crimes. To indict, the grand jurors must have probable cause to believe the persons indicted did violate federal criminal law.

Grand juries offer prosecutors several advantages in conducting a criminal investigation, especially a high-profile, factually complicated investigation. For one thing, grand juries operate in secret; this not only gives prosecutors the ability to shield the evidence they are gathering from disclosure to the press and others, it can also encourage people to cooperate with a grand jury. Unless a witness reveals that he or she testified before a federal grand jury, no one ever needs to know that occurred, and since the transcripts of grand jury testimony are secret, no one will know what the witness said. This can be an advantage in an investigation, such as an investigation into terrorism, where witnesses may be afraid of retaliation if they cooperate with investigators.

Grand juries also give prosecutors the power to subpoena witnesses and evidence from around the country and, in some circumstances, from other countries, as well. (Getting evidence from abroad is discussed below.) If federal agents want to interview someone, the person can refuse to speak to them; this is true even if the person is arrested as a material witness, because persons who are arrested can invoke the Miranda rights to silence and to an attorney. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, however, that the Miranda rights are not available to witnesses subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. Unlike someone being interrogated by federal agents, a grand jury witness not only has not right to silence or counsel, he or she is required to answer questions posed by the prosecutor working with the grand jury and by the grand jurors. A grand jury witness can refuse to answer if he or she can invoke the Fifth Amendment as to a question, but the privilege must be claimed as to each question and the prosecutor can challenge a witness' ability to invoke the privilege.

And even if a witness shows that he or she is entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege, a prosecutor can deprive the witness of that right by giving the person immunity. Once the person has been given immunity, he or she has to answer the grand jury’s questions; if the witness still refuses to answer, the person will be incarcerated for civil contempt until he or she complies. People have been served up to eight years for refusing to speak when ordered to; Susan McDougall, who was subpoenaed by the White Water grand jury, served 18 months for civil contempt when she refused to cooperate with that grand jury.

Grand juries also certain advantages in regard to gathering documents and other types of physical evidence. Assume agents want to obtain bank records that may provide evidence about the activities of the World Trade Center terrorists. To get a search warrant for the records, the agents have to convince a magistrate that they have probable cause to believe the records are evidence of the commission of a federal crime; while the agents may be able to do this, gathering the information they need to present to the magistrate and completing a warrant application take time. A grand jury, on the other hand, can issue an evidence subpoena (called a subpoena duces tecum) for records or other evidence whenever it likes; the grand jury does not have to show probable cause or, indeed, establish any other evidentiary standard to issue subpoenas for documents, computers, blood samples or any other type of physical evidence. Grand juries are given wide latitude in conducting their investigations, so they can cast a wide net in issuing subpoenas for witnesses and for evidence.

Finally, grand juries can hear evidence that is not admissible in court. They can consider hearsay evidence which would not be allowed at trial and evidence obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment.

Whom may a grand jury subpoena? Does the location of a witness make a difference?

A federal grand jury has the power to serve a subpoena on any person within the United States. Thus, both U.S. citizens and visitors to the U.S. may be compelled to testify and/or provide physical evidence. A federal grand jury also has the authority to subpoena U.S. citizens and residents abroad. Federal law currently does not grant grand juries the power to subpoena non U.S. citizens and residents abroad. However, in the wake of the attacks of September 11 and the fear of further attacks, every possibility exists that Congress will elect to extend the reach of grand jury subpoenas.

The question of whether aliens outside the United States could use the U.S. Constitution as a shield against testifying remains open. Many commentators believe that Fifth Amendment Due Process rights do not extend to aliens outside U.S. territory. Further, even if such rights exist, they would not be violated if prosecutors can show that a nexus exists between the witness and the United States such that it would not be unfair to submit him or her to the power of U.S. courts. Such a nexus exists if a transaction was aimed at causing criminal acts within the U.S. Ironically, this standard was most recently articulated in United States v. Bin Laden, a case involving the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

May the U.S. use force to apprehend grand jury targets or material witnesses and bring them to the United States?

Yes. In the past the Supreme Court has upheld the indictment and conviction of defendants who were literally kidnapped by U.S. forces and brought to the United States. Once a person is within U.S. territory, service of a subpoena is no longer a problem. Although these cases involved grand jury targets, rather than mere witnesses, at least one U.S. Court of Appeals has concluded that the principle of these cases also applies to material witnesses. Material witnesses are persons whom federal authorities have probable cause to believe have crucial information pertaining to the crime at issue.

