JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[cobalt]

That's what a dozen assassins attempted in 1962 against Charles De Gaulle. 187 shots fired. 14 hit De Gaulle's vehicle.
Total dead - zero.
Total injuries - a random bystander was lightly wounded and Madame De Gaulle got a small cut on her hand brushing broken glass off.
Some of the Conspirators were caught. One talked. Ten were arrested. Six fled the country and were tried in absentia. One committed suicide, one was executed, the other 14 were sentenced to death or long prison terms.
This was a total failure at both getting away and getting the target. Yet the Conspiracy not only thinks this is a great idea to copy, they try to frame a lone gunman, which requires dozens more to be in on the Conspiracy to fake evidence.

There is no connection whatsoever in tactics between the de Gaulle assassination attempt and what is alleged by CTs happened in Dallas.

However for the benefit of our assassination gurus, here are a couple of kidnap/assassinations which very much imitated the de Gaulle attempt. The 1978 kidnap in Rome of former premier Aldo Moro was in many ways a carbon copy. It involved four cars, two for the ambush, and around 11 attackers. The difference was in lethal efficiency. All 5 security officers (in two cars) were killed whilst Moro was kidnapped uninjured. Of the 91 shots fired, 45 hit their intended target. Moro was, as many of us will remember, executed by his kidnappers, the Red Brigades, after 55 days.

A year earlier Hans Martin Schleyer, spokesman for West German industrialists, had been kidnapped in similar fashion by the Red Army Faction (often dubbed the Baader-Meinhof gang) when driving through Cologne. The victim's car was blocked in similar fashion. This time there were believed to be a mere 5 attackers assisted by a female member as decoy. Again the target was kidnapped uninjured and it seems his attackers drove off in a single van. As in the Moro kidnapping, the 4 security personnel (in two cars) were killed on the spot this time by a fusillade of 20 shots. Schleyer was executed after 43 days in captivity.

So lets not compare oranges with apples. First of all, no one has ever claimed mobile cars were used to shoot JFK. And secondly, and more importantly, the de Gaulle assassination failed while the JFK, Moro and Schleyer actions succeeded to lethal effect. Our JFK assassination gurus' wise saws might have been welcomed by the de Gaulle conspirators, but are hardly needed by the others.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So doesn’t ’not comparing apples and oranges’ apply when you are comparing kidnappings to an assassination attempt?

[FISHY1118]

What about the people that were there who don’t agree with your opinion and who don’t support conspiracy? I can’t see the point of you taking that kind of moral high ground as if you are being sensitive to the feelings of those around at the time. You are simply cherrypicking the ones that you feel support your point and then finding excuses to dismiss or ignore the inconvenient.

Ill ask again…and I’m guessing that this will be a perfect illustration of a conspiracy theorist avoiding and question - you consider Connally trustworthy on the issue of whether he was or wasn’t struck by the same bullet as Kennedy. Therefore do you allow him equal trustworthiness when he stated as a fact that there were only 3 shots and that they all came from behind?

He as many others did, directly contradict the Warren Commission findings . Whether you like it or not thats a fact , No one as yet been able to prove any of the Dr's at parkland hospital, Connally, nurse bell, witnesses who claimed there was a hole through and through the presidential limousine,( not a crack) people who claimed the limousine came to a complete albeit a brief stop along elm st. The list of contradictions and inconsistencies is staggering.

Yet because of some mock trial where most of the above ( probably none of it ) was ever put to a jury ,whom would have sent Oswald to the electric chair with the knowledge that in their minds, all of the above mentioned people either lied ,were mistaken , absolute morons , or never existed.

Oswald would never in a million years be convicted of jfks murder.

The truth is coming .!

[FISHY1118]

This is part of for the course Fishy. The problem is that none of the ‘what if’s’ or ‘why didn’t he’s’ every get answered. And yet here you are asking a question. I’m afraid that it’s always the conspiracy side demanding answers (which are given) and yet we are often faced with a yawning silence or a bit of side-stepping.

I was merely making the same comparison herlock as you use , quite a lot i might add .

And you comfirmed my point ,Thank you

As I said I don't like the "what if " . But on the very rare occasions will throw one in to demonstrate that point of view.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was merely making the same comparison herlock as you use , quite a lot i might add .

And you comfirmed my point ,Thank you

As I said I don't like the "what if " . But on the very rare occasions will throw one in to demonstrate that point of view.

