JFK Grand Jury

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, I do not consider it harrassment to simply ask Bill to acknowledge 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.

And of course our goals are the same except that I want an official investigation that can publish its findings rather than a grand jury whose proceedings, by law, must remain sealed. Is it not obvious why an investigation that can, if nothing else, create for history an official record of new discoveries in the case, is preferable to a grand jury that will add nothing to the history unless it leads to an indictment. For example, an official investigation would be able to make the Joannides case a public record; a secret grand jury could not.

Can you see that, Mark, as of historical importance?

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

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

Well, Bill, you are "pushing" as hard as you can your theory that DP was a "black op" presumably by someone associated with US intelligence to frame Castro for the assassination and that whoever was behind the "black op" campaign was behind the assassination.

Correct me if I am wrong about that being your theory but I think you have said so in so many words.

[James Richards]

Well, Bill, you are "pushing" as hard as you can your theory that DP was a "black op" presumably by someone associated with US intelligence to frame Castro for the assassination and that whoever was behind the "black op" campaign was behind the assassination.

Sounds good to me.

James

[William Kelly]

Bill wrote:

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

Well, Bill, you are "pushing" as hard as you can your theory that DP was a "black op" presumably by someone associated with US intelligence to frame Castro for the assassination and that whoever was behind the "black op" campaign was behind the assassination.

Correct me if I am wrong about that being your theory but I think you have said so in so many words.

Hey Tim, you got that right.

But I can't take credit for it myself, as others have suggested it before.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Take credit for it? The theory is preposterous. Run and hide from it, Bill.

[Dawn Meredith]

Take credit for it? The theory is preposterous. Run and hide from it, Bill.

No Tim, it's your foolishness that is "preposterous". I suggest you carefully read the posts between Bill and Ashton on the black ops thread. Just might learn something. Like the TRUTH behind who killed JFK.

Dawn

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn, honey, friend in Christ, just take a few breaths, relax and answer my question if there was a black op by the conspirators to blame Castro for the assassonation and prompt an invasion, why was it so MISERABLY executed in comparison with the "elegant" if that is the correct word for it framing of the patsy? I have mentioned before that even an amateur like me (or you) could successfully frame Castro if we had the access to the resources of the CIA e.g. document forging. If you believe the people who framed LHO forged anything why could they not have forged his signature on a bank account and then deposited a substantial sum into it immediately after his return from Mexico? I mean there are a myriad of ways Castro could have been successfully framed for encouraging and paying for the assassination. The Alvardo story is just a joke. There is no sign of intelligence in what someone described as "the Castro hoaxes". There was no "smoking gun" planted to frame Fidel.

This is not nonsense. It is just common sense.

Moreover Bill admits he cannot even state which CIA agent he believes was behind the Alvardo story or any of the other matters.

[Michael Hogan]

....if there was a black op by the conspirators to blame Castro for the assassination and prompt an invasion, why was it so MISERABLY executed in comparison with the "elegant" if that is the correct word for it framing of the patsy?

Maybe the Company's more sensitive operations were infiltrated, compromised, or sabotaged. Maybe they fell victim to a sophisticated double cross or frame job. Perhaps they had moles that even Angleton didn't realize.

[Cliff Varnell]

Dawn, honey, friend in Christ, just take a few breaths, relax and answer my question if there was a black op by the conspirators to blame Castro for the assassonation and prompt an invasion, why was it so MISERABLY executed in comparison with the "elegant" if that is the correct word for it framing of the patsy?

Oswald was captured alive, instead of being shot or "disappeared."

This event cost the perps control over the cover-up.

On Eleven Twenty Two Hoover told Bobby Kennedy it was a Castro conspiracy, and

W. Averell Harriman told LBJ the Soviets couldn't have had anything to do with it,

thereby under-cutting the "communist-conspiracy" angle.

Who was more powerful, Edna Hoover or Averell Harriman?

The latter was of the Employer class, the former a mere Employee.

