JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[scottnapa]

[QUOTE=Fiver;n850654]

The Dallas Times Herald article said "Dr. Perry added, "It is conceivable it was one wound, but there was no way for me to tell. It did however appear to be the entrance wound at the front of the throat." The article makes it clear that the two wounds that might be from the same bullet are "Wounds in the lower front portion of the neck and the right rear side of the head."

Why would the FBI, or anyone else, for that matter, insert the idea that the head wound and the neck wound were from the same bullet?

[/QUOTE
"Neck Wounds Bring Death to President"
Wounds in the lower front portion of the neck and right rear side of the head ended the life of President John F. Kennedy, say doctors at Parkland Hospital. Whether there were one or two wounds was not decided. The front neck hole was described as an entrance wound. The wound at the back of the head, while the principal one, was either an exit or gangential entrance wound. A doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound. (A lie inserted by her editor as demanded by the FBI>

Connie Kritzberg wrote SECRETS from the Sixth Floor Window in 1994.
Later Connie and a photographer. took a walking tour of downtown Dallas and commenting on the sullen quiet building and citizens in shock. The published story is titled:City in Shock In the process of this walk, Connie and the photographer notice a red painted C L O S E D sign on a nightclub door, wThe letters were written quickly and the sign posted but the paint is wet and drips when the sign is pasted on the door, The dripping blood red paint sign seemed worthy of a picture. They did not realized that they were outside the Carousel Club--why would they care? Oswald was alive.
On Sunday the editor called Connie at home. at 1:30 . Her editor asked her "Do you remember where you were last night? The FBI wants to know if you were at the Carousel Club?
WHAT? How and why are the FBI interested in the Carousel club? Connie is at his club when Ruby is at the press conference correcting Wade about FPCC
Where mood piece describing how downtown is empty city and sullen

Why would the FBI ...? You ask? It is rather charming that you are looking for reasons why the FBI can't get "conspiracy" right.
This is November 22nd. I don't understand your concerns that the FBI is thinking about an autopsy at this time. They want the wounds from the back.
The FBI is very active on day one, The FBI doesn't know what it doesn't know. They do know whatever Hoover wants he gets.

This manipulating the press, does it happen often? We do not know.
Certainly Hoover has power over any public figure, given his ability to damage a person. Example, Roosevelt wanted the OSS to carry on after WWII.
Hoover had many articles published with headlines like American Does't Need A Gestapo

Consider the Minox Camera, isn't "logical" either. Light Meter, HA.
It suits Hoover to put as much "blame " on the Dallas Police.

and as for this ongoing question, what the fudge kind of conspiracy is this?
You ask this question as if there are only two options: Lee Oswald is lone communist did it by his lonesome Or is a group as big as a the Barnum & Bailey Circus.

This exaggeration to make a point is very DVP of you. There are times I think your are him.

[FISHY1118]

In a normal criminal trial, the prosecution would be required to establish an item as evidence BEFORE a judge would allow it to be submitted as an exhibit.
Before a chain of possession could be established, the item would have to be identified by the first witness who came in contact with it in order to establish its relevance to the case. After such identification, the prosecution would then ask the court to accept the evidence as an exhibit.


But in this case, although the Warren Commission's agenda was to present the evidence in such a way that Oswald "would have been convicted at trial", it did not follow normal judicial protocol.
Instead, it accepted items as exhibits without so much as an identification from the person who found them. This could not have been an oversight, because they did this time and time again.


Among those items which were accepted WITHOUT identification from the people who found them were:

Commission Exhibit 139 - the C2766 rifle was never identified by the person who found it ( Dallas Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone ) as the rifle he found on the sixth floor.

Commission Exhibit 162 - the "tannish grey" jacket found under a car in a parking lot a block from the Tippit murder scene was never identified by the person who reported it found ( Off. J.T. Griffin ) as the jacket he reported.

Commission Exhibit 399 - the alleged "stretcher bullet" was never identified by the person who found it ( Darrell Tomlinson ) as the bullet he found.

Commission Exhibits 543, 544 and 545 - the three 6.5 rifle shells were never identified by the person who found them ( Dallas Deputy Luke Mooney ) as the shells he found on the sixth floor.

