JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just in case anyone isn’t aware of how the Warren Commission was set up. It was agreed that the case should be split up into 6 areas of investigation with each area having a senior and junior lawyer working full-time on it. Except for area 6 which was a one man show. They also had a staff of experts to help them.

Area 1 - To create a timeline between Kennedy leaving the White House on the 21st and his casket arriving back there.

Senior Lawyer - Francis Adams.
Junior Lawyer - Arlen Specter.

Area 2 - To test and assess the evidence for Oswald’s guilt.

Senior Lawyer - Joseph Ball.
Junior Lawyer - David Bellin.

Area 3 - An investigation into Oswald’s life and background.

Senior Lawyer - Albert Jenner.
Junior Lawyer - Wesley J. Liebeler.

Area 4 - An investigation into the possibility of conspiracy (focusing mainly on Russia and Cuba)

Senior Lawyer - William Coleman.
Junior Lawyer - David Slawson.

Area 5 - To investigate Jack Ruby and to search for any links between him and Oswald.

Senior Lawyer - Leon Hubert.
Junior Lawyer Burt Griffin.

Area 6 - To examine the quality of the protection given to the President and to examine the history of law enforcement protection.

Senior Lawyer - Samuel Stern, working alone.


Then they had 11 staff member with specific areas of expertise to undertake various tasks. For example, Alfred Goldberg was an Airforce historian. Richard M. Mosk provided a report on Oswald’s marksmanship and a study of his reading habits. Edward A. Conroy and John J. O’Brien were tax agents looking into Oswald’s finances. Norman Redlich was Rankin’s chief deputy who set himself the task of reading every single document to decide which areas required them.

It’s also worthy mentioning that William Coleman was a black man who worked closely with Martin Luther King so hardly the kind of man who would be asked to join a corrupt commission performing a cover-up over the murder of the president that was pushing for civil rights.

This simply wasn’t a corrupt commission. It just couldn’t have been set up. Many of these man where absolutely Kennedy-worshippers (including Warren himself) The fact that they were so vocal in their criticisms of the CIA and the FBI proves this. Did they make mistakes….of course they did. No investigation can be anything like perfect. But corrupt….not a chance.

[Aethelwulf]

George showed plenty of that evidence that was clearly right.

It was mostly the material GB posted that I was referring to.

[FISHY1118]

Yes there is though Fishy, an absolute mountain of it. Some of which you and others try to dismiss with words like ‘fake’ an ‘forgery.’ But these things have been examined minutely. For example multiple experts say after examination that there is absolutely no evidence of forgery with the Neely Street photos. I believe that they were also sent to 2 or 3 top university laboratories and all have said that there is zero evidence of forgery. So how can it be a reasoned viewpoint when someone simply refuses to accept the testimony of numerous established experts. This would stand up in any court of law and the photographs were looked at again by experts at the HSCA and they saw no evidence of forgery (and the HSCA certain weren’t WC apologists)

Depends on what evidence you believe in herlock .

You choose the WC, I chose that which contradicts it . So we disagree

Whether it the magic bullet theory , autopsy pics , ZP still pics
there is a mountain of testimony that contradicts the official version by people who were there at the time .

Again I chose them over what you and others have posted .

[FISHY1118]

So you still can’t post a couple Fishy? It can’t be that difficult if there are so many?

I'm just surprised you can't recall any

[FISHY1118]

Good points Fiver

Especially the one about Oswald being allowed to speak in front of TV cameras. Why would conspirators allow that massively risky exercise? They wouldn’t have of course.

The often repeated “I’m just a patsy,” is actually very important imo. As we know, a patsy is simply someone that has been blamed for something that he/she didn’t do. This is confirmed of course by Oswald himself who, in the previous sentence, tells reporters that he’s only been arrested because he’d lived in the Soviet Union. He was simply claiming to have been innocent of the murders of Kennedy and Tippit. But, and this is an important point which CT’s refuse to address, at no point does he ever mention a conspiracy or about anyone else being involved. The game was up…..he was in custody with no chance of rescue or escape….he had the perfect chance in front of the worlds media to spill the beans but does he? Absolutely not, because there were no beans to spill of course. He was overwhelmingly guilt of killing Kennedy alone.

With no evidence to suggest any such thing.

No fingerprints on the rifle ,no eyewitness that claim they saw Oswald on the six floor tsbd at the time Kennedy was shot.

No one who saw Oswald fire any rifle .

Pretty overwhelming stuff .