I have mentioned before that even an amateur like me (or you) could successfully frame Castro if we had the access to the resources of the CIA e.g. document forging.

Not if the patsy is captured alive proclaiming his innocence.

Not when one of the guys for whom the CIA was formed, Harriman,

decides to cut his losses and order up the "lone-nut" cover-up.

If you believe the people who framed LHO forged anything why could they not have forged his signature on a bank account and then deposited a substantial sum into it immediately after his return from Mexico? I mean there are a myriad of ways Castro could have been successfully framed for encouraging and paying for the assassination. The Alvardo story is just a joke. There is no sign of intelligence in what someone described as "the Castro hoaxes". There was no "smoking gun" planted to frame Fidel.

Hoover was prepared to say Oswald had been to Cuba.

That was all that was needed, but the Kostikov story (Oswald meets Soviet

assassin-master in MC) would also have played a crucial role in the "blame-Fidel"

scenario -- but Harriman destroyed the "Kostikov-connection" ten minutes after

LBJ got to the White House.

Hoover didn't call the shots on this one -- Harriman did.

This is not nonsense. It is just common sense.

Moreover Bill admits he cannot even state which CIA agent he believes was behind the Alvardo story or any of the other matters.

Harriman beheaded the "Castro-did-it" scenario, which continued to twitch even

in death.

[Charles Drago]

To Whom It May Concern:

In order to grasp the deep political complexities of the patsying of Fidel, may I humbly suggest that you read my exchanges with Robert Charles-Dunne on this subject as they recently appeared elsewhere in this Forum.

I remain confident that my explanation is the only defensible position on the issue. Robert disagrees.

To reduce my point of view to a wordbyte: The assassinations' sponsors NEVER intended for the United States to retaliate against Castro. What transpired is exactly what they called for; thanks to the fabricated evidence implicating LHO in an international Communist conspiracy, fingers were pointed at "rogue elements" of Cuban and Soviet intelligence as the guilty parties. Earl Warren's now famous expression of fear that 40 million people could die if his commission dug too deeply into the crime is PRECISELY what the sponsors set out to provoke.

Castro was then, and is now, more important to the perpetual war agenda in his role as bogey man than as a singe mark on a Havana sidewalk.

The JCS and the weapons manufacturers were bought off by the promise of prolonged war in Southeast Asia.

The anti-Castro Cubans who were misled into thinking that the Castro patsying would result in the "liberation" of their homeland either were bought off with cash/and or lucrative employment, threatened into silence, or eliminated.

Long before 11/22/63, Cuba had been replaced as a key component in international drug running schemes (as had the Union Corse), so OC was free to follow the path of least resistance. Or agree to disagree over sausage and peppers in the basement kitchen.

The assassinations' sponsors retained near-full control of assassination events. If they had wanted to obliterate Cuba, it would have happened. Nothing that transpired with LHO -- not his capture, not his incarceration -- would have been sufficient to thwart such a plan if it had really existed.

Charles Drago

Edited October 12, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Dawn Meredith]

To Whom It May Concern:

In order to grasp the deep political complexities of the patsying of Fidel, may I humbly suggest that you read my exchanges with Robert Charles-Dunne on this subject as they recently appeared elsewhere in this Forum.

I remain confident that my explanation is the only defensible position on the issue. Robert disagrees.

To reduce my point of view to a wordbyte: The assassinations' sponsors NEVER intended for the United States to retaliate against Castro. What transpired is exactly what they called for; thanks to the fabricated evidence implicating LHO in an international Communist conspiracy, fingers were pointed at "rogue elements" of Cuban and Soviet intelligence as the guilty parties. Earl Warren's now famous expression of fear that 40 million people could die if his commission dug too deeply into the crime is PRECISELY what the sponsors set out to provoke.

Castro was then, and is now, more important to the perpetual war agenda in his role as bogey man than as a singe mark on a Havana sidewalk.

The JCS and the weapons manufacturers were bought off by the promise of prolonged war in Southeast Asia.

