The JFK Grand Jury: The Evidence

[Thomas Graves]

Unfortunately, what any of us think that we might do in such a circumstance, we clearly cannot know. Moreover, I've posted what people who were there, then, actually did in the "Robert MacNeil and the three calm men" thread. Two women went to the bank to transact some personal business immediately after the shooting. Another went to a restaurant a short while later. Still another had driven home for lunch and did not return (a third "missing person" during the roll-call whom nobody's mentioned before! Yes, he was a white man).

For a complete list of TSBD employees and what they said they did (and in some cases, why), see this link. It needs some prettying up, but the facts is there!

If I were innocent and didn't believe that I'd be working any more on any given day, I probably wouldn't even think about getting hassled simply because I knew I didn't do (whatever it was).

__________________________________________________

Thanks Duke!

I knew I could count on you to post the facts.

Seriously, Thomas

P.S. Did you complile this list yourself? (If so, all I can say is that you are a very dedicated researcher!) Thanks again.

__________________________________________________

Edited December 31, 2005 by Thomas Graves

[Duke Lane]

Thanks Duke!

I knew I could count on you to post the facts.

Seriously, Thomas

P.S. Did you complile this list yourself? (If so, all I can say is that you are a very dedicated researcher!) Thanks again.

Yeah, it's not complete and still a little "greek," but it's the best I could do over a burger and fries!

[Chuck Robbins]

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.

Clark Anderson, Legat, in Mexico City, is mentioned in documents as having been in contact with "Oswald" in Mexico City.

Another document, (Win Scott to J. C. King) states that the Identity of the man seen leaving the Embassy is a certain person who is well known to you

.

The information above is from FBI/CIA documents.

There is significant evidence, in the records we have available to us, that LHO was not in Mexico, and, that the identity of the person who was impersonating him was known to the CIA officers in Mexico City.

The evidence here cuts two ways.

It strongly suggests a well organized conspiracy to frame LHO, ergo, a conspiracy connected to the assassination of JFK.

It very effectively shows that LHO was being set-up to be "a patsy" just as he had claimed.

If any of the men who knew his identity are still alive they should be forced to identify this man.

[William Kelly]

Peter wrote:

The Kennedy family now led by Ted Kennedy has NOT been helpful in investigation of the Assassination for reasons both known and unknown.

PETER, THE KENNEDY FAMILY WILL NOT BE THE BIGGEST OBSTICAL TO THE TOTAL TRUTH.

The powers-that-be in America today would also NOT like to see the truth of the matter surface now or ever, I believe.

ONE OF THE REASONS GIVEN FOR RESOLVING THE CASE IS TO REVERSE THE AMERICAN CITIZEN'S CONFIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND ITS IMORTANT TO FIGURE OUT FOR NATIONAL SECURITYH REASONS - SO IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

Any Grand Jury attempt will be an uphill [angle at maximum!] battle - but one must try. There is new and better information and documentation on the Assassination and who was involved. However, since the day of the Assassination there was enough evidence to convene a Grand Jury and aside from the one Garrison convened, and later tried and lost (due to dirty-tricks from the CIA, FBI and others), there have been none. HSCA didn't bring about any legal actions. Senators and House Members (Kerry for sure and no doubt others) have had subcomittees secretly investigate the events without any calls for, let alone known moves for legal action. I'm sure I need not remind all that the CIA, FBI and others suspect of complicity in the Assassination (and certainly in its cover-up) are still extant and have never been as powerful as today. Add to that that Bush [sr.] seems to have been in some ways involved with those involved. The power structure in America today has every reason to stop any such investigation or Grand Jury and will use every means [considerable] at their disposal. They know, as I know, that such a trial would not only solve the Assassination, but be the 'key' to understanding Watergate, other assassinations, covert-operations, scandals and could (oh, wish it were so!) very quickly cause the complete and total collapse of America, as constructed today. For the Power Structure this battle would be the ultimate one, and I believe they realize this.

THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM IN THE US IS THE SYSTEM THE POWER STRUCTURE HAS SET UP AND IS ONLY A TOOL OF LAW THAT CAN ONLY BE USED IF SOMEONE WITH THE AUTHORITY - DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR PROSECUTOR - MAKES THE EFFORT TO USE IT. WHILE THOSE WITH SOMETHING TO LOSE WHEN THE TOTAL TRUTH COMES OUT WILL POSSIBLY TAKE COUNTER-MEASURES AGAINST STARTING A GRAND JURY, THERE ARE SO MANY POSSIBLE JURISDICITONS THAT WE INTEND TO KEEP THEM GUESSING WHERE WE WILL TRY TO CONVEINE ONE.

