JFK Grand Jury

[William Kelly]

Bill wrote:

While the real JFK Mock Grand Jury will be produced in a real federal grand jury room when not in use, and will have real prosecutors, jury and witnesses who will testify under oath, and will be secret - until its over - all filmed for educational purposes - the Virtual internet Mock Grand Jury will not be done in secret, and anybody can be a juror.

I think I can assure you no grand jury proceeding will be filmed! Holy cow!

If it is our own production of a JFK Mock Grand Jury done for the expressed purpose of educating people like you and the general public about the fuctions of a grand jury, as well as the evidence in the JFK case, then I can assure you that there most certainly will be one that is filmed.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, respectfully, I suggest you put a bit more time into your posts here. The paragraph is not representative of the good, clear writing in the essays you have reproduced here.

That paragraph clearly says that the REAL grand jury--not your mock one--"will be filmed for educational purposes". That statement comes up as you are decsribing the REAL grand jury and before your dash where you start to describe your "virtual grand jury".

[William Kelly]

Bill, respectfully, I suggest you put a bit more time into your posts here. The paragraph is not representative of the good, clear writing in the essays you have reproduced here.

That paragraph clearly says that the REAL grand jury--not your mock one--"will be filmed for educational purposes". That statement comes up as you are decsribing the REAL grand jury and before your dash where you start to describe your "virtual grand jury".

Well now you have it straight Tim, there will be virtual on line run through grand jury, and a Mock Grand Jury that will be real - though not official - and filmed, and hopefully what emerges will support the convening of a real official grand jury - that will be secret and not filmed.

You apparently are the only one confused by my sloppy posts.

We can't control what a real grand jury does, but we can help stimulate its formation.

We can control a mock grand jury - and the testimony taken under oath is still sworn testimony - that can be used in a real court.

The virtual mock grand jury - VMGJ - will be a dry run, to show people how the process works and that there is evidence and new testimony that can lead to a resolution of the case. And nobody's blaming the CIA, only individuals can be indicted.

It's a shame that you can't bud in like a defense attorney while testimony and evidence is presented, as defense lawyers are not permitted in the room or allowed to participate. That comes at a trial, if there is one.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, with all due respect, your lack of knowledge of the law is self-evident.

You state there will be a "mock" jury that is "real"; those terms are mutually exclusive.

And a mock jury has no power to subpoena witnesses, so where are you going to get your witnesses from? If they are witnesses who volunteer, they are obviously not potential suspects.

Finally, you write: "Testimony taken under oath is still sworn testimony-that can be used in a real court."

That may seem logical to you, but you are incorrect. You see there is s provision in the U.S. Constitution called the "confrontation clause" that protects all of us by guaranteeing us the right to confront the witnesses against us.

Generally, testimony under oath in a prior adversarial hearing is allowable only if the defendant was represented by counsel of his or her own choice who had a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

If Joe Blow testifies under oath in a federal case ahainst William Kelly, then-- whether you or convicted or acquitted-- if the US brings a subsequent action against me, it cannot introduce Joe Blow's testimony against me because I was not represented by counsel in the case of U.S. v. William Kelly. The reasaon for the confrontation clause is obvious. Maybe you had hired a lawyer fresh out of law school who got nowhere in cross-examining Joe Blow. But I would have hired Gerry Spence or Vincent Bugliosi, either of whom could have torn Joe Blow apart limb by limb. Thus, the only way that Blow's testimony can be used against me is if he is made a witness in the case against me and my attorney can cross examine him.

The confrontation clause is a very fundamental protection of our liberties.

So in short the fact that a witness' statement is either sworn in an affidavit or sworn in a different proceeding does not make it admissible.

Here is the definition of hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Hearsay is a statement (so usually a verbal statement) OTHER THAN ONE made by the declarant (that is, the person making the statement) while testifying at the trial or hearing.

The only potential hearsay exception is as follows:

Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

This exception applies only if the declarant is unavailable to testify. Note that for this exception to apply the party against whom the testimony is offered must have had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the prior proceeding.