Commission Exhibit 573 - the "Walker Bullet" was never identified by the person who found it ( B.G. Norvell ) as the bullet he found.

Commission Exhibit 594 - the four shells found at the Tippit murder scene were never identified by the witnesses who found them ( Domingo Benavides and Barbara and Virginia Davis ) as the shells they found.

All of these items were accepted by the Warren Commission as Exhibits without any positive identifcation from the people who found them.
Had this case gone to criminal trial, without the positive identifcation from the people who found them, none of these items would have been admitted as evidence.





But im sure all this was presented at Oswalds ''MOCK TRIAL'' ???? You know the one where he was found guilty of JFKs and Officer Tippets murder.!!!!!

[FISHY1118]

The lies of the Warren Report.



But the evidence said:





The discovery of a white jacket is corroborated by the testimony of Officer Thomas Hutson.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/white-jacket-hutson.gif

But the evidence said:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WC_Vol3_513-nicol.gif

#3. ON EXAMINATION OF THE "PAPER GUNSACK" TO DETERMINE IF IT CARRIED A RIFLE:


The Report concluded:
The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald.... carried the rifle ....concealed in the bag...... ( pg. 137 )


But the evidence said:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WC_Vol4_97-cadigan.gif

#4. ON WHETHER OR NOT JOHNNY CALVIN BREWER OBSERVED OSWALD PULL A GUN IN THE TEXAS THEATER:


The Report concluded:
"Johnny Brewer testified he saw Oswald pull the revolver..... " ( pg. 179 )


But the evidence said:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WC_Vol7_6.gif

You can believe the lies of the Report or you can go by the evidence.

To believe WC apologists, the witnesses all suffered from color blindness, being unable to tell the difference between white, blue, gray, and tan.

Apparently, they couldn't read either.

They couldn't tell a 7.65 Mauser from a "6.5" "made in Italy".

They couldn't tell a ".38 auto" shell from a ".38 spl"

They couldn't tell a 38" package from one that was 27".

Even the smartest people in the city, the doctors, couldn't tell an entrance wound from an exit wound.

They should have changed the name of the city from Dallas to "Dumbass" because they could never get the facts right the first time.

It's amazing how stupidity could reign supreme in that city and yet they got the right man on the first try.



Either they were the stupidest people who ever lived or they were Liars

[Fiver]

Among those items which were accepted WITHOUT identification from the people who found them were:

Commission Exhibit 139 - the C2766 rifle was never identified by the person who found it ( Dallas Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone ) as the rifle he found on the sixth floor.

Boone was not the only officer who saw the rifle before it was moved.

Mr. BALL - I show you a rifle which is Commission Exhibit 139. Can you tell us whether or not that looks like the rifle you saw on the floor that day?
Mr. BOONE - It looks like the same rifle. I have no way of being positive.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 139 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Store at 411 Elm Street, November 23, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. What date?
Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have any identification mark of yours on it?
Mr. DAY. It has my name "J. C. Day" scratched on the stock.
Mr. BELIN. And on the stock you are pointing to your name which is scratched as you would hold the rifle and rest it on the stock, approximately an inch or so from the bottom of the stock on the sling side of the stock, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.

The rifle was also photographed before being moved.

[OneRound]

Hello and thanks for your response. You almost got it
This is not a conversation about having a trial about a body. This is about what would be allowed as evidence in Dallas Texas where the trial would take place.. Because the chain of evidence is broken. No “evidence” obtained by the Bethesda autopsy would be accepted by a Texas court as it was performed out of state in Maryland. Texas has jurisdiction.
I posted multiple examples of quotes about jurisdiction and evidence. the last one from a conversation Wade has with Robert Oswald.

I didn’t say there couldn’t be a trial. Sure have a trial. If there was an autopsy performed in Dallas who has jurisdiction, all evidence from the legal autopsy is admissible. But because the body was NOT autopsied in Dallas, any “evidence “ from the body been contaminated.
(I am sure everyone remembers the defense in OJ trial concerning mishandled evidence.)
Dr Rose performed the Tippet autopsy. That is a legal procedure that produces evidence that can and would have used in a Dallas court to convict Oswald of Tippet’s murder. .

