Jump to content
The Education Forum

The JFK Grand Jury: The Evidence


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Bill Kelly has started a very important thread on establishing a JFK Grand Jury. To quote Bill:

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.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5634

I suggest we use this thread to accumulate the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think a smart strategy would be to go after the SBT head on. The trajectory simply doesn't work. There've been a number of presentations, including Russell Kent's and my own, that can be combined and simplified to show why the SBT is highly unlikely. I'm convinced that any jury of reasonable people will come to share this conclusion.

I also believe that the autopsy photos can be used, as outlined in my presentation, to demonstrate that the previous medical panels have misunderstood the open cranium photograph. It can also be proved that the panels incorrectly identified the position of the bullet "slice," so obvious on the A-P x-ray. These "mistakes" can be used to discredit the previous reports on the medical evidence, and open the door for some new "experts' to muddy the waters. Maybe we'll get lucky and find a doctor more concerned with the truth than with keeping the peace with his colleagues...

Once the stage has been set by the physical evidence for an extra shooter, the testimony of those earwitnesses near the Dal-tex who heard an extra shot can be introduced. Perhaps Jim Braden can be introduced as a suspect at this point. Use Rosselli perhaps to establish a link to Robertson. Show the Robertson look-alike at Houston and Main. Mention Robertson's ties to Morales. Get the quotes on Morales...Is Morales' friend still living? Perhaps call Bradley Ayers to the stand.. See if a link can be established between Morales/Robertson and Jenkins. Call Wheaton and see if he repeats his stuff on Jenkins... Call Jenkins...

Just throwing out ideas...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a smart strategy would be to go after the SBT head on. The trajectory simply doesn't work. There've been a number of presentations, including Russell Kent's and my own, that can be combined and simplified to show why the SBT is highly unlikely. I'm convinced that any jury of reasonable people will come to share this conclusion.

I also believe that the autopsy photos can be used, as outlined in my presentation, to demonstrate that the previous medical panels have misunderstood the open cranium photograph. It can also be proved that the panels incorrectly identified the position of the bullet "slice," so obvious on the A-P x-ray. These "mistakes" can be used to discredit the previous reports on the medical evidence, and open the door for some new "experts' to muddy the waters. Maybe we'll get lucky and find a doctor more concerned with the truth than with keeping the peace with his colleagues...

Once the stage has been set by the physical evidence for an extra shooter, the testimony of those earwitnesses near the Dal-tex who heard an extra shot can be introduced. Perhaps Jim Braden can be introduced as a suspect at this point. Use Rosselli perhaps to establish a link to Robertson. Show the Robertson look-alike at Houston and Main. Mention Robertson's ties to Morales. Get the quotes on Morales...Is Morales' friend still living? Perhaps call Bradley Ayers to the stand.. See if a link can be established between Morales/Robertson and Jenkins. Call Wheaton and see if he repeats his stuff on Jenkins... Call Jenkins...

Just throwing out ideas...

Pat,

A good start, I agree the SBT is disprovable, and not necessarily using the Z film. The medical evidence and statements from 5 autopsy witnesses would prove to be the key. James Sibert would make a fabulous witness, as he said in the William Law interviews regarding Arlen Specter, "what a xxxx". Regarding recent demonstrations on the SBT that were to prove not only its feasability but likelihood, I did a presentation at Lancer using video captures from the Beyond the Magic Bullet Discovery program. So many people were convinced who had been on the fence that I took a closer look. In the Australian reenactment using the manufactured torsos, the bullet entered the back in the approximate location of JFK's wound(as shown in the autopsy photos), but exited the mid chest. Without using video captures or very slow motion, you couldn't tell the bullet didn't exit the throat area.

The 30+ rear head wound witnesses (although several are no longer with us) is another viable option. The Z film using captured enhanced stills, shows clearly the avusion on the rear of the head. Eyewitness statements from Parkland and Bethesda place a large gaping wound of exit in the rear of the head. The simple fact that many of these statements and corresponding drawings made by them were kept secret for almost 20 years would raise more than a few jurors' eyebrows. After a parade of these witnesses, perhaps Finck and Boswell would finally tell the truth under threat of indictment for participating in a coverup conspiracy. I wonder if statements made to the HSCA by witnesses now deceased, such as by Thomas Robinson, could be presented. Not sure why they couldn't, since they were made under oath.

The Jeff Morley expose "What Jane Roman Said" proves beyond reasonable doubt that the CIA had something going on with LHO right up until 6 weeks prior to the assassination. The Scelso documents and and Blahut incident are icing on the cake.