Where can I find out more about federal grand juries?

You can learn more about federal, and state, grand juries and share your experiences with grand juries at this web site: http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur.

Edited December 18, 2005 by William Kelly

[Mike Regan]

Duke Lane Wrote

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?

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

Duke,

With the thought in mind that the assassination of a President of the United States was NOT A Federal crime in 1963, and since the responsibility to prosecute with regard to the assassination Of JFK has always, and will always, be the County of Dallas, it would be awesome if you could convince your friend from the Dallas DA to open, for the 1st time, an investigation into the murder. I suspect that millions of Americans continue to wonder why such an investigation has yet to take place.

As a personal favor, perhaps you could share with him my own theory with regard to the shooting. The topic is entitled "James Jarman, Jr." here at the forum. I had tried some years back to interest the Dallas Police by Fed Exing my research to them but simply learned that the old adage "It's Who You Know" is quite true.

Sincere regards,

Mike Regan

[Mark Stapleton]

It's a nice idea but hasn't history shown that an uncooperative Government can stymie official investigations whether they are held in a courtroom or even if they are legally constituted Commissions held in closed sessions?

The Government won't co-operate. They only answer to their corporate sponsors. They're the ones who finance the parties, aren't they?

Mark,

The whole idea of getting a grand jury inquiry is an end run around the Congress, FBI and all others who could run interference. Once the procedure is started, it won't be easy to stop. We don't need the government's permission - other than one Asst. District Attorney to get a grand jury of ordinary citizens asking questions of witness under oath and investigating crimes related to the assassination.

Thanks to all who are interested, and those who responded seriously. More to come.

Bill Kelly

GRAND JURY INFO FROM SUSAN BRENER

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAW

This article explains why grand juries will be used in these investigations. It also seeks to demystify the grand jury, the least understood and most secretive component of the American justice system. And it outlines some of the challenges involved in conducting an international investigation.

Why use a grand jury? Why can’t federal agents just conduct the investigation?

Federal grand juries do two things: They investigate to determine if federal crimes have been committed; and they indict, or bring criminal charges against, those whom the grand jury believes committed federal crimes. To indict, the grand jurors must have probable cause to believe the persons indicted did violate federal criminal law.

Grand juries offer prosecutors several advantages in conducting a criminal investigation, especially a high-profile, factually complicated investigation. For one thing, grand juries operate in secret; this not only gives prosecutors the ability to shield the evidence they are gathering from disclosure to the press and others, it can also encourage people to cooperate with a grand jury. Unless a witness reveals that he or she testified before a federal grand jury, no one ever needs to know that occurred, and since the transcripts of grand jury testimony are secret, no one will know what the witness said. This can be an advantage in an investigation, such as an investigation into terrorism, where witnesses may be afraid of retaliation if they cooperate with investigators.

Grand juries also give prosecutors the power to subpoena witnesses and evidence from around the country and, in some circumstances, from other countries, as well. (Getting evidence from abroad is discussed below.) If federal agents want to interview someone, the person can refuse to speak to them; this is true even if the person is arrested as a material witness, because persons who are arrested can invoke the Miranda rights to silence and to an attorney. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, however, that the Miranda rights are not available to witnesses subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. Unlike someone being interrogated by federal agents, a grand jury witness not only has not right to silence or counsel, he or she is required to answer questions posed by the prosecutor working with the grand jury and by the grand jurors. A grand jury witness can refuse to answer if he or she can invoke the Fifth Amendment as to a question, but the privilege must be claimed as to each question and the prosecutor can challenge a witness' ability to invoke the privilege.

And even if a witness shows that he or she is entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege, a prosecutor can deprive the witness of that right by giving the person immunity. Once the person has been given immunity, he or she has to answer the grand jury’s questions; if the witness still refuses to answer, the person will be incarcerated for civil contempt until he or she complies. People have been served up to eight years for refusing to speak when ordered to; Susan McDougall, who was subpoenaed by the White Water grand jury, served 18 months for civil contempt when she refused to cooperate with that grand jury.