Hi scottnapa - I thought you did.

''The body of John Kennedy was removed from Dallas before an autopsy was performed. Therefore, no murder happened legally in Texas, because the evidence had been tampered with by removing it from its jurisdiction. No body no crime.'' - your post #2688.

And

''Once the body is removed, there can be no trial in Dallas for the death of the President.'' - your post 3647.

My expectation had Oswald lived is that the case against him would most definitely have gone to trial in Dallas and that the judge would have permitted evidence from all medical professionals as requested by prosecution or defence counsels, albeit with the jury being warned that usual medical and legal requirements for a Dallas autopsy had not been met and thus any medical bar for the prosecution to reach would be high.

That to me as an English legal professional (admittedly with no experience of American criminal law) seems fair and reasonable. Those insisting on an autopsy in the Dallas hospital were clearly in the legal right. However, in all the shocking circumstances, I consider it understandable that the Secret Service insisted upon transporting Kennedy's body and his widow back to Washington immediately.

It is probably impossible to be absolutely certain as to what the judge would have done as there almost certainly would have been no precedent for him to follow. I am assuming here that no other autopsy of a murder victim was ever held outside Dallas when the murder was committed there.

That all said, I strongly believe Oswald would have been confronted with a guilty verdict even if the judge had disallowed medical evidence from the prosecution. As particularly set out by Sir Herlock and Fiver, there is already more than ample evidence for a conviction (fingerprint, eyewitness, fraudulent documentation and other circumstantial).

Had Oswald lived to claim that there was a second shooter who actually killed Kennedy (and I doubt that was the case although it looks the best way of seeking to lessen his starring role), it wouldn't really have helped him much as he still would have been guilty of conspiracy to murder and facing the same ultimate penalty.

Regards,
OneRound

[Fiver]

Commission Exhibit 162 - the "tannish grey" jacket found under a car in a parking lot a block from the Tippit murder scene was never identified by the person who reported it found ( Off. J.T. Griffin ) as the jacket he reported.

The jacket was observed by several people before it was picked up.

Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.

[Fiver]

Commission Exhibit 399 - the alleged "stretcher bullet" was never identified by the person who found it ( Darrell Tomlinson ) as the bullet he found.

Lets look at the chain of custody.

* Parkland maintenance employee Darrell Tomlinson finds the bullet by complete luck. He gives the bullet to OP Wright. When shown CE 399, Tomlison says "it appears to be the same one" but he "cannot positively identify the bullet".
* Parkland personnel officer OP Wright gives the bullet to Richard Johnsen. When shown CE 399, Wright "stated that it looked like the one he gave to Johnsen on 11/22/63, but he could not positively identify it."
* Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen gives the bullet to James Rowley. When shown CE 399, Johnsen "stated that he could not identify that slug as the one he
received from Wright and gave to James Rowley".
* Secret Service head James Rowley gives the bullet to Elmer Todd. When shown CE 399, Rowley "advised he could not identify this bullet as the
one he received from . . . Johnsen and gave to . . . Todd".
* FBI Agent Elmer Todd marks his initials on the bullet. Elmer Todd gives the bullet Robert Frazier. When shown CE 399, Todd positively identifies it "from initials marked thereon".
* FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier, when shown CE 399, positively identifies it because "It has Frazier’s mark on it."

Obviously, the Parkland employees didn't know the way to be able to positively identify an object was to make a distinctive mark on it in a way that does not interfere with lab examination of the evidence. I don't have enough information to tell if the Secret Service should have, The FBI did.

And as repeatedly pointed out, the stretcher bullet (CE 399) was conclusively matched to the bullet fragments taken from Connally's wrist (CE 842).

[Fiver]

Commission Exhibits 543, 544 and 545 - the three 6.5 rifle shells were never identified by the person who found them ( Dallas Deputy Luke Mooney ) as the shells he found on the sixth floor.

Mooney was not the only person to see the shells before they were moved and they were photographed.