So if someone makes a statement in your "mock" grand jury which is under oath that he saw Carl Jenkins in the crowd in Dealey Plaza, that statement could only be used in another proceeding against Carl Jenkins if Jenkins had the opportunity in your mock grand jury to cross-examine the witness against him.

So in short the fact that an out-of-court statement was made under oath does not remove it from the hearsay rule which is predicated on the confrontation clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Bill, with all due respect, your lack of knowledge of the law is self-evident.

TIM, I DON'T CLAIM TO BE A LAWYER, BUT I HAVE RECRUITED ENOUGH LAWYERS WHO DO KNOW THE LAW.

You state there will be a "mock" jury that is "real"; those terms are mutually exclusive.

THE MOCK GRAND JURY WILL BE REAL - IT WILL BE REAL PEOPLE IN A REAL COURT ROOM - AS OPPOSED TO THE VIRTUAL GRAND JURY THAT WILL SIMPLY BE CONDUCTED ON THE INTERNET. HOW IS THAT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE?

And a mock jury has no power to subpoena witnesses, so where are you going to get your witnesses from? If they are witnesses who volunteer, they are obviously not potential suspects.

WE DON'T HAVE TO FORCE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY, THEY TOO WANT THE TRUTH - JAMES TAGUE, HARRY DEAN, BRADLEY AYERS,....ETC. AND THERE ARE DOZENS OF HONEST, TRUTHFUL WITNESSES.

Finally, you write: "Testimony taken under oath is still sworn testimony-that can be used in a real court."

That may seem logical to you, but you are incorrect. You see there is s provision in the U.S. Constitution called the "confrontation clause" that protects all of us by guaranteeing us the right to confront the witnesses against us.

Generally, testimony under oath in a prior adversarial hearing is allowable only if the defendant was represented by counsel of his or her own choice who had a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

TIM, ANYBODY CAN GIVE A SWORN DEPOSTION ANYTIME AND IT IS STILL A SWORN DEPOSITION.

AND WHAT ADVERSARIAL HEARINGS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THERE ARE NO DEFENDANTS - UNTIL ONE IS INDICTED - THEN THEY CAN HAVE THEIR DEFENSE ATTORNEY CROSS EXAMINE ANY WITNESS AGAINST THEM AT TRIAL.

If Joe Blow testifies under oath in a federal case ahainst William Kelly, then-- whether you or convicted or acquitted-- if the US brings a subsequent action against me, it cannot introduce Joe Blow's testimony against me because I was not represented by counsel in the case of U.S. v. William Kelly. The reasaon for the confrontation clause is obvious. Maybe you had hired a lawyer fresh out of law school who got nowhere in cross-examining Joe Blow. But I would have hired Gerry Spence or Vincent Bugliosi, either of whom could have torn Joe Blow apart limb by limb. Thus, the only way that Blow's testimony can be used against me is if he is made a witness in the case against me and my attorney can cross examine him.

The confrontation clause is a very fundamental protection of our liberties.

YES, BUT THAT COMES AT TRIAL. THAT'S WHY THE BUGLIOSI-SPENCE TRIAL WAS SUCH A FRAUD - THEY SKIPPED THE VITAL ASPECT OF THE US JUDICIAL SYSTEM - THE GRAND JURY INDICTMENTS -

So in short the fact that a witness' statement is either sworn in an affidavit or sworn in a different proceeding does not make it admissible.

MORE AND DIFFERENT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED IN A GRAND JURY - FOR INSTANCE HEARSAY IS ADMISSIABLE AT A GRAND JURY - AND NOT IN A TRIAL, SO IF WE TAKE SWORN DEPOSITION OR TESTIMONY BEFORE A MOCK GRAND JURY AND THAT WITNESS DIES, THAT SWORN DEPOSITION IS ADMISSIBLE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, BUT NOT AT A TRIAL, IF THE GRAND JURY INDICTS SOMEONE AND THERE IS A TRIAL.

