Reopening the Texas Court of Inquiry

[J. Raymond Carroll]

On a seperate thread dealing with a Grand Jury Duke Lane wrote:

With 15 minutes, I guess I'd prefer to deal with something "digestible" than something completely satisfying in every regard. One would, as you say, dovetail into the next if the cases are related since, if someone else shot Tippit, it would certainly raise questions about everything else, wouldn't it.

It's worth a thought.

The problem here is identifying who really did kill Tippit. To my knowlege no one has ever nominated a plausible suspect. Lee Oswald certainly is not one, no matter what the New York Times says.

How about this: The way to reopen the case is to concentrate on the murder of Lee Oswald, a human being who was murdered on November 24th, 1963, while under the care, custody and control of the Dallas police dept. (Duke Lane's heroes!). I will just note here that, as a matter of law, Lee Oswald was (and is) innocent of any crime.

In 1979 The House Select Committee officially declared that the gunman Jack Ruby almost certainly had assistance from someone inside the Dallas police dept. The HSCA ran out of money after spending a miserable $2.8M (this is all the Representatives of the richest country in the world were willing to spend on the murder of their greatest leader ever. Some people spend much more than that to buy a vacation home).

The HSCA report called upon the Justice Department to do a serious investigation of DPD involvement in Lee Oswald's murder, but as far as I can determine the Justice Dept under Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 have been comepletely derelict in this regard.

At the 2003 Wecht conference in Pittsburgh I tried to argue that the Feds have been so derelict that reopening the Texas Court of Inquiry is the way to go. Murder is basically a state crime, and Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr, when he bowed to the (highly illegal) pressure from Lyndon Johnson and Earl Warren, promised that he would reopen the Texas inquiry if questions were ever raised about Warren Report. (C.F. the Texas Supplemental Report, a cheap, shameful little document that lies buried in the DPD archives).

Well guess what: Questions have been raised about the Warren Report and I believe the Texas Attorney General, if there is any honor in the Office of AG, now has the obligation to reopen at least the murder of Lee Oswald as the HSCA recommended.

I raised this question at the Wecht conference before a panel of "distinguished" lawyers, since this really is a question of Constitutional Law. Apparently no one on the distinguished panel was able to spot the issue, only Cyril Wecht responded, and his response was a loud guffaw of laughter. He thought it was such a great joke.

The idea of reopening the Texas Court of Inquiry is one that I believe is worth pursuing.

[Duke Lane]

On a seperate thread dealing with a Grand Jury Duke Lane wrote:

With 15 minutes, I guess I'd prefer to deal with something "digestible" than something completely satisfying in every regard. One would, as you say, dovetail into the next if the cases are related since, if someone else shot Tippit, it would certainly raise questions about everything else, wouldn't it.

It's worth a thought.

The problem here is identifying who really did kill Tippit. To my knowlege no one has ever nominated a plausible suspect. Lee Oswald certainly is not one, no matter what the New York Times says.

How about this: The way to reopen the case is to concentrate on the murder of Lee Oswald, a human being who was murdered on November 24th, 1963, while under the care, custody and control of the Dallas police dept. (Duke Lane's heroes!). ...

SShhhhhhhhhhhh! Everyone will know who I am now!

... I will just note here that, as a matter of law, Lee Oswald was (and is) innocent of any crime.

In 1979 The House Select Committee officially declared that the gunman Jack Ruby almost certainly had assistance from someone inside the Dallas police dept. The HSCA ran out of money after spending a miserable $2.8M (this is all the Representatives of the richest country in the world were willing to spend on the murder of their greatest leader ever. Some people spend much more than that to buy a vacation home).

The HSCA report called upon the Justice Department to do a serious investigation of DPD involvement in Lee Oswald's murder, but as far as I can determine the Justice Dept under Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 have been comepletely derelict in this regard.

At the 2003 Wecht conference in Pittsburgh I tried to argue that the Feds have been so derelict that reopening the Texas Court of Inquiry is the way to go. Murder is basically a state crime, and Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr, when he bowed to the (highly illegal) pressure from Lyndon Johnson and Earl Warren, promised that he would reopen the Texas inquiry if questions were ever raised about Warren Report. (C.F. the Texas Supplemental Report, a cheap, shameful little document that lies buried in the DPD archives).