The last thing they want is true democracy and real truth and transparency on what has been going on in their name. The only hope is a very visible and public outcry for such!

THE PUBLIC HAS ALREADY LOST FAITH IN THE GOVERNMENT, THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM, AND THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF CITIZENS, VOTERS AND REPRESENTATIVES VOTE IN FAVOR OF EXPOSING THE TRUTH, AND SEEKING JUSTICE.

I agree that time is running out on this matter and any involved still being alive. At the same time the political climate could not be worse. I hope truth prevails and this movement is successful. The public generally would welcome this, but are dis-involved with politics and passive, scared by the growing police state, distracted by the increasing struggle just to survive, and cynical. Without a huge public movement behind it it will be thwarted and endlessly delayed by a variety of means. I'll keep hopeful and would join in any such battle. Sorry to add a sobering splash of cold water on such a wonderful idea and ideal. The stakes on both sides are no less than the fabric and future [and past] of our nation and world. I don't think I am exaggerating. The Assassination is key to understanding (and enabling a much needed disintegration of) the Cabal behind the facade of democracy in America today and tomorrow.

AND FINALLY, PETER, THE JFK GRAND JURY PROJECT DOESN'T NEED TO CONVINCE A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE, ONLY ONE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCAL PROSECUTOR OR FEDERAL ATTORNEY, AND THAT ONE PERSON CAN THEN PRESENT THE EVIDENCE TO A GRAND JURY, WHO HAS THE POWER TO SECRETLY INVESTIGATE THE CRIME.

IT'S NOT A MATTER OF GETTING A MOB OF IRRATE CITIZENS, BUT RATHER TO QUIETLY, RATIONALLY AND FACTUALLY CONVINCE ONE GOOD AND HONEST LAWYER TO BECOME THE NEXT JIM GARRISON, AND LET THE CHIPS FALL. I BELIEVE THAT INDIVIDUAL IS OUT THERE AND WHEN WILL DO THE RIGHT THING.

[John Geraghty]

Bill,

Do you think our best option is

A: A new up and coming lawyer

B: A well established lawyer with and excellent reputation and nothing to lose

C: A seasoned veteran with a good image who has nothing to lose

Thats putting it simply, I know. As far as I can see it, they are the three categories we would be aiming towards.

John

[William Kelly]

Bill,

Do you think our best option is

A: A new up and coming lawyer

B: A well established lawyer with and excellent reputation and nothing to lose

C: A seasoned veteran with a good image who has nothing to lose

Thats putting it simply, I know. As far as I can see it, they are the three categories we would be aiming towards.

John

JOHN, THE ANSWER IS, ALL THREE.

NEW, YOUNG UP AND COMING LAWYERS, FAMILIAR WITH THE DETAILS OF THE CASE WILL HAVE TO DO THE MOST WORK, WELL ESTABLISHED LAWYERS WILL HAVE TO BE CONSULTED, AND A SEASONED VETERAN WITH NOTHING TO LOSE WILL HAVE TO TAKE IT TO THE JURY.

WE HAVE A NUMBER OF GOOD NYUC LAYWERS WHO HAVE ALREADY DONE A LOT OF WORK, AND AMONG THE WELL ESTABLISHED LAWYERS WE HAVE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL DEANS AND WORKING FEDERAL PROSECUTORS TO HELP MAKE THE CASE.

AS FOR THE SEASONED VETERAN, MY FIRST CHOICE IS PHILADELPHIA LAWYER AND FORMER PROSECUTOR RICHARD SPRAGUE, THE FIRST CHIEF COUNSEL TO THE HSCA, WHO SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED TONY BOYLE IN THE POLITICAL ASSASSINATION OF UNITED MINE WORKERS PRESIDENT JOCK LABLONSKI. HIS FORMER HSCA ASSISTANT ROBERT TANNENBAUM IS A FORMER NEW YORK PROSECUTOR WHO COULD ALSO DO IT RIGHT.