Here is the definition of hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Hearsay is a statement (so usually a verbal statement) OTHER THAN ONE made by the declarant (that is, the person making the statement) while testifying at the trial or hearing.

The only potential hearsay exception is as follows:

Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

This exception applies only if the declarant is unavailable to testify. Note that for this exception to apply the party against whom the testimony is offered must have had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the prior proceeding.

So if someone makes a statement in your "mock" grand jury which is under oath that he saw Carl Jenkins in the crowd in Dealey Plaza, that statement could only be used in another proceeding against Carl Jenkins if Jenkins had the opportunity in your mock grand jury to cross-examine the witness against him.

TIM, READ THE GRAND JURY RULES - THERE IS NO CROSS-EXAMINATION IN A GRAND JURY.

AND HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE IN A GRAND JURY.

So in short the fact that an out-of-court statement was made under oath does not remove it from the hearsay rule which is predicated on the confrontation clause of the U.S. Constitution.

SO IN SHORT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

PLEASE READ THE REPORTS UNDER THE JFK ASSASSINATION SEMINAR ON THE JFK GRAND JURY BEFORE POSTING ANYMORE NONSENSE.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, it is YOU that wrote that sworn deposition in your "mock grand jury" could be used in a subsequent proceeding.

You are just flat-out wrong but lack the mojos to admit it.

If Bradley Ayers testified in your little proceeding that he was in Dealey Plaza and saw Carl Jenkins fire the fatal head shot from behind the picket fence, his statement, even though sworn in your mock jury, could not be used against Jenkins in any proceeding against him.

It is just that simple.

Just admit you erred. It is not unreasonable for a layman to assume, as you did, that sworn testimony in one proceeding can be used in another. But it IS still hearsay.

This is exactly what you wrote:

We can control a mock grand jury - and the testimony taken under oath is still sworn testimony - that can be used in a real court.

That IS a misstatement of the law, You cannot get around it.

I didn't call what you wrote "nonsense". I said you ERRED, and I prefaced it by saying "with all due respect". So when I post what the law is don't you be calling MY post nonsense. It is clear you just do not like your errors being caught.

You said you had attorneys helping you. Why don't you ask them who is correct about this, you or me? I'd be interested in heasring what they have to say.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Bill, it is YOU that wrote that sworn deposition in your "mock grand jury" could be used in a subsequent proceeding.

You are just flat-out wrong but lack the mojos to admit it.

TIM, HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE IN A GRAND JURY.

A WITNESSES' SWORN TESTIMONY UNDER OATH IN DEPOSITION FORM IS ADMISSIBLE IN GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS EVEN IF THE WITNESSES IS DEAD. THAT IS HEARSAY AND IT IS ADMISSIBLE IN GRAND JURY.

WHY PUT WORDS IN BRADLEY AYERS MOUTH AND ACCUSE CARL JENKINS OF ANYTHING UNLESS YOU WANT TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE?

If Bradley Ayers testified in your little proceeding that he was in Dealey Plaza and saw Carl Jenkins fire the fatal head shot from behind the picket fence, his statement, even though sworn in your mock jury, could not be used against Jenkins in any proceeding against him.

SWORN TESTIMONY FROM A MOCK GRAND JURY CAN BE USED IN AN OFFICIAL GRAND JURY IF NOT OTHERWISE OBTAINABLE, SUCH AS THE DEATH OF THE WITNESS AFTER THE MOCK GRAND JURY BUT BEFORE THE OFFICIAL GRAND JURY IS UNDERWAY.

It is just that simple.

Just admit you erred. It is not unreasonable for a layman to assume, as you did, that sworn testimony in one proceeding can be used in another. But it IS still hearsay.

IT IS STILL HEARSAY AND IS STILL ADMISSIBLE IN A GRAND JURY.

JUST ADMIT YOU ERRED.

This is exactly what you wrote:

We can control a mock grand jury - and the testimony taken under oath is still sworn testimony - that can be used in a real court.