Well guess what: Questions have been raised about the Warren Report and I beelieve the Texas Attorney General, if there is any honor in the Office of AG, now has the obligation to reopen at least the murder of Lee Oswald as the HSCA recommended.

I raised this question at the Wecht conference before a panel of "distinguished" lawyers, since this really is a question of Constitutional Law. Apparently no one on the distinguished panel was able to spot the issue, only Cyril Wecht responded, and his response was a loud guffaw of laughter. He thought it was such a great joke.

The idea of reopening the Texas Court of Inquiry is one that I believe is worth pursuing.

Whatever Waggoner Carr said or meant back in 1963-64 has changed today, and the "Court of Inquiry" as established at that time was struck down by Warren's Supreme Court and recodified. If you do a search on "court of inquiry"+texas on google, you'll find a lot of interesting history and such, as well as the Rules of Procedure for the current Courts of Inquiry.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Whatever Waggoner Carr said or meant back in 1963-64 has changed today, and the "Court of Inquiry" as established at that time was struck down by Warren's Supreme Court and recodified. If you do a search on "court of inquiry"+texas on google, you'll find a lot of interesting history and such, as well as the Rules of Procedure for the current Courts of Inquiry.

I have not had time yet to to do the search, but I will certainly take Duke's word for it. The more I read Duke Lane's posts the more I feel like one of the villagers in Oliver Goldsmith's poem, as they gazed upon the village schoolmaster:

"And still they gazed and still the wonder grew

that one small head could carry all he knew."

Since the Court of Inquiry is a dead duck, then Bill Kelly's Grand Jury suggestion seems like the only way to go at state level.

I still nominate the murder of Lee Oswald as the strongest basis for reopening the case. A Select Committee of Congress, for God's sake, has found that someone in the DPD assisted Jack Ruby, and no official agency, state or federal, has done a thing about it. Until that is rectified the United States has no right to be considered among the nations governed by the rule of law.

To my mind it is unfortunate that virtually everyone, the so-called "Lone nutters" and "conspiracy theorists" alike, seems to hate Lee Oswald and presume him to be guilty of something. That may explain why the research community has not pressured government to investigate his murder, in spite of the Congressional finding. It seems to me that Lee Oswald got a very raw deal on day one, and is still getting a very raw deal today ( I realize he is dead, but his widow, children and grandchildren are still very much alive).

If someone in the DPD assisted Ruby with knowledge of Ruby's intentions, then that person was Ruby's co-conspirator. If a murder conspiracy is successful, then each conspirator is as guilty of murder as the man who pulls the trigger. There is no Statute of Limitations on murder. No less a body than Congress has advised that someone in the DPD has been getting away with murder, and for all we know he may be still walking the streets. Is it not time something was done about that?

[William Kelly]

Whatever Waggoner Carr said or meant back in 1963-64 has changed today, and then the..... Grand Jury suggestion seems like the only way to go at state level.

I still nominate the murder of Lee Oswald as the strongest basis for reopening the case. A Select Committee of Congress, for God's sake, has found that someone in the DPD assisted Jack Ruby, and no official agency, state or federal, has done a thing about it....It seems to me that Lee Oswald got a very raw deal on day one, and is still getting a very raw deal today ( I realize he is dead, but his widow, children and grandchildren are still very much alive)....If someone in the DPD assisted Ruby with knowledge of Ruby's intentions, then that person was Ruby's co-conspirator. If a murder conspiracy is successful, then each conspirator is as guilty of murder as the man who pulls the trigger. There is no Statute of Limitations on murder. No less a body than Congress has advised that someone in the DPD has been getting away with murder, and for all we know he may be still walking the streets. Is it not time something was done about that?

Hi guys,

From where I'm sitting, the investigations of the victims of Dallas - John F. Kennedy, John B. Connally, James Tague, J.D. Tippit, Lee Harvey Oswald, and if poisioned, Jack Ruby, each have to be approached differntly today.