Photos taken in Dealey Plaza show several "lookalikes" who certainly could be Howard Hunt (NOT one of the tramps), Lucien Conein, Rip Robertson, James Lewis, Bernardo DeTorres, Alfredo Duran, and a host of others, including who we refer to as PBM. Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man (take your pick, Gordon Novel/Hargraves/Vidal/Bosch).

Posada Carrilles may be of use. All one needs to do is mention extradition to Venezuela.

Further study of the acoustic tests/dictabelt comparisons were to be done according to a fairly recent documentary. This is crucial.

Just a sampling, there's so much more.

RJS

Edited by John Simkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

THERE ARE VARIOUS TYPES OF EVIDENCE AND TYPES OF WITNESSES

THERE IS THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE, THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE, CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE, OTHER SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, HARD EVIDENCE, ACOUSTICAL EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.

THERE ARE SPECIAL WITNESSES, EXPERT WITNESSES, EYEWITNESSES AND MATERIAL WITESSES.

The evidence must be categorized and presented to the prosecutor as he would present it to the grand jury.

The purpose of the grand jury is not to explain any theories or target pet suspects, but to present evidence of crimes - homicide, conspiracy, treason, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, calling witnesses, asking questions and determining if indictments can be brought against any individual (You can't idict the Mafia or CIA, only individuals who may be a member of such org.). Once you have the testimony under oath, you have perjury as a possible crime as well.

I'm not an attorney, but we do have Garrison's grand jury proceedings as an example, though a not very good one for our purposes.

I would think that the Zapruder film would be shown first, and though there has been some special, expert witnesess who would maintain that the film has been tampered with - destruction of evidence is a crime - then the Zap film would either be indictive of a conspiracy by what it shows, or evidence of destruction of evidence.

All living eyewitnesse who were present at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hosptial or Oak Cliff should be called to testify as to what they saw.

The Medical Evidence should be presented together - with both Parkland and Bathesda witnesses, along with extant photos, x-rays, etc. and new special expert witnesses testimony. Because of the destruction of autopsy records, the incongruity between the record and eyewitnesses testimony and the questions surrounding the record as it exists today, the medical evidence should lead to the grand jury ordering an exhumation of the victim(s) - including JFK, JBC, JDT and LHO and forensic autopsies performed with the latest scientific instruments. These forensic autopsies should be peformed at a non-mililtary, independent labs - in DC - George Washington University has such a facility.

The Hard Evidence from the scene of the crime(s) should also be presented in an orderly way with appropriate eyewitness and special expert witness testimony.

What I would like to do in the Grand Jury Seminar is to set up a Mock Grand Jury and have it function like a real grand jury would, in order to learn more about the evidence and how grand juries work.

I think the varied background of the forum members will provide enough experts to review the evidence, and narrow it down to what would be the best evidence to take to the DAs and present to a grand jury for further inquiry.

More to Come,

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HARD EVIDENCE LIST –

1) Cartridge cases – 4 – rifle – under South East corner window of the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository building, Houston and Elm Street, Dallas, Texas.

2) Rifle – 6.5 mm Manlicher Carcano – with a) Scope; B) clip c) one live round; d) sling strap (identified as USAF handgun strap).

3) Cartridge cases – pistol – 10th & Patton, Oak Cliff, Dallas, Texas.

4) Pistol, revolver, taken from SUSPECT #1 [Lee Harvey Oswald].

5) Jacket – men’s size S – with mfg. Tag and laundry Ticket.

6) Wallet (a) found at Tippit murder scene (B) found on SUSPECT #1 and © found at bedroom of Irving, Texas home of Ruth Paine.

7) Documentation – Alex Hidell card; Rifle order form from magazine; Kline’s records; FBI, CIA tapes, reports, memos and cables regarding SUSPECT #1 before 11/22/63;

8) Automobile #1 – SSX100 Ford Lincoln limo; Windshield; Contents of car;

9) Bullets and bullet fragments from a) Exhibit #8 – windshield; B) windshield trim; c) interior of Exhibit #8; d) Parkland Hospital EM; e) Victim #1 JFK; f) Victim #2 JBC; g) Elm St. curb; h) Tague (Victim #3)

10) Acoustics – a) Dallas PD tape of channels; B) Secret Service; c) AF1 – Sideband;

11) Photographic – a) Film; B) Still;

12) Automobiles #2 – a) Rambler Station Wagon at scene; B) Ruth Paine’s Chevy Station Wagon; c) Michael Paine’s Citron; d) Michael Paine’s 56’ Plymouth; e) Carl Mather’s Plymouth; f) Carl Mather’s other car; g) Wisconsin car; h) Texas radio station car; i) Olds Station Wagon w/Az tags; j) Chevy Impalla w/La. Tags; k1-) Other cars, (list).