That IS a misstatement of the law, You cannot get around it.

I didn't call what you wrote "nonsense". I said you ERRED, and I prefaced it by saying "with all due respect". So when I post what the law is don't you be calling MY post nonsense. It is clear you just do not like your errors being caught.

You said you had attorneys helping you. Why don't you ask them who is correct about this, you or me? I'd be interested in heasring what they have to say.

MEET SUSAN BRENNER, ESQ., DEAN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAW, AND AUTHORITY ON GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS:

http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/faq/faq.htm

FROM HER SITE, THE FEDERAL MANUAL ON GRAND JURIES FOR PROSECUTORS:

1. 
   
   1. 
      
   2. Advising grand jury on hearsay
      

Hearsay evidence is admissible in grand jury proceedings.⁽²⁰⁾ However, the Second Circuit in United States v. Estepa, 471 F.2d 1132, 1137 (2d Cir. 1972), established a rule that hearsay is admissible only if "the prosecutor does not deceive grand jurors as to 'the shoddy merchandise they are getting so they can seek something better if they wish'. . . or that the case does not involve 'a high probability that with eyewitness, rather than hearsay testimony, the grand jury would not have indicted.'" The Estepa rule is highly questionable in light of United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974), Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956), and Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1988), and has been met by a general lack of enthusiasm by other circuits. Nonetheless, as a practical matter, Division attorneys can avoid application of the Estepa rule by informing the grand jury of the hearsay nature of the testimony it is hearing and by offering to present eyewitness testimony if necessary.⁽²¹⁾ Further, when transcripts from a prior grand jury are presented to a new grand jury, the grand jurors should be advised of the hearsay nature of the transcripts and should be given the opportunity to recall any witnesses. The Department disagrees with the rule in Estepa. Nonetheless, Department policy provides that "hearsay evidence should be presented on its merits so that jurors are not misled into believing that the witness is giving his/her own personal account."⁽²²⁾

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, I presume we are talking about evidence in a proceeding against someone. I used Ayers and Jenkins merely as examples.

So if hearsay is admissible in a grand jury it matters not whether the previous statement was under oath or not.

So get back to my example.

Let us assume Ayers has testified in a grand jury that he saw Jenkins shooting from the grassy knoll. And that is the ONLY evidence against Jenkins. Then Ayers dies (yet another mysterios death!). Now a grand jury could use the Ayers' hearsay statement to indict Jenkins but the hearsay would never be admissible in a trial against Jenkins.

When you said "testimony taken under oath is still real testimony that can be used in a real court: I assume by real court you mean an actual court proceeding against someone. Not merely a grand jury which is essentially just a way to indict someone.

[William Kelly]

Bill, I presume we are talking about evidence in a proceeding against someone. I used Ayers and Jenkins merely as examples.

So if hearsay is admissible in a grand jury it matters not whether the previous statement was under oath or not.

So get back to my example.

Let us assume Ayers has testified in a grand jury that he saw Jenkins shooting from the grassy knoll. And that is the ONLY evidence against Jenkins. Then Ayers dies (yet another mysterios death!). Now a grand jury could use the Ayers' hearsay statement to indict Jenkins but the hearsay would never be admissible in a trial against Jenkins.

When you said "testimony taken under oath is still real testimony that can be used in a real court: I assume by real court you mean an actual court proceeding against someone. Not merely a grand jury which is essentially just a way to indict someone.

Well Tim, before you can have a jury trial you have to have the evidence presented to a grand jury and have a suspect indicted with a "True Bill."

You say a "merely a grand jury which is essentially just a way to indict someone."

Isn't that what it's all about? Trying to findout who committed these crimes?

The Grand Jury Room is merely - as you put it - a venue for researchers to bring their evidence for possible action -

And it is a good place to filter the evidence from everything possible to what is legally admissible - which will eleminate 80% of the BS -

Before the evidence is collected for presentation to the Virtual Grand Jury, we will have to do what police call a "Walk Through" of the crime scenes to determine what evidence and witnesses are to be entered into evidence and called to testify.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, I guess it is my point that a "mock grand jury" is not needed and adds nothing because hearsay is admissible before a real grand jury whether in the form of sworn testimony or not.