While a local or a Texas state grand jury could investigate the Tippit murder, a civil suit could be brought against the city of Dallas for the murder of Oswald if Oswald's daughters cooperated, or a civil suit could be brought against the Unknown Subjects-Perpetuators who shot and wounded Tague or against the government for not finding the perpetuators of his injury.

A lawyer claiming to represent one of Oswald's daughters once contacted me to say that she supported our efforts wanted to know how she could help.

As with the LA RFK Grand Jury Request, targeting the cops is not what a local prosecutor would want to do, sicne he has to work with them on a daily basis.

I would like to see all legal avenues persued at once, a full court press, and go with the one(s) that seem to work best, and if one legal case is officially opened, then we've got a hardball game, yahoo.

Bill Kelly

Edited December 25, 2005 by William Kelly

[Duke Lane]

Whatever Waggoner Carr said or meant back in 1963-64 has changed today, and the "Court of Inquiry" as established at that time was struck down by Warren's Supreme Court and recodified. If you do a search on "court of inquiry"+texas on google, you'll find a lot of interesting history and such, as well as the Rules of Procedure for the current Courts of Inquiry.

I have not had time yet to to do the search, but I will certainly take Duke's word for it. The more I read Duke Lane's posts the more I feel like one of the villagers in Oliver Goldsmith's poem, as they gazed upon the village schoolmaster:

"And still they gazed and still the wonder grew

that one small head could carry all he knew."

Since the Court of Inquiry is a dead duck, then Bill Kelly's Grand Jury suggestion seems like the only way to go at state level.

Allow me to paraphrase one of the greatest pearls of wisdom I've gotten regarding this case, this from Jim Marrs: "do not trust my posts." Verify.

I didn't say a Court of Inquiry is a dead end, merely that its rules have changed since 1963 ... in fact, in 1966, when Carr was still in office. I haven't read all of the references - or even most of them, and barely even some of them! - so I'm not entirely familiar with why to choose that avenue over another except that the Court of Inquiry is a public proceeding, unlike a grand jury. That in itself seems a good enough reason why not to pursue this venue. Read the references, and maybe you'll find a lot more than I know, because I sure as heck don't claim to know them all!

(The biggest problem with the earlier Courts of Inquiry were that they were basically a cumpulsory "Kangaroo Court" that offered little if any protections to the people called before them or inquired about. They were convened by Justices of the Peace, and were as often a "political" rather than legal tool as not.)

I still nominate the murder of Lee Oswald as the strongest basis for reopening the case. A Select Committee of Congress, for God's sake, has found that someone in the DPD assisted Jack Ruby, and no official agency, state or federal, has done a thing about it. Until that is rectified the United States has no right to be considered among the nations governed by the rule of law.

To my mind it is unfortunate that virtually everyone, the so-called "Lone nutters" and "conspiracy theorists" alike, seems to hate Lee Oswald and presume him to be guilty of something. That may explain why the research community has not pressured government to investigate his murder, in spite of the Congressional finding. It seems to me that Lee Oswald got a very raw deal on day one, and is still getting a very raw deal today (I realize he is dead, but his widow, children and grandchildren are still very much alive).

If someone in the DPD assisted Ruby with knowledge of Ruby's intentions, then that person was Ruby's co-conspirator. If a murder conspiracy is successful, then each conspirator is as guilty of murder as the man who pulls the trigger. There is no Statute of Limitations on murder. No less a body than Congress has advised that someone in the DPD has been getting away with murder, and for all we know he may be still walking the streets. Is it not time something was done about that?

Pinkerton ... no relation to Alan!

Forgive my ignorance, but did HSCA say who aided Ruby? If not, did they at least describe the mechanics by which it was done so names could be put with the faces, so to speak? While they may have said "it sure seems that way," and recommended to the Justice Department to investigate it, there is nothing other than a "suggestion" that a crime (conspiracy) may have been committed, and certainly no evidence that they put forth in hard form (that I've ever even vaguely heard of).

If a citizen has to come up with a bit more than "questions" to get a DA to convene a grand jury, why do a bunch of politicians have such a lesser standard? I can't march into Dallas County and say "y'know, it sure looks like JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy, and 97% of the people think that, too, so you need to convene a grand jury to find out who they were." A bunch of Congressmen shouldn't be able to direct the Executive Branch to investigate anything on a similar basis, no matter how sensible it may seem to you and me. That is effectively what they did.