WE WILL HAVE TO GO WITH WHATEVER PROSECUTOR OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY DECIDES WE HAVE ENOUGH NEW EVIDENCE TO TAKE THE CASE TO A GRAND JURY, AND WE MIGHT HAVE TO TAKE WHOEVER WE GET - AND PROBABLY YOUNGER, LESS TIED TO OLD SCHOOL WILL BE BETTER.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO PLAY ALL OUR CARDS AND SHOW ARE HAND BEFORE WE GET A GAME GOING.

AND JOHN, HOW YOU MAKING OUT IN DC KID?

BK

[William Kelly]

I think the purpose to this exercise is not to provide a list of all the things that can't be proved or whose proof is in dispute (several people who are at least as expert as many of us here - and in many cases much more so - have, for example, provided seemingly sound rationales for why the SBT is at least possible, and the blowback out of the MC rifle that didn't show up on the paraffin tests of LHO's cheek may or may not "prove" that LHO didn't shoot that rifle that day, but exonerating LHO is not the name of the game here ... that will occur ipso facto if someone else is proved guilty), but rather to put together something significant enough that prosecutors will raise a very large eyebrow.

Duke, find me this "seemingly sound rationale for why the SBT is at least possible" and I'll sell you some swampland in Florida. The SBT CAN be weakened to the point of invisibility, where no one but the blind could see it as a reasonable possibility. I've attempted to do just that in my presentation, and I believe I've succeeded...

As far as re-opening Tippit, I think that would be a serious mistake. The evidence against Oswald in that case is a lot stronger than in the shooting of the President. The eyewitness testimony is much stronger. The ballistics evidence is stronger (he had the purported murder weapon on his person). And there is a motive (his escape).

We mustn't pull a Belin and see the Tippit slaying as "the Rosetta stone" of the assassination. Oswald may very well have killed Tippit AND been innocent of killing Kennedy.

PAT,

I WOULDN'T BE AFRAID OF REEXPLORING THE TIPPIT MURDER, AS THE LINES OF INQUIRY THAT WOULD HAVE MADE THAT MURDER THE ROSETTA STONE AND SOLVED BOTH WERE NEVER FOLLOWED, AND STILL CAN BE.

BK

[Duke Lane]

I think the purpose to this exercise is not to provide a list of all the things that can't be proved or whose proof is in dispute (several people who are at least as expert as many of us here - and in many cases much more so - have, for example, provided seemingly sound rationales for why the SBT is at least possible, and the blowback out of the MC rifle that didn't show up on the paraffin tests of LHO's cheek may or may not "prove" that LHO didn't shoot that rifle that day, but exonerating LHO is not the name of the game here ... that will occur ipso facto if someone else is proved guilty), but rather to put together something significant enough that prosecutors will raise a very large eyebrow.

Duke, find me this "seemingly sound rationale for why the SBT is at least possible" and I'll sell you some swampland in Florida. The SBT CAN be weakened to the point of invisibility, where no one but the blind could see it as a reasonable possibility. I've attempted to do just that in my presentation, and I believe I've succeeded...

As far as re-opening Tippit, I think that would be a serious mistake. The evidence against Oswald in that case is a lot stronger than in the shooting of the President. The eyewitness testimony is much stronger. The ballistics evidence is stronger (he had the purported murder weapon on his person). And there is a motive (his escape).

We mustn't pull a Belin and see the Tippit slaying as "the Rosetta stone" of the assassination. Oswald may very well have killed Tippit AND been innocent of killing Kennedy.

PAT, I WOULDN'T BE AFRAID OF REEXPLORING THE TIPPIT MURDER, AS THE LINES OF INQUIRY THAT WOULD HAVE MADE THAT MURDER THE ROSETTA STONE AND SOLVED BOTH WERE NEVER FOLLOWED, AND STILL CAN BE.

I have often given thought to the notion that WC counsel knew more-or-less-exactly what had gone down, but for whatever myriad political reasons, had a job to do and did it, while at the same time being careful to get some things judiciously on the record.

The Rosetta Stone, we will all recall, was written in four writing styles. Just one of those being known at the time enabled researchers to match the known to the unknown, and thus to decipher the other writings on the tablet, and then use those to help to decipher other writings of those styles.

Thus, if you can make sense of the Tippit killing, then it will lead you toward an understanding of the Kennedy killing.