And if as you admit you will only have "friendly" witnesses in the mock grand jury, i.e. witnesses who will come voluntarily, you will not be adducing "evidence" in the "mock grand jury" that you could not get simply by taking a statement from Dean, Ayers or your other friendly witnesses.

But I do not think you will get a real grand jury unless you have sufficient evidence for a prosecutor to proceed against someone. And I don't think you will get any "new" information from a grand jury consisting only of witnesses who are willing to voluntarily talk to you.

[William Kelly]

Bill, I guess it is my point that a "mock grand jury" is not needed and adds nothing because hearsay is admissible before a real grand jury whether in the form of sworn testimony or not.

And if as you admit you will only have "friendly" witnesses in the mock grand jury, i.e. witnesses who will come voluntarily, you will not be adducing "evidence" in the "mock grand jury" that you could not get simply by taking a statement from Dean, Ayers or your other friendly witnesses.

But I do not think you will get a real grand jury unless you have sufficient evidence for a prosecutor to proceed against someone. And I don't think you will get any "new" information from a grand jury consisting only of witnesses who are willing to voluntarily talk to you.

So Tim,

Is that a promise that you will move on to something else and not bother me or interfere with this project that is doomed to fail?

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, if I take it that you acknowledge my point that:

1) Anything a witness says in your mock grand jury can NOT be used in a criminal proceeding against someone.

2) That a statement made by someone evidencing a third person's involvement in the assassination could be used in a real grand jury even if it is not made in your grand jury.

One other problem I see is that you, who clearly have an agenda re who did it, want to control your grand jury.

I propose an invesyigation where the investigative body follows the evidence regardless of the direction in which it points. I also like an investigation not a real grand jury because the proceedings of a grand jury are forever closed. I want some of the recent revelations in the case to be made a part of an official public trcord capable of being utilized by future historians. If an investigative body turns up evidence sufficient to indict someone, that evidence is entitled to as much weight in a real grand jury as any evidence adduced in your mock grand jury.

By the way, I never said your grand jury is "doomed to fail". It is if you do not have evidence sufficient to indict ANY CONVICT someone (we don't want another Shaw debacle). Apparently only you know if you have such evidence. But if you do have such evidence, I'd go straight to a prosecutor and request a REAL grand jury!!

Edited October 9, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Bill, if I take it that you acknowledge my point that:

1) Anything a witness says in your mock grand jury can NOT be used in a criminal proceeding against someone.

2) That a statement made by someone evidencing a third person's involvement in the assassination could be used in a real grand jury even if it is not made in your grand jury.

One other problem I see is that you, who clearly have an agenda re who did it, want to control your grand jury.

I propose an invesyigation where the investigative body follows the evidence regardless of the direction in which it points. I also like an investigation not a real grand jury because the proceedings of a grand jury are forever closed. I want some of the recent revelations in the case to be made a part of an official public trcord capable of being utilized by future historians. If an investigative body turns up evidence sufficient to indict someone, that evidence is entitled to as much weight in a real grand jury as any evidence adduced in your mock grand jury.

By the way, I never said your grand jury is "doomed to fail". It is if you do not have evidence sufficient to indict ANY CONVICT someone (we don't want another Shaw debacle). Apparently only you know if you have such evidence. But if you do have such evidence, I'd go straight to a prosecutor and request a REAL grand jury!!

Okay Tim,

What's my clear agenda re: who did it again? If it is so clear who do I intend to pin it on?

And since you have your own solution, can I trust that you will follow yours and leave me to try mine without any more continued interference?

Thanks,

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Bill, I thought it was clear that I was first awaiting your acknowledgement of my two points in Post #92. I do not believe they are that controversial.

Edited October 9, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Stapleton]

Your posts are starting to look like harassment, Tim.