The anti-Castro Cubans who were misled into thinking that the Castro patsying would result in the "liberation" of their homeland either were bought off with cash/and or lucrative employment, threatened into silence, or eliminated.

Long before 11/22/63, Cuba had been replaced as a key component in international drug running schemes (as had the Union Corse), so OC was free to follow the path of least resistance. Or agree to disagree over sausage and peppers in the basement kitchen.

The assassinations' sponsors retained near-full control of assassination events. If they had wanted to obliterate Cuba, it would have happened. Nothing that transpired with LHO -- not his capture, not his incarceration -- would have been sufficient to thwart such a plan if it had really existed.

Charles Drago

Charles,

I cannot imagine disagreeing with RCD about ANYTHING, but your analysis is brilliant and absolutely correct, imho.

Tim,

I am not going to fall for the traps in which you constantly lure Bill. I don't know what Bill does for work, (or you for that matter), but some of us have very time consuming jobs which makes for caution in what one can digest here, daily. One of the (many) tricks you employ is these extended dialogues and picky inquisitions over trivia generally, that distract from the intent and purpose of the post. I believe John has pointed out why you do this and I agree.

Besides, Charles has answered your questions, as did Cliff in the preceeding post.

Dawn

[Tim Gratz]

I agree with a lot of what Charles wrote. I believe that fingers were pointed at Castro in order to encourage the cover-up.

But I do not agree that all the evidence pointing at Castro and the Soviets was manufactured. For instance, Oswald might actually have met with Kostikov at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. But he might have done so as a part of a US intelligence operation totally unrelated to the assassination. Some think, for instance, that Oswald was a "dangle" whose mission was to determine if either anti-Castro or pro-Castro elements had violent intentions toward Kennedy. Even if the conspirators did not have full knowledge of what Oswald was doing in Mexico City, all they needed to know was that he had been there visiting the Cuban and Soviet embassies to raise the spectre of a possible Soviet conspiracy.

There is an alternative explanation: the theory that some level of our government (possibly even up to RFK himself) had been organizing a "fake assassination attempt" on JFK to be blamed, through Oswald, on Castro and to therefore prompt an invasion of Cuba. But that fake attempt was hijacked by the real bad guys (whether Mob, rogue CIA agents or a combination of both). Who knows what would have happened if the fake attempt had succeeded? Maybe Oswald was even willing, as part of the scheme, to ADMIT that Castro forces put him up to it. Now THAT would have been the "smoking gun" sufficient to prompt an invasion. But if that scenario is true, all hell would have broken loose once JFK was actually slain? You think the people behind that plot would have come forward to admit that their hare-brained scheme caused the death of the president? Or to even admit the nefarious scheme in the firstplace? Not in a miilion years. If this scenario is what in fact happened, whoever hijacked the fake attempt knew they had a "get out of jail free" card.

I think Charles is correct that there never was a motive to blame the actual assassination on Castro to stimulate public demand to finish Castro off because, as I have said before, the attempts to blame Castro were so feeble. Note my exception is if there was the fake assassination attempt because if that was the case the persons planning the failed attempt no doubt had other cards they would have played.

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

I cannot imagine disagreeing with RCD about ANYTHING, but your analysis is brilliant and absolutely correct, imho.

Dawn,

Thanks for the kind words. And for the opportunity to re-read my original post, which I find to be rather smug.

I don't pretend to have definitive answers on this or any other complex, challenging issue related to the JFK assassination. When I state that mine is the "only defensible" position vis a vis the Castro patsying question, the "with which I am familiar" is understood.

At least by me.

I remain open to new, conflicting data and interpretations. And the next time I admit to being wrong won't be the first time.

As for the referenced Drago/Charles-Dunne exchanges, all I can add of value is that the experience was enlightening and thoroughly enjoyable.

Charles

[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

[John Dolva]

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

Most informative summary, thank you, William.

(Bump for those who may have missed it.)