As a couple of asides, I noticed that the History Channel's "JFK: Beyond Conspiracy" was on again and sighed at "the mainstream media's" continued pushing of the "lone Oswald" point of view. On another channel at the same time was a story about tracking down Nazi war criminals.

Who was it who said that "history belongs to the victor?" This all reminds me of those who deny the Halocaust in the face of its evidence, and how its denial would be the "party line" had Germany won. The WC did not exactly win, but the "victors" keep putting the same tired story before us ... as if maybe the Halocaust deniers could win us all over too, if only they had a media outlet?

Of course, it "proves there was no conspiracy" behind the JFK murder because, well, a whole nation couldn't possibly have done what the Nazis did, which goes to prove there was no Halocaust?

Another observation (in the form of a question) is: has anybody noticed how the main players of that weekend back then were a "lone Commie" and a "lone Jew?" And did you ever wonder why Professor Oliver was really called to testify?

Finally, as regards Belin's "Rosetta Stone," it seems like we always ask - or at least always get the answer to - "why Tippit?" instead of what may be the more germane question: "why Oak Cliff?"

Edited July 2, 2006 by Duke Lane

[Dawn Meredith]

Bill,

Do you think our best option is

A: A new up and coming lawyer

B: A well established lawyer with and excellent reputation and nothing to lose

C: A seasoned veteran with a good image who has nothing to lose

Thats putting it simply, I know. As far as I can see it, they are the three categories we would be aiming towards.

John

JOHN, THE ANSWER IS, ALL THREE.

NEW, YOUNG UP AND COMING LAWYERS, FAMILIAR WITH THE DETAILS OF THE CASE WILL HAVE TO DO THE MOST WORK, WELL ESTABLISHED LAWYERS WILL HAVE TO BE CONSULTED, AND A SEASONED VETERAN WITH NOTHING TO LOSE WILL HAVE TO TAKE IT TO THE JURY.

WE HAVE A NUMBER OF GOOD NYUC LAYWERS WHO HAVE ALREADY DONE A LOT OF WORK, AND AMONG THE WELL ESTABLISHED LAWYERS WE HAVE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL DEANS AND WORKING FEDERAL PROSECUTORS TO HELP MAKE THE CASE.

AS FOR THE SEASONED VETERAN, MY FIRST CHOICE IS PHILADELPHIA LAWYER AND FORMER PROSECUTOR RICHARD SPRAGUE, THE FIRST CHIEF COUNSEL TO THE HSCA, WHO SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED TONY BOYLE IN THE POLITICAL ASSASSINATION OF UNITED MINE WORKERS PRESIDENT JOCK LABLONSKI. HIS FORMER HSCA ASSISTANT ROBERT TANNENBAUM IS A FORMER NEW YORK PROSECUTOR WHO COULD ALSO DO IT RIGHT.

WE WILL HAVE TO GO WITH WHATEVER PROSECUTOR OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY DECIDES WE HAVE ENOUGH NEW EVIDENCE TO TAKE THE CASE TO A GRAND JURY, AND WE MIGHT HAVE TO TAKE WHOEVER WE GET - AND PROBABLY YOUNGER, LESS TIED TO OLD SCHOOL WILL BE BETTER.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO PLAY ALL OUR CARDS AND SHOW ARE HAND BEFORE WE GET A GAME GOING.

AND JOHN, HOW YOU MAKING OUT IN DC KID?

BK

Bill:

This is a very important thread. Just reminding, everyone concerned with justice shoud read this entire thread. And then do something. Just one step. Remain focussed. There are two investigations being called for on this forum. I am equally committed to them both.

(Bill: The second one is a demand to re-open Watergate. Have you followed any of that?)

Dawn

Dawn

.

[Peter McGuire]

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.

<There seems to be NO case against Oswald Peter>

* 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.

[William Kelly]

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.

<There seems to be NO case against Oswald Peter>

* 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.

HELLO PETER,

GOOD TO HEAR FROM YOU.

GLAD YOU ARE DEVELOPING THE WALKER STORY FURTHER.

YOUR OTHER POINTS ARE ALSO WELL TAKEN.

THE EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE PRESENTED TO A GRAND JURY IS DIFFERENT THAT WHAT THE WARREN COMMISSION CONSIDERED.

EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE THAT EXHONERATES SUSPECTS IS NOT PERMITTED. THAT COMES AT THE TRIAL, IF THERE IS INDICTMENTS.

THE GRAND JURY ONLY CONSIDERS EVIDENCE OF CRIMES, OF WHICH THERE IS ENOUGH.

BK

[Peter McGuire]

Thanks for the encouragement, Bill. I will do what I can. I hope we can get this thing to the Grand Jury soon.

Peter

[William Kelly]

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.

John, when you started this thread last December, we weren't ready. Now that the courts have ruled on the Morley v. CIA docs and the Congressional elections are over, the Grand Jury Petiton is back on the front burner.

While we must convince a District Attorney in a relevant jurisdiction - Dallas, North Texas, New Orleans, Louisiana, or DC, to convine a JFK grand jury to review the evidence, which will be held in secret, we are most definately going to have a JFK grand jury, even if it is only a Mock theater.

When in Dallas a few years ago, I met a women who was serving on the jury of a Mock Trial, which are sometimes held by attorneys for both sides of case to see how it all plays out, before going on to the real thing. It sometimes saves tuns of time and money, and leads to out of court settlements beneficial to both parties, espcially in civil cases.

The idea for a Mock Grand Jury is to hold a real grand jury, in a real grand jury room with real prosecutors playing the role of district attorney, and presenting the evidence as it would be presented in a real grand jury, with grand jurors playing their roles determining if there is enough evidence to indict someone for a crime.

The JFK Mock Grand Jury, when it is ready, will be filmed by a documentary film crew for the duel purpose of showing students and citizens how a grand jury works, and to evaulate the existing evidence, obtain new witness testimony under oath and see what a real grand jury would do with this case.

Before we do the JFK Mock Grand Jury, I would like to try another experiment, and produce a Virtual JFK Mock Grand Jury - done on line - complete with a DA - Jurors - Evidence Exhibits and witness testimony, which would be a dry run for the real Mock Grand Jury.

In addition, next Monday or Tuesday I hope that the real JFK Grand Jury petiton will be finished enough to present to the the US Attorney for North Texas Richard B. Roper - Earle Cabell Federal Building, 1100 Commerce St., 3rd floor, Dallas, Texas, not far from the scene of the crime.

While we anticiapte him rejecting the petition or sitting on it for awhile, we are preparing other JFK Grand Jury petitions for presentation to other relevant jurisdicitons in New Orleans, La., and DC, and anticipate the DC presentation to be the best and best possible chance of getting a real grand jury going.

Having a real grand jury delibertaing while we are conducting the Mock Grand Jury would be the best of possible worlds.

In the meantime, I have brought this thread back to the top of the pile heap so we can begin to review the types of evidence that can and will be presented to the DA for consideration and the Mock Grand Jury.

The type of evidence that can be admitted into evidence in the grand jury is more broad than that which can be admitted into evidence in a trail, if there is one, - for instance hearsay is admissible in grand jury though not at trial.

Newspaper and magazine articles and books are not admissible, unless they are exhibits mentioned in the course of the testimony of a witness - ie the author of the material in question.

Photographic exhibits must also accompany the testimony of a witness, preferably the phototrapher or someone who knows the provenance of the evidence, that is the chain of possession from creation till now.

Those who are interested in participating in the compiling of lists of evidence and its meaning for the real grand jury petition, or participating in the JFK Virtual Mock Grand Jury - or following our program, should go to the Grand Jury Seminar under Controversial Issues in History section of this forum and read the basis background information on the Grand Jury procedures in US judicial system.

Fletcher Prouty once asked what's the use of researching all this if you can't do anything with it other than write about it?

Well the Grand Jury is the place where evidence in unsolved homicides go, and this is a place for the most serious research to be evaluated and introduced into a court of law and properly developed to identify witnesses and suspects.

I hope others are interested in this approach.

I would think that the first exhibit to be introduced to a grand jury would be the Zapruder film.

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

[Thomas Graves]

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.

John, when you started this thread last December, we weren't ready. Now that the courts have ruled on the Morley v. CIA docs and the Congressional elections are over, the Grand Jury Petiton is back on the front burner.

While we must convince a District Attorney in a relevant jurisdiction - Dallas, North Texas, New Orleans, Louisiana, or DC, to convine a JFK grand jury to review the evidence, which will be held in secret, we are most definately going to have a JFK grand jury, even if it is only a Mock theater.