Mr. BALL - Those were empty shells?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - They were turned over to Captain Fritz?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; he was the first officer that picked them up, as far as I know, because I stood there and watched him go over and pick them up and look at them. As far as I could tell, I couldn't even tell what caliber they were, because I didn't get down that close to them. They were brass cartridges, brass shells.

Mr. BELIN. Lieutenant Day, you took some two pictures of those shell casings. Let me first get you through all the pictures you took. Where did you next take pictures on the sixth floor after you took the pictures of the shell casing; what did you do then?
Mr. DAY. I went, after these were taken--after your number.
Mr. BELIN. 715 and 716.
Mr. DAY. Were taken, I processed these three hulls for fingerprints, using a powder. Mr. Sims picked them up by the ends and handed them to me. I processed each of the three; did not find fingerprints. As I had finished that, Captain Fritz sent word for me to come to the northwest part of the building, the rifle had been found, and he wanted photographs.
Mr. BELIN. All right. You have mentioned these three hulls. Did you put any initials on those at all, any means of identification?
Mr. DAY. At that time they were placed in an envelope and the envelope marked. The three hulls were not marked at that time. Mr. Sims took possession of them.
Mr. BELIN. Well, did you at any time put any mark on the shells?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Let me first hand you what has been marked as "Commission Exhibit," part of "Commission Exhibit 543-544," and ask you to state if you know what that is.
Mr. DAY. This is the envelope the shells were placed in.

[Fiver]

Commission Exhibit 573 - the "Walker Bullet" was never identified by the person who found it ( B.G. Norvell ) as the bullet he found.

Mr. BELIN. Lieutenant Day, did you ever try to make any ballistic identification of the bullet slug that was removed from the residence of General Walker?
Mr. DAY. No, sir. I don't do that work. We have a laboratory in Dallas that we ask to do that. Wait a minute now, you said identification? My answer should be no, sir.
Mr. BELIN. I will ask you this. Have you ever seen Commission Exhibit 573 before, if you know?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I have.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell us what 573 is?
Mr. DAY. This slug was gotten from the home of former General Edwin Walker, 4011 Turtle Creek, April 10, 1963, by Detective B.G. Brown, one of the officers under my supervision. He brought this in and released it to me.
Mr. BELIN. You are reading now from a report that is in your possession, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Those are the official records of my office.
Mr. BELIN. Was that prepared under your supervision?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. In the regular course of your duties at the Dallas Police Department?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. The slug has my name "Day" scratched in it.

[Fiver]

Commission Exhibit 594 - the four shells found at the Tippit murder scene were never identified by the witnesses who found them ( Domingo Benavides and Barbara and Virginia Davis ) as the shells they found.

It's not a problem if you read the actual evidence.

Mr. HILL. Then we went back over to the house next door, which would have been the first one east of this one, and made sure it was securely locked, both upstairs and downstairs. There was no particular sign of entry on this building at all. At this point we came back out to the street, and I asked had Owens received any information from the hospital on Tippit.
And he said they had just told him on channel 2 that he was dead. I got back in 105's car, went back around to the original scene, gave him his car keys back, and left his ear there, and at this point he came up to me with a Winston cigarette package.
Mr. BELIN. Who was this?
Mr. HILL. This was Poe.
Mr. BELIN. You went back to the Tippit scene?
Mr. HILL. Right.
Mr. BELIN. You went back to 400 East 10th Street?
Mr. HILL. Right. And Poe showed me a Winston cigarette package that contained three spent jackets from shells that he said a citizen had pointed out to him where the suspect had reloaded his gun and dropped these in the grass, and that the citizen had picked them up and put them in the Winston package.
I told Poe to maintain the chain of evidence as small as possible, for him to retain these at that time, and to be sure and mark them for evidence, and then turn them over to the crime lab when he got there, or to homicide.