I slightly strange post Fishy but no problem. My original point was that the questions that get posed never get answered. This continues.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He as many others did, directly contradict the Warren Commission findings . Whether you like it or not thats a fact , No one as yet been able to prove any of the Dr's at parkland hospital, Connally, nurse bell, witnesses who claimed there was a hole through and through the presidential limousine,( not a crack) people who claimed the limousine came to a complete albeit a brief stop along elm st. The list of contradictions and inconsistencies is staggering.

Yet because of some mock trial where most of the above ( probably none of it ) was ever put to a jury ,whom would have sent Oswald to the electric chair with the knowledge that in their minds, all of the above mentioned people either lied ,were mistaken , absolute morons , or never existed.

Oswald would never in a million years be convicted of jfks murder.

The truth is coming .!

A very apocalyptic post. None of ‘what is coming’ will prove that Oswald acted as part of a conspiracy. Oswald would indeed have been found guilty in double-quick time unless they somehow managed to load that jury with people like Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone etc.

Just because someone disagrees with a conclusion it doesn’t make that conclusion incorrect. I’m surprised if you believe that to be a logically valid statement Fishy.

[FISHY1118]

A very apocalyptic post. None of ‘what is coming’ will prove that Oswald acted as part of a conspiracy. Oswald would indeed have been found guilty in double-quick time unless they somehow managed to load that jury with people like Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone etc.

Just because someone disagrees with a conclusion it doesn’t make that conclusion incorrect. I’m surprised if you believe that to be a logically valid statement Fishy.

Let me make it clearer ,What is coming is , the evidence that will show there was indeed a conspiracy within the u.s. government to assassinate there own president with multiple shooters. Period. Full stop .

There is no apocalyptic mumbo jumbo as you put .

Its not about disagreeing herlock, its about the facts of the case when presented at a "mock " trial.

Oswald would never have been convicted of jfks murder with what is known to contradict the WC. ...impossible.

Any half decent defence lawyer would immediately attack those findings with all the contradiction and inconsistencies using the above mentioned.

Oswald walks free . Its that simple.

[scottnapa]

Facts are stubborn things. Your statements bore no resemblance to actual law.

The body did not cease to exist because it was flown out of Texas. All evidence gathered from the Bethesda autopsy would be admissible in court. So would the fingerprint evidence. And the ballistics evidence. And the photographic evidence. And the documentary evidence. And the eyewitness evidence.

I think it is clear to everyone on this site where the stubborn lies.
The crime was committed in Texas. A Bethesda autopsy would not be allowed at a Texas trial.
After the WC realized the problem, the WC suggested legislation to made it a federal crime to have authority over the President's body.
Here Gerald Ford expalins the need to pass a law that makes it a federal crime to assassinate the President.
TRIAL

The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy,

on which the previous witness, my good friend Representative Hale Boggs,

and I were privileged to serve, found that "there was no Federal criminal

jurisdiction over the assassination of President Kennedy. {Report, p. 454.)

...once it became reasonably clear that the killing was the act of a single person, the State of Texas had exclusive jurisdiction." (Report, p. 454.)

https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/sites/default/files/pdf_documents/library/document/0054/4525509.pdf

In 1963, no federal law covered the assassination of a president. Whoever killed Kennedy would be tried under Texas state law. And Texas law made Dr. Earl Rose, the Dallas County medical examiner, responsible for performing an autopsy on Kennedy’s body.

https://nypost.com/2016/02/20/the-weird-parallels-between-scalia-and-another-texas-death-conspiracy-jfk/

The state of Texas teaches an elective college level course. It explains the law below.

THE STATE OF TEXAS v. LEE HARVEY OSWALD

A “What If?” Mock Trial

Learning Objectives: The student will

1. 2. Think critically in analyzing what might have happened if Lee Harvey Oswald had not

been killed before standing trial for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy;

Develop an understanding of trial procedures by participating in a mock trial loosely based

on a historical event.

NOTE: Although most of the information included in this mock trial is based on documented

evidence, it is not an objective of this activity to teach the historical events surrounding the

death of President Kennedy. Before beginning this mock trial, teachers should be sure that

students understand that information contained is not historically based. Except for Oswald,

his wife and his mother, witnesses are compilations of people present on the day of the

shooting.