When in Dallas a few years ago, I met a women who was serving on the jury of a Mock Trial, which are sometimes held by attorneys for both sides of case to see how it all plays out, before going on to the real thing. It sometimes saves tuns of time and money, and leads to out of court settlements beneficial to both parties, espcially in civil cases.

The idea for a Mock Grand Jury is to hold a real grand jury, in a real grand jury room with real prosecutors playing the role of district attorney, and presenting the evidence as it would be presented in a real grand jury, with grand jurors playing their roles determining if there is enough evidence to indict someone for a crime.

The JFK Mock Grand Jury, when it is ready, will be filmed by a documentary film crew for the duel purpose of showing students and citizens how a grand jury works, and to evaulate the existing evidence, obtain new witness testimony under oath and see what a real grand jury would do with this case.

Before we do the JFK Mock Grand Jury, I would like to try another experiment, and produce a Virtual JFK Mock Grand Jury - done on line - complete with a DA - Jurors - Evidence Exhibits and witness testimony, which would be a dry run for the real Mock Grand Jury.

In addition, next Monday or Tuesday I hope that the real JFK Grand Jury petiton will be finished enough to present to the the US Attorney for North Texas Richard B. Roper - Earle Cabell Federal Building, 1100 Commerce St., 3rd floor, Dallas, Texas, not far from the scene of the crime.

While we anticiapte him rejecting the petition or sitting on it for awhile, we are preparing other JFK Grand Jury petitions for presentation to other relevant jurisdicitons in New Orleans, La., and DC, and anticipate the DC presentation to be the best and best possible chance of getting a real grand jury going.

Having a real grand jury delibertaing while we are conducting the Mock Grand Jury would be the best of possible worlds.

In the meantime, I have brought this thread back to the top of the pile heap so we can begin to review the types of evidence that can and will be presented to the DA for consideration and the Mock Grand Jury.

The type of evidence that can be admitted into evidence in the grand jury is more broad than that which can be admitted into evidence in a trail, if there is one, - for instance hearsay is admissible in grand jury though not at trial.

Newspaper and magazine articles and books are not admissible, unless they are exhibits mentioned in the course of the testimony of a witness - ie the author of the material in question.

Photographic exhibits must also accompany the testimony of a witness, preferably the phototrapher or someone who knows the provenance of the evidence, that is the chain of possession from creation till now.

Those who are interested in participating in the compiling of lists of evidence and its meaning for the real grand jury petition, or participating in the JFK Virtual Mock Grand Jury - or following our program, should go to the Grand Jury Seminar under Controversial Issues in History section of this forum and read the basis background information on the Grand Jury procedures in US judicial system.

Fletcher Prouty once asked what's the use of researching all this if you can't do anything with it other than write about it?

Well the Grand Jury is the place where evidence in unsolved homicides go, and this is a place for the most serious research to be evaluated and introduced into a court of law and properly developed to identify witnesses and suspects.

I hope others are interested in this approach.

I would think that the first exhibit to be introduced to a grand jury would be the Zapruder film.

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

___________________________________________

Bill,

Before the petition is presented to a DA, is there any way to legally erase or eliminate the few obvious wackos who "signed" the petiton and made really strange comments on it?

Thanks, Thomas

___________________________________________

[William Kelly]

___________________________________________

Bill,

Before the petition is presented to a DA, is there any way to legally erase or eliminate the few obvious wackos who "signed" the petiton and made really strange comments on it?

Thanks, Thomas

___________________________________________

Hi Thom,

Yes, the names on the internet petition on line will be included, their comments will not.

Recognizable celebrities will be given prioritiy in line.

Hopefully, more recognizable names will be added, if not for the Dallas presentation, then in later ones, as we refine it.

The names on the petition will be less significant than the summary of the evidence, the proposed lines of inquiry, and the persuasive tone of the request.

No District Attorney is going to take on a gigantic, budget munching, media grabbing H-Bomb that has already destroyed careers and while conducting normal business, unless persuaded that it is the right thing to do.

On the positive side, we only have to convince one person.

The idea behind the first petition will be to spark an official response, and rather than a full grand jury right off the bat, we will request a hearing, where we can make a more convincing presentation.

BK