13) Medical Evidence – x-rays of victims; photos of victims; etc.

14) Other – a)-z)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HARD EVIDENCE LIST –

12) Automobiles #2 – a) Rambler Station Wagon at scene; B) Ruth Paine’s Chevy Station Wagon;

Bill: (or anyone)

Are you familiar with RIchard Bartholomew's manuscript about the Rambler Station wagon he found, at Austin's UT? With all the mag articles from '63 in the back seat: like clues.

Sadly, this automobile is no longer in Richard's possession and the person who last had it-J Harrison- died this past May. (Very interesting tale, Richard was pretty certain this was the car seen by Roger Craig.)

Dawn

RB's manuscript is online

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HARD EVIDENCE LIST –

12) Automobiles #2 – a) Rambler Station Wagon at scene; B) Ruth Paine’s Chevy Station Wagon;

Bill: (or anyone)

Are you familiar with RIchard Bartholomew's manuscript about the Rambler Station wagon he found, at Austin's UT? With all the mag articles from '63 in the back seat: like clues.

Sadly, this automobile is no longer in Richard's possession and the person who last had it-J Harrison- died this past May. (Very interesting tale, Richard was pretty certain this was the car seen by Roger Craig.)

Dawn

RB's manuscript is online

Hi Dawn,

Yes, I am familiar with Richard's Rambler and agreed it might be the one photographed at DP.

I think Richard knows where it is located and it could/should be salvaged and examined closely as the type of hard evidence that can be presented to a grand jury.

As significant, I would like to identify its passangers, especially the man in the brown suit coat that was also seen standing on the sixth floor of the TSBD next to a man with a rifle in port arms positon, who left out the back door, went around the corner and got into the Rambler.

There is a photo in another thread of DP that shows a Rambler station wagon in the backround.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HARD EVIDENCE LIST –

12) Automobiles #2 – a) Rambler Station Wagon at scene; B) Ruth Paine’s Chevy Station Wagon;

Bill: (or anyone)

Are you familiar with RIchard Bartholomew's manuscript about the Rambler Station wagon he found, at Austin's UT? With all the mag articles from '63 in the back seat: like clues.

Sadly, this automobile is no longer in Richard's possession and the person who last had it-J Harrison- died this past May. (Very interesting tale, Richard was pretty certain this was the car seen by Roger Craig.)

Dawn

RB's manuscript is online

Hi Dawn,

Yes, I am familiar with Richard's Rambler and agreed it might be the one photographed at DP.

I think Richard knows where it is located and it could/should be salvaged and examined closely as the type of hard evidence that can be presented to a grand jury.

As significant, I would like to identify its passangers, especially the man in the brown suit coat that was also seen standing on the sixth floor of the TSBD next to a man with a rifle in port arms positon, who left out the back door, went around the corner and got into the Rambler.

There is a photo in another thread of DP that shows a Rambler station wagon in the backround.

BK

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dawn and Bill,

Please see my recent post (#6) on John Dolva's thread "the unknown witness."

FWIW, Thomas

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if one could ask if this thread could be put with the other 3 at the top of the first page? It would save hunting for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To compliment the existing hard evidence that Bill cites, a priority addition should be all CIA and any other government files on George Joannides and the DRE. I believe it is up to us private citizens to petition hard and to put the pressure on.

I would lay odds that amongst those pages exists evidence of conspiracy. :)

Game over.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To compliment the existing hard evidence that Bill cites, a priority addition should be all CIA and any other government files on George Joannides and the DRE. I believe it is up to us private citizens to petition hard and to put the pressure on.

I would lay odds that amongst those pages exists evidence of conspiracy. :)

Game over.

James

G'Day James,

Jim Lesar is onto the George Joannides docs, but alas, he is dead.

I think Lesar and Morley are moving on a legal course of action to try to pry some more docs loose, but I think the best way to proceed on that front is to get Congressional Oversight hearings on the JFK Act, why and how it is not being enforced, what records we know of that have yet to be released, and put some people on the hot seat - like the SS officials who destroyed the advance records AFTER the passage of the JFK Act and establishment of the ARRB.

Lesar is confident that the Joannides story can break the case if the crack is forced open. He also has a lot of expectation for the new acoustical work, which can be admitted as evidence before a grand jury, once the work is finished and a grand jury is conveined in whatever jurisdiction.