TEKS: 8.20 D, 8.30 B, D & F; U.S. Hist. 24 B & F; Govt. 9 C & H, 10 C, 12 D, 14 E, 15 D,

18 A, 21 D, 23 B; Spec. Topics 1 B, C & E, 3 A & B

Materials Needed: Case packets for all witnesses and attorneys

Vocabulary: Reasonable doubt, statute, acquittal

Teaching Strateg
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. After studying the life and death of President John F. Kennedy, explain to students that, at

the time of the crime, killing a president was not a violation of federal law. Therefore, if

Lee Harvey Oswald had not been killed, he would have stood trial in Dallas County under

the Texas statute of murder. This mock trial uses some historical facts and some

suppositions and theories for students to analyze “what might have happened.”

Everyone understands this but you, fiver.

[scottnapa]

I slightly strange post Fishy but no problem. My original point was that the questions that get posed never get answered. This continues.

you have said this multiple times but i dont know what questions you have. Please send a question my way.

[cobalt]

So doesn’t ’not comparing apples and oranges’ apply when you are comparing kidnappings to an assassination attempt?

I think that's what either Lee J. Cobb or yourself called 'semantics.'

There were 5 assassinations in the Moro kidnapping and 4 assassinations in the Schleyer kidnapping. Both these attacks resembled the very de Gaulle assassination that we were told on this site only idiots would use as a template. The BR and the RAF showed that notion was utter nonsense.

The de Gaulle assassins later claimed that they actually intended to kidnap him by the way. Not that such a claim could be verified given the failure of the mission. But I would imagine it is harder to kidnap a head of state- without shooting him in the process- and then hold him captive for over a month as opposed to killing him on the spot.

The execution of a conspiracy is only part of the programme. The BR and RAF had no state apparatus to cover up their plotting afterwards whereas the de Gaulle assassins believed they might have been able to control the narrative if successful. The JFK assassins got both elements right.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let me make it clearer ,What is coming is , the evidence that will show there was indeed a conspiracy within the u.s. government to assassinate there own president with multiple shooters. Period. Full stop .

There is no apocalyptic mumbo jumbo as you put .

Its not about disagreeing herlock, its about the facts of the case when presented at a "mock " trial.

Oswald would never have been convicted of jfks murder with what is known to contradict the WC. ...impossible.

Any half decent defence lawyer would immediately attack those findings with all the contradiction and inconsistencies using the above mentioned.

Oswald walks free . that simple.

1. You are obviously wrong.

2. Unless you have prior access to records you can’t possibly know the content.

3. Why are you so obsessed with the mock trial? You keep mentioning it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that's what either Lee J. Cobb or yourself called 'semantics.'

There were 5 assassinations in the Moro kidnapping and 4 assassinations in the Schleyer kidnapping. Both these attacks resembled the very de Gaulle assassination that we were told on this site only idiots would use as a template. The BR and the RAF showed that notion was utter nonsense.

The de Gaulle assassins later claimed that they actually intended to kidnap him by the way. Not that such a claim could be verified given the failure of the mission. But I would imagine it is harder to kidnap a head of state- without shooting him in the process- and then hold him captive for over a month as opposed to killing him on the spot.

The execution of a conspiracy is only part of the programme. The BR and RAF had no state apparatus to cover up their plotting afterwards whereas the de Gaulle assassins believed they might have been able to control the narrative if successful. The JFK assassins got both elements right.

We are talking about the assassination of a single person. Your examples don’t compare.

[FISHY1118]

1. You are obviously wrong.

2. Unless you have prior access to records you can’t possibly know the content.

3. Why are you so obsessed with the mock trial? You keep mentioning it.

1 You obviously don't know I'm wrong . You just assume because it suits you to do so .

2.Either do you.

3 . Because you and others brought it up, that during the mock trial Oswald was found guilty of jfks murder , when I questioned the basis of what evidence was produced that contradicts the w.c findings for Oswald's defense i got.
CRICKETS

4.Thats why i keep mentioning it.

There that clears that up .. Simple.

[FISHY1118]

Now, are we going to get back to the case and the evidence as part of the on-going discussion of this thread, or p$%# fart around all day with petty squabble?.
You decide .

[C. F. Leon]

I'll ask BOTH pro- & anti-Conspiracy advocates the same question I ask of Suspect Advocates in the Ripper case:

Assume, for the sake of the argument, that what REALLY happened was just the opposite of what you are theorizing. Just what evidence would it take to convince you that you have been WRONG? Witnesses? been done. Forensics? been done (in part). A confession in a diary? been done. Graffiti at the site? been done. A before-the event paper trail? been done. Police or asylum records? been done or missing. A seance? been done. Profiling? been done.

Just WHAT evidence would you accept to change your Religion?

(Maybe I should post this as a separate thread?)