HSCA also said that Oswald was a shooter. So I'm supposed to believe that the cops were conspirators based on what they say? A "Select Committee of Congress, for God's sake" is no more than a bunch of politicians with hired guns doing their work for them, and preparing something for them to sign. I don't think God necessarily wants to be connected to that in any way!!

Don't take my remarks to suggest that I disagree that there was any kind of conspiracy in either murder, or that the Ruby-Oswald case isn't as strong or stronger a likelihood to re-open any investigation at any level, if it could even be done at all. That's not for a layman like me to decide: I don't work on my truck, either; I leave it to a trained professional. But that doesn't mean I can't tell when something's wrong with it and be able to tell my mechanic where to start looking to find the problem. He can pick his own wrenches, tho'.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

A bunch of Congressmen shouldn't be able to direct the Executive Branch to investigate anything on a similar basis, no matter how sensible it may seem to you and me. That is effectively what they did.

Can we take it that Duke Lane rejects the idea of representative government? If so, what would he like to take its place?

[Mark Stapleton]

Whatever Waggoner Carr said or meant back in 1963-64 has changed today, and then the..... Grand Jury suggestion seems like the only way to go at state level.

I still nominate the murder of Lee Oswald as the strongest basis for reopening the case. A Select Committee of Congress, for God's sake, has found that someone in the DPD assisted Jack Ruby, and no official agency, state or federal, has done a thing about it....It seems to me that Lee Oswald got a very raw deal on day one, and is still getting a very raw deal today ( I realize he is dead, but his widow, children and grandchildren are still very much alive)....If someone in the DPD assisted Ruby with knowledge of Ruby's intentions, then that person was Ruby's co-conspirator. If a murder conspiracy is successful, then each conspirator is as guilty of murder as the man who pulls the trigger. There is no Statute of Limitations on murder. No less a body than Congress has advised that someone in the DPD has been getting away with murder, and for all we know he may be still walking the streets. Is it not time something was done about that?

Hi guys,

From where I'm sitting, the investigations of the victims of Dallas - John F. Kennedy, John B. Connally, James Tague, J.D. Tippit, Lee Harvey Oswald, and if poisioned, Jack Ruby, each have to be approached differntly today.

While a local or a Texas state grand jury could investigate the Tippit murder, a civil suit could be brought against the city of Dallas for the murder of Oswald if Oswald's daughters cooperated, or a civil suit could be brought against the Unknown Subjects-Perpetuators who shot and wounded Tague or against the government for not finding the perpetuators of his injury.

A lawyer claiming to represent one of Oswald's daughters once contacted me to say that she supported our efforts wanted to know how she could help.

As with the LA RFK Grand Jury Request, targeting the cops is not what a local prosecutor would want to do, sicne he has to work with them on a daily basis.

I would like to see all legal avenues persued at once, a full court press, and go with the one(s) that seem to work best, and if one legal case is officially opened, then we've got a hardball game, yahoo.

Bill Kelly

A civil suit against the city of Dallas for the murder of Oswald (with the co-operation of his daughters). The question of funding this suit notwithstanding, I think that is a tremendous idea. It may not reveal JFK's killers, or even who helped Ruby but I like it anyway. Long overdue.

[Duke Lane]

A bunch of Congressmen shouldn't be able to direct the Executive Branch to investigate anything on a similar basis, no matter how sensible it may seem to you and me. That is effectively what they did.

Can we take it that Duke Lane rejects the idea of representative government? If so, what would he like to take its place?

No, you should take it that Duke Lane accepts the idea of the separation of powers, holding that each of the three branches of governent are co-equal.

The Supreme Court can tell Congress that a law it passed is unconsitutional and therefore void; it cannot "direct" Congress to write and vote on a new law to replace it. Likewise, the Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch, and the Legislative Branch cannot "direct" the Executive to "investigate" anything. It cannot actually even tell the Executive Branch to obey or enforce the law the Legislature enacts ... but it can impeach when, for example, the Executive elects to disobey the laws that Congress has enacted and the Supreme Court has upheld.