Grand juries also certain advantages in regard to gathering documents and other types of physical evidence. Assume agents want to obtain bank records that may provide evidence about the activities of the World Trade Center terrorists. To get a search warrant for the records, the agents have to convince a magistrate that they have probable cause to believe the records are evidence of the commission of a federal crime; while the agents may be able to do this, gathering the information they need to present to the magistrate and completing a warrant application take time. A grand jury, on the other hand, can issue an evidence subpoena (called a subpoena duces tecum) for records or other evidence whenever it likes; the grand jury does not have to show probable cause or, indeed, establish any other evidentiary standard to issue subpoenas for documents, computers, blood samples or any other type of physical evidence. Grand juries are given wide latitude in conducting their investigations, so they can cast a wide net in issuing subpoenas for witnesses and for evidence.

Finally, grand juries can hear evidence that is not admissible in court. They can consider hearsay evidence which would not be allowed at trial and evidence obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment.

Whom may a grand jury subpoena? Does the location of a witness make a difference?

A federal grand jury has the power to serve a subpoena on any person within the United States. Thus, both U.S. citizens and visitors to the U.S. may be compelled to testify and/or provide physical evidence. A federal grand jury also has the authority to subpoena U.S. citizens and residents abroad. Federal law currently does not grant grand juries the power to subpoena non U.S. citizens and residents abroad. However, in the wake of the attacks of September 11 and the fear of further attacks, every possibility exists that Congress will elect to extend the reach of grand jury subpoenas.

The question of whether aliens outside the United States could use the U.S. Constitution as a shield against testifying remains open. Many commentators believe that Fifth Amendment Due Process rights do not extend to aliens outside U.S. territory. Further, even if such rights exist, they would not be violated if prosecutors can show that a nexus exists between the witness and the United States such that it would not be unfair to submit him or her to the power of U.S. courts. Such a nexus exists if a transaction was aimed at causing criminal acts within the U.S. Ironically, this standard was most recently articulated in United States v. Bin Laden, a case involving the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

May the U.S. use force to apprehend grand jury targets or material witnesses and bring them to the United States?

Yes. In the past the Supreme Court has upheld the indictment and conviction of defendants who were literally kidnapped by U.S. forces and brought to the United States. Once a person is within U.S. territory, service of a subpoena is no longer a problem. Although these cases involved grand jury targets, rather than mere witnesses, at least one U.S. Court of Appeals has concluded that the principle of these cases also applies to material witnesses. Material witnesses are persons whom federal authorities have probable cause to believe have crucial information pertaining to the crime at issue.

Where can I find out more about federal grand juries?

You can learn more about federal, and state, grand juries and share your experiences with grand juries at this web site: http://www.udayton.edu/~grandjur.

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.

[Richard J. Smith]

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.

To keep people questioning, to allow multiple theories to abound, to let time slip away and drag on before applying the basic and routine legal procedures for investigating and solving such a crime is only a reflection of the institutional unwillingness, resistance and refusal to challenge the powers that took over the government on November 22, 1963.

The feeling of citizen helplessness is reflected in the subtitle of the book by one of the living victims of the same criminals – James Tague, whose book is called The Truth Withheld – A Survivor’s Story – Why We Will Never Know the Truth About the Assassination. But those responsible for JFK’s murder win and go free only if they die before being exposed, and escape justice.

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.

Despite the institutional unwillingness to make the effort to solve the crime, a strong regiment of independent researchers, determined investigators, honest witnesses and ordinary citizens have taken upon themselves to determine the truth, solve the crime, but justice has yet to take its course.

“We need not accept (the) view that mankind…..is doomed,” JFK said in his landmark June 10, 1963 ‘Peace Speech’ at American University. We need not accept, “that we are gripped by forces we cannot control…Our problems are manmade – therefore, they can be solved by man….No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable – and we believe man can do it again.”

American political assassinations and murders were committed by men, and therefore can be solved by men, if only the effort to do so is taken to do so. However belatedly, there has been a new trend to at least attempt to resolve the civil rights and political murders of the 1960s, with the assassination of Medgar Evers, the murders of the Philadelphia, Mississippi Freedom Riders, the York, Pennsylvania race riot killings, and the MLK assassination civil trial have all utilized the judicial system to solve crimes that were thought to be untouchable a decade ago.

The assassination of President Kennedy was not an accident of history or an act of God, but the act of man, and men can solve the crime if only the effort is made to do so.