Mr. POE. I talked to a Spanish man, but I don't remember his name. Dominique, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Domingo Benavides?
Mr. POE. I believe that is correct; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he tell you?
Mr. POE. He told me, give me the same, or similar description of the man, and told me he was running out across this lawn. He was unloading his pistol as he ran, and he picked the shells up.
Mr. BALL. Domingo told you who was running across the lawn?
Mr. POE. A man, white man.
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. POE. He was unloading his pistol as he run.
Mr. BALL. And what did he say?
Mr. POE. He said he picked the two hulls up.
Mr. BALL. Did he hand you the hulls?
Mr. POE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you put any markings on the hulls?
Mr. POE. I couldn't swear to it; no, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the hulls?
Mr. POE. I turned the hulls into the crime lab, which was at the scene.

Mr. BARNES. I photographed the scene; yes. There was a couple of hulls that was turned over to me.
Mr. BELIN. Do you mean empty shell casings?
Mr. BARNES. Empty .38 caliber hulls was turned over to me at the scene by patrolman--I believe I would be safe in saying Poe, but I am not sure about that.
Mr. BELIN. How do you spell that?
Mr. BARNES. P-o-e, I believe is the way he spells it.
Mr. BELIN. You think he was the one that turned over some shells?
Mr. BARNES. I believe it is. I am not too sure right now, but I believe that is what is on the report. I would have to check it to be sure.

Mr. BELIN. Sergeant, I will ask you to examine Commission Exhibits Nos. Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, and ask you to state whether or not there appears to be any identification marks on any of these exhibits that appear to show that they were examined or identified by you?
Mr. BARNES. I placed "B", the best that I could, inside of the hull of Exhibit 74---I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75, as you have them identified.
Mr. BELIN. Now all four of these exhibits appear to be cartridge case hulls, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. .38 caliber.
Mr. BELIN. .38 caliber pistol?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. They are kind of silver or chrome or grey in color? You can identify it that way?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How many of these hulls, to the best of your recollection, did you identify out there?
Mr. BARNES. I believe that the patrolman gave me two, and Captain Doughty received the third.
Mr. BELIN. The two that the patrolman gave you were the ones that you put this identification mark on the inside of?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What instrument did you use to place this mark?
Mr. BARNES. I used a diamond point pen.
Mr. BELIN. You put it on Q-74 and Q-75?
Mr. BARNES. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have anything to do with identifying either the slugs that were eventually removed from Officer Tippit's body, or the pistol?
Mr. BARNES. No.
Mr. BELIN. You never put any identifying marks on those. Is there anything else that you did out at the crime scene?
Mr. BARNES. We made a crime sketch of the scene.
Mr. BELIN. You made a crime sketch of the scene?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else?
Mr. BARNES. No; not that I can recall at this time.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do with those cartridge case hulls, Q-74 and Q-75?
Mr. BARNES. We placed them in our evidence room, and turned them over to the FBI. I believe Special Agent Drain of the FBI was the agent that took them.

[Fiver]

The lies of the Warren Report.

But the evidence said:

Where is the supposed lie?

[Fiver]

The lies of the Warren Report.
The discovery of a white jacket is corroborated by the testimony of Officer Thomas Hutson.

Yes, Hutson confirmed the discovery of the jacket. How is this evidence of the WC lying?

[Fiver]

The lies of the Warren Report.

But the evidence said:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/upl..._513-nicol.gif

Your source is selectively quoting.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be positive. However, on specimen 602--I'm sorry--603, which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Correct.