A suggestion to investigate is not equivalent to the passage of a law.

It may be inconvenient and/or unpopular at times, and it may not be perfect, but it's worked for nearly 230 years. I'm in favor of keeping it.

As to representative government, if we don't like the fact that the Executive Branch has not acted on something suggested by the Legislature, we can always replace the Chief Executive.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

the Legislative Branch cannot "direct" the Executive to "investigate" anything. It cannot actually even tell the executive Branch to obey or enforce the law the Legislature enacts .quote]

And your source for this is ?

Mr. Lane, I admire your courage in defending the executive branch's handling of the JFK assassination(at both state and federal levels), but if this system has really worked for 230 years as you claim, I suggest there would be no need for this forum to exist.

In ancient Rome the leading politicians could walk the sreets in perfect safety. Rome was a Republic for 400 years before Caesar crossed the Rubicon (on November 22nd, according to the Julian calander), and that is a helluva lot longer than America can claim to be a republic, assuming it is one.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

the Legislative Branch cannot "direct" the Executive to "investigate" anything. It cannot actually even tell the executive Branch to obey or enforce the law the Legislature enacts .quote]

And your source for this is ?

Mr. Lane, I admire your courage in defending the executive branch's handling of the JFK assassination(at both state and federal levels), but if this system has really worked for 230 years as you claim, I suggest there would be no need for this forum to exist.

In ancient Rome the leading politicians could walk the sreets in perfect safety. Rome was a Republic for 400 years before Caesar crossed the Rubicon (on November 22nd, according to the Julian calander), and that is a helluva lot longer than America can claim to be a republic, assuming it is one.

Duke, I apologise for the above. I do not for one second believe that you are defending the governmets handling of the JFK assassination, and your remarks about the separation of powers are perfectly valid. The findings of the HSCA do not have the force of law as you rightly point out, but I would still say that we are entitled to expect that the executive branch would show some respect for the findings of a Select Committee of Congress.

Ray

[William Kelly]

the Legislative Branch cannot "direct" the Executive to "investigate" anything. It cannot actually even tell the executive Branch to obey or enforce the law the Legislature enacts .quote]

..... The findings of the HSCA do not have the force of law as you rightly point out, but I would still say that we are entitled to expect that the executive branch would show some respect for the findings of a Select Committee of Congress.

Ray

Duke and Ray,

It is not the Executive or the Legislative branch that is responsible for the enforcment of the laws, that's the Judicial branch - the FBI et al., who were specifically requested to follow up on the HSCA conclusions, and failed to do so, on purpose. When the asst. director of the FBI testified during a hearing before the establishment of the ARRB, I buttonholed him in the hearing hall as he was leaving and asked him and he later wrote to me saying that the FBI still follows up on any new information regarding the JFK assassination.

Bill Kelly

[Duke Lane]

Duke and Ray,

It is not the Executive or the Legislative branch that is responsible for the enforcment of the laws, that's the Judicial branch - the FBI et al., who were specifically requested to follow up on the HSCA conclusions, and failed to do so, on purpose. When the asst. director of the FBI testified during a hearing before the establishment of the ARRB, I buttonholed him in the hearing hall as he was leaving and asked him and he later wrote to me saying that the FBI still follows up on any new information regarding the JFK assassination.

Bill Kelly

Bill, that the Department of Justice, of which the FBI is a part, and while its name may have the same root as the "Judicial" Branch (and the top Judicials are called "Justice" So-and-so) the DOJ is nevertheless a part of the Executive Branch: the President, not the Courts, makes the appointments (with the advice and consent of the Senate).

I know it's been a while, but remember back to Civics classes in grade school:

• The Legislative Branch legislates or creates laws, it consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate;
  
• The Executive Branch executes or enforces laws, and consists of the President and his Cabinet (and subordinate departments, agencies, etc.);
  
• The Judicial Branch interprets laws, and is made up of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts.
  

This is so elementary that ... that ... that (gosh!!) I will prove, once again, that discretion is the greater part of valor!

You also noted that they were "requested." It is a far cry from "directed," and has every bit as much legal weight and authority behind it: none.