As Bill Turner told Jim Garrison, you can't enter newspaper and magazine articles as evidence, and documents by themselves, like photographs, cannot be entered into evidence in court without an accompanying witness to testify to its origin and as to what it means. The documents lead us to witnesses, and hopefully they will be alive once they are called on.

What we need to do is compile a list of living witnesses and suspects.

And thanks to everyone, including Dave Perry and Duke, for responding to this thread,

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

photographs, cannot be entered into evidence in court without an accompanying witness to testify to its origin and as to what it means.

Bill: some thoughts.

How to participate.

From my perspective. The image evidence exists and needs to be presented as is and not altered in any way.

However, there may be a need for presentations that involve graphics that explain ideas.

It may be an idea to look at the whole submission and seeing if its possible to compartmentalise, form 'committees' and delegate tasks. Thus I can see a place for people from other parts of the world with particular skills.

If one was presented with a specific task description, say 'we need a graphic that helps to explain ... in this... way.' submit this description to a committee that is formed from the community who then sets about using the web connectivity to produce said imagery. This would then go to the 'central committee,' for vetting, approval, resubmission for amendments etc. In this way perhaps the workload can be shared and the whole project proceed on many levels at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the Grand Jury should take a look at the cover-up of the JFK assassination. Here is an exchange between myself and Lee Israel, the author of Kilgallen, yesterday:

John Simkin: In your book you make a lot of Kilgallen’s relationship with the man you call the "Out-of-Towner". In fact, you imply that he was in some way involved in her death. Is it correct that the man’s name is really Ron Pataky?

Lee Israel: Yes.

John Simkin: Did you find any evidence that Ron Pataky was working for the CIA?

Lee Israel: No. Only that he dropped out of Stanford in 1954 and then enrolled in a training school for assassins in Panama or thereabouts.

John Simkin: Do you believe that Ron Pataky murdered Dorothy Kilgallen?

Lee Israel: He had something to do with it.

See also:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpataky.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKkilgallen.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts on ignored or manipulated physical evidence related to Bill Kelly's proposal. None are developed at any length. I just wanted to note them and pass them on for later development:

* The contemporaneous notes taken by the Bethesada prosectors that were alleged to have informed the JFK official autopsy are missing. What the WC alleges as the basis of the report (CD #397, as I recall) cannot possibly underwrite the medical forensic facts in the autopsy report. Where are they? Did Humes destroy all of the notes?

* A strong and convincing case can be made that the 3 cartridges found on 6th floor of the TSBD were planted; they were never used in any shooting. This argument rests on the dents found on each of the spent shells. Argues that they were simply fired from Oswald's alleged rifle after the gun powder and bullets were removed. Had they been discharged as whole ammo the dents would have vanished as the propulsion power of the explosion would have flattened out the dents. A bit complicated but it can be supported.

* Oswald's paraffin tests on right cheek was negative. No matter how you spin this it exonerates him.

* The WC and FBI are never able to produce a chain-of-custody case for the so-called "magic bullet." The only one who was involved in handling this bullet and swore that it came from Connally's stretcher was SA Elmer Todd. None of the others Wright Rowley, Johnsen were able to swear that the WC identified CE399 was the one that came from Connally's carriage at Parkland. Only Todd made this identification. He was the agent who got the bullet from Johnsen (SS) who got it from O.P. Wright. Todd then brought it to FBI Lab in WDC. The problem is that the so-called "MB" at NARA does not have Todd's mark on it. If Todd marked the JFK bullet it is not the one that now rests in the archives. This, of course, is the bullet in question that the WC used to tie Oswald's rifle to the assasination. It was the only thing that ties him to the "original sin."

* The same case can be made for the so-called Walker bullet. This bullet was not a 6.5 mm bullet. I have some of this in Breach of Trust and will develop the whole Walker shooting at greater length in a ms I am working on now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The grand jury idea is worth a shot (bad choice of words).

In 1967 I was writing forensic science articles for the legal press, notably Bancroft-Whitney's American Jurisprudence Proof of Facts series. One article was on Nuclear Activation Analysis, then a new method developed by General Atomic in San Diego. In he course of a phone conversation with Dr. Vincent Guinn, the project's chief, I raised the question of the JFK forensic evidence. He said that he and Ray Pinker, the founder of the LAPD crime lab, were skeptical of the FBI lab's conclusion that the Carcano's chamber was tightly sealed and would not emit any blowback. So they rodered a Carcano and fired it. NAA detected nitrite deposits in abundance on their cheeks. I recounted this in detail in my 1968 book Invisible Witness: The Use and Abuse of the New Technology of Crime Investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...