Mr. NICOL. Of course I have not had a chance to examine the weapon. But on the information that you gave me, this was originally manufactured for English ammunition, and has been rechambered for American domestic ammunition, is that correct?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. NICOL. The undersized bullet going through an oversized barrel of course presents some serious identification problems, because it does not go through with the same conformity as a projectile going through the proper-sized barrel, so that it is apt to, you might say, skip and bear more on one surface than on another in subsequent firings, so that the identification is made more complex and it is expected that more dissimilarities occur under those circumstances. However, at the points where it did reproduce at the land edges, as shown in this photograph, I found sufficient lines of identification to lead me to the conclusion that they had both been fired in the same weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it consistent with the markings you found on this bullet that it had been fired in a slightly oversized barrel?
Mr. NICOL. Slight. However, due to the malleability of lead, it does accommodate itself more than a metal-case projectile, and therefore, the evidence of being fired in an oversized barrel is not as pronounced as it would be if it were fired, let's say, a .32-20 fired in a .38 Special, which would be possible, and would give very distinct evidence of the difference in the size of the bullet and the barrel. However, in neither case is an identification completely precluded. What is necessary is that tests are available which have borne on the same surface. If this is true, and if the marks have not been mutilated, then an identification is still possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say the bullet will accommodate itself, you mean it will expand to fill out all or part of the lands and grooves?
Mr. NICOL. Yes. Actually, with the pressure on the base and the inertia of the bullet, it is in a sense shorter and expanded in diameter to accommodate for the larger-sized barrel.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I was not clear whether you drew any conclusion on the other three bullets-- that is, did you definitely--find yourself definitely unable to identify those bullets, or did you reach a "probable" conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. I would say there was nothing, no major marks to preclude it. However, I was unable to find what would satisfy me to say that it positively came from that particular weapon. So that I would place it in the category of bullets which could have come from this particular weapon, but not to the exclusion of all others.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not posting for debate anymore but I thought I’d look into the occasional point that has been made on the thread if it’s of interest and make the occasional post. I’ll leave Fiver to combat the twisting of evidence. On this occasion I’d had a look into Patrick’s statement, made as if it was a fact: “Sure I'm going to trust Specter and the WC where every member hated JFKs guts.. Not a chance, its not done yet.”

Although this is a fairly long post with a repetition of lines I haven’t attempted to do fuller biographies for obvious reasons. For a few of the counsel's I’ve just listed their occupation as general details aren’t particularly relevant.


Commissioners.


Earl Warren - A Republican but a Liberal one. He helped a decision to be passed proclaiming segregation in schools to be against the constitution amongst many other rulings, like ones protecting the rights of those suspected of crime. Definitely a progressive. Warren said of Kennedy: “ "no American during my long life ever set his sights higher for a better America or centered his attacks more accurately on the evils and shortcomings of our society than did [Kennedy]”

The head of the Commission both liked and admired Kennedy.

> I can see no evidence of any ‘hatred’ for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Richard Russell - An supporter of segregation and a believer in White Supremacy without doubt, although it appears that he’d often attacked ‘race-baiting’ and people that knew him believed that he bore black people no ill-will and didn’t believe in violence toward them. That said, this doesn’t change the fact of his racist views and no one can excuse them. So he was certainly on the opposite side to Kennedy on Civil Rights. It’s possible to disagree with someone without hating them of course. He initially refused to serve on the Committee because of his low opinion of Earl Warren due to his anti-segregation beliefs.

> I can see no evidence of any ‘hatred’ for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

John Sherman-Cooper - A Republican and so on the other side of the political divide to JFk. After Kennedy was elected though he chose Cooper for secret fact-finding missions to Moscow and Delhi to find out how those two countries saw the administration. He was against any escalation in Vietnam and so was critical of Johnson. In his earlier career he supported a movement to prevented judges stepping in to end strike action by injunction which doesn’t speak of a hardline right-winger. He was even criticised by his own party for not voting with them often enough, he told them that he represented his constituents not them. He was a close friend of Nehru and also maintained a friendship with Kennedy after they had served together on a Labour Committee.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy. It appears that they were friends.

Hale Boggs - A Democrat who voted in favour of the Civil Rights Act. Hardly a dumb follower of the nations institutions as in 1971 on the floor of the house he denounced the FBI and called for Hoover to resign. He claimed that the FBI had him under surveillance. It has even been suggested by conspiracy theorists that it was actually Boggs who persuaded Garrison to re-open his investigation.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Allen Dulles - Was fired from his position at the CIA by JFK.

There appears to be little doubt the Dulles disliked Kennedy. But it’s a long way from ‘disliking’ to covering up a conspiracy to murder the President.

John J. McCloy - A Republican Party supporter. He supported the ending of segregation in the US military after initially being for it. Served as an advisor to 5 Presidents including Kennedy. Doesn’t sound like much of a ‘Kennedy hater.’