Whether the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman as the official report alleges or a patsy as he claimed, he was a former U.S. Marine who worked with the U2 program in Japan, was trained in the Russian language, defected to the USSR, returned with a Russian wife, reportedly took a pot shot at General Walker, participated in covert Cuban operations in New Orleans and Mexico City, and fits the covert operative profile that makes the assassination a covert intelligence operation. As former Senator Richard Schweikder (R. Pa.) put it, the case has “the fingerprints of intelligence.”

Just because covert operations are designed to conceal the actual perpetuators doesn’t mean that they can’t be exposed, identified and brought to justice, just as other, similar covert crimes have been exposed – Watergate, Iran-Contra and the assassination of the former Chilean ambassador to the U.S. in Washington.

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.”

Well, besides determining the truth and seeking justice, it would be useful and fruitful to determine who killed President Kennedy, why they did it, and how they accomplished it, so such a thing can never happen again. If the assassination of Medgar Evers was immediately pursued and justice resolved, President Kennedy would not have been killed in the same way, and if JFK’s assassination was properly resolved immediately, RFK and MLK probably would never have died the way the did.

Political assassination remain an effective tool for controlling policy only because the true perpetuators of these crimes are permitted to remain hidden in the background, pulling the strings of the puppets and moving the pawns as they have for centuries. The assassination of President Kennedy has maintained its watershed mark as the single most significant political event of the past century because it remains unresolved. Despite the tremendous amount of information that is now available, it remains an unresolved enigma and unsolved cold case homicide because there is no institutional willingness, motive or desire to simply solve it.

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.

A grand jury is asked to decide, not guilt or innocence, but whether there is enough evidence to have a person brought to trial for a crime. The grand jury only hears evidence of guilt, but does not render a verdict. Its decision is whether to indict, which is merely an accusation, or not to indict. Guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law; where the rules of evidence preclude hearsay evidence and allows the defense attorney the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Hearsay is allowed, and witnesses must testify before a grand jury without counsel, as all attorneys other than the prosecutor are not permitted in the grand jury room.

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 Grand Jury process, which stems from English Cannon law, has been refined by the United States Constitutional system as an extension of the prosecutor’s will, though historically the grand jury can investigate official corruption, review and develop evidence, attempt to answer questions, subpoena records and witnesses, order forensic autopsies and specialized tests and follow the evidence where ever it leads.

While grand juries composed of ordinary American citizens do not have the knowledge of the history and powers of a grand jury, and are often merely tools of the prosecutors, sometimes a prosecutor will lose control of a grand jury that begins to ask questions and make requests of its own. Such a grand jury is called a “Runaway Grand Jury,” and often goes beyond the original intent of the prosecutors, such as the Rocky Mountain Flats Runaway Grand Jury. When the Colorado prosecutors refused to issued the indictments against a major defense contractors for environmental contamination, the grand jury leaked its report to the press [see: Westword Rocky Mountain Flats ]

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.”

Another reason that District Attorneys are reluctant to investigate and prosecute political assassination, besides opposing the criminal effort behind the murder, is the effort and manpower it takes to solve it, which takes away from the normal, day-to-day prosecutions that the District Attorney is also responsible for. J

This can be compensated by including the most significant evidence, lists of documents and witnesses, and outstanding questions with the Petition-Request, laying out the case for crimes and conspiracy and reducing the work of the prosecutors. Such a convincing attachment would also help persuade a prosecutor to accept the case and take it to a grand jury.

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.

Of the dozens of the potential jurisdictions, it will be easiest to convene a Special Federal Grand Jury in Washington D.C., where most of the original evidence is located at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the body of the victim can be exhumed for a proper forensic autopsy.

Although conspiracy and homicide are the crimes being investigated, once the grand jury begins to subpoena records and require the sworn testimony of witnesses, other crimes, such as perjury, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice come into play, and help persuade witnesses to tell the truth.

One aspect of the grand jury proceedings is their secrecy, which prevents the testimony from being made public before a trial. If there are no indictments, and there isn’t a trial, the grand jury could issue a report explaining what it learned and the reasons behind its action or inaction.

Historically, traditionally and legally according to the Constitution of the United States, the evidence in a homicide is presented to a grand jury, which is where the evidence in the murder of John F. Kennedy must go before there can be justice.

“That we live as a nation of laws, and are not a ‘Banana Republic,’” said Warren Commissioner John McCloy, “requires us as individuals and as a society, to purse truth and justice, ‘even if the heaven’s may fall.’”

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.

William E. Kelly, Jr.

Bkjfk3@yahoo.com

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.

[William Kelly]

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