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Gerald Ford - A Republican of course. Voted in favour of the Civil Rights Act and was considered a moderate on most issues.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)


Counsels


J. Lee Rankin - A Republican. He also acted to desegregate schools.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Francis W. H. Adams - Lawyer.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Joseph A. Ball - Lawyer.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

David W. Belin - Jewish. Philanthropist. Well respected.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

William Thaddeus Coleman Jnr - A Republican African American. Worked in Civil Rights for the NAACP.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Melvin A. Eisenberg - Lawyer.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Burt W. Griffin - A US attorney.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Leon D. Hubert - New Orleans Lawyer.

>I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Albert E. Jenner Jnr - Lawyer from Chicago

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Wesley J. Liebeler - Law Professor.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Norman Redlich - US Lawyer.

Did work on ensuring prisoners who didn’t have the money to get legal assistance. Worked on the Emergency Civil Liberty Committee. Chairman of the American Jewish Congress. No hardline right-winger here.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

W. David Slawson - Denver Lawyer.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Arlen Specter - US Lawyer/ Democrat (although he became a Republican in 1965)

Jewish. Recommended to work on the WC by Ford. Voted in favour of Civil Rights. Voted to increase the minimum wage. Supported the ‘pathway to citizenship’ program. Helped introduce legislation on the invasion of people’s privacy by government. Hardly a ‘Kennedy hater.’

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Samuel A. Stern - Lawyer.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

Howard P. Willens - Lawyer. RFL appointed him second assistant Attorney General in the criminal division. Worked on the commission investigating Jimmy Hoffa. Democrat. After RFK’s death he voted for the first African American to be nominated for President.

> I can see no evidence of any hatred for Kennedy from what I’ve read. (If such evidence [as opposed to assumptions or rumour] can be produced…)

….


Of all of the Counsel’s and Commissioners we can say for a pretty sure fact that Dulles didn’t like Kennedy because of their past history. Russell was an obvious racist and so might not have liked Kennedy’s due to his views on Civil Rights but can we really say that he actively dislike him enough to cover up his murder? He was friend of Johnson’s and it was Johnson that signed off the Civil Rights act. He didn’t hate Johnson.

It’s the easiest thing to give opinions based on wish-thinking and assumption. The ‘big bad’ Warren Commission has become a cliché that gets parroted far too often. It’s simply conspiracy theorist stars tactic of mudslinging. Say something often enough and people that know no better will come to assume it to be true when it’s very clearly not. We have no actual evidence that I can see of this commission being full of, or even containing, anyone that hated Kennedy so much that they would betray their country and risk their own reputations to deliberately cover up a conspiracy to kill the him.

I know that we mock the idea of patriotism these days but it really did mean something people in those days. This isn’t naïveté on my part. It’s a simple truth. And if any of these people are to be accused of this kind of thing then I think they at least deserve the decency of having some real evidence presented of it and not just the false assumptions of those with an obvious agenda. And no…errors and omissions don’t count. You can find these in any case so how much more would we expect to find in a case this complex? We also have to consider, as commissioners and counsels did, that they came up against the CIA and FBI who will fight tooth and nail to guard their secrets..whether it was for what they believed was the national interests or simply to cover up their own shortcomings. Is it that much of a surprise that these two organisations, who had both had dealings with Oswald (the FBI was watching him of course) wanted to distance themselves from the possibility of these two very damaging questions (and more) “how is it that you knew of this traitor, you knew that he was trying to go back to the Soviet Union, you knew of his background and yet he went on to kill Kennedy with the Secret Service never being told that this man was not just in Dallas but was working along the motorcade route (as it was standard practice to do).” And “If you hadn’t dropped the ball might not the President still be alive today?” Could there have been any greater reason for them to put up the shutters. Nothing to do with a conspiracy.

The trope of the ‘corrupt Warren Commission’ doesn’t become true with repetition. The fact is that we have zero evidence that might lead us to believe that this group of people would have acted as it is alleged. If we took this attitude on any other subject there would be nothing that wasn’t evidence of a conspiracy. The ‘corrupt Warren Commission’ is as hollow a bleat now as it was in 1963.

[c.d.]

I’m not posting for debate anymore...

So glad to hear that. I thought for a moment that just when you thought you had gotten out they managed to pull you back in. But since your post was not for debate....

c.d.