[FISHY1118]

It was mostly the material GB posted that I was referring to.

I'm sure he say exactly the same thing regarding the evidence posted by you and others who try and use the WC evidence as tru.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm just surprised you can't recall any

And yet you still can’t name any….5 posts later?

[Herlock Sholmes]

With no evidence to suggest any such thing.

No fingerprints on the rifle ,no eyewitness that claim they saw Oswald on the six floor tsbd at the time Kennedy was shot.

No one who saw Oswald fire any rifle .

Pretty overwhelming stuff .

Why do you reduce debate with post like this Fishy? What’s the point? Oswald’s prints were found on the gun and the boxes. Fibres from his shirt were found on the gun. The orders forms for the rifle and the revolver were in Oswald’s handwriting. These facts alone would be enough to convict in any court of law and they can’t just be dismissed by casual calls of ‘forgery,’ evidence of forgery has to be presented and it hasn’t. The fact that evidence doesn’t conform to a theory isn’t evidence of forgery.

The evidence for Oswald alone isn’t just overwhelming it’s conclusive.

[FISHY1118]

Why do you reduce debate with post like this Fishy? What’s the point? Oswald’s prints were found on the gun and the boxes. Fibres from his shirt were found on the gun. The orders forms for the rifle and the revolver were in Oswald’s handwriting. These facts alone would be enough to convict in any court of law and they can’t just be dismissed by casual calls of ‘forgery,’ evidence of forgery has to be presented and it hasn’t. The fact that evidence doesn’t conform to a theory isn’t evidence of forgery.

The evidence for Oswald alone isn’t just overwhelming it’s conclusive.

I'll tell you the point herlock , because the FBI own report confirms they could not identify Oswald prints on the rifle the day after the assassination. Period. Everything evidence wise regarding fingerprints and LHO after this should be treated as suspicious. . This was shown on this thread already..

[FISHY1118]

And yet you still can’t name any….5 posts later?

Which you obviously have chosen to ignore on this thread already. No problem your choice.

[FISHY1118]

I find it totally ironic that this thread has now proceeded to evolve into a carbon copy of the "John Richardson " thread.

Where as 1000s of post back and forth over several months have led back to the start where posters are continually asking for what has already been discussed at length on multiple accassions.

I for one don't wish to be dragged down that rabbit hole again , suffice to say my stance on this topic which is clear to everyone is that the WC report is clearly at odds with actual eyewitness testimony from people who where there on that day, whos evidence directly contradicts the WC findings.

People who evidence was never admitted or called upon to give testimony to the WC.

Proven evidence i might add on this thread already submitted that confirms the WC was wrong in its lone gunman theory .

I'll simply repeat my reasoning for this

For the WC to be 100 per cent correct and Oswald according to many was the man who shot and killed both Kennedy and officer Tippit, required ever person who ever gave evidence direct to the contrary of this was of the opinion of the WC apologist

1 , A Liar
2 Was mistaken
3 DIdnt exist
4 Was an idiot and a moron.

What are the odds of that happening?

A list of these name has already been given,and its a biggggg list .

I will continue to submitted any new material that supports LHO innocence as I see fit ,what I won't do is entertain futile discussion from any poster who simply want to engage in a merry-go-round dialog for their own satisfaction just for the sake of argument.
.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll tell you the point herlock , because the FBI own report confirms they could not identify Oswald prints on the rifle the day after the assassination. Period. Everything evidence wise regarding fingerprints and LHO after this should be treated as suspicious. . This was shown on this thread already..

You really should try reading the evidence Fishy. The police found prints straight away and before the FBI even got a look, but the method that they used involved taking off the prints using tape. This caused the prints to be removed/damaged by the time that the FBI got to look at the rifle. Ordinarily this wouldn’t have been an issue because once the police checked fingerprints in a criminal case they wouldn’t hand them on to someone else. All of this is on record and indisputable Fishy. What you have done, and you’re not alone on this, is to go with Oliver Stone who deliberately reversed things by trying to show that the police didn’t find prints and then the FBI ‘miraculously’ did.

We have to go with evidence and not opinion Fishy and the evidence could be clearer. The police found prints as soon as they checked for them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I find it totally ironic that this thread has now proceeded to evolve into a carbon copy of the "John Richardson " thread.

Where as 1000s of post back and forth over several months have led back to the start where posters are continually asking for what has already been discussed at length on multiple accassions.

I for one don't wish to be dragged down that rabbit hole again , suffice to say my stance on this topic which is clear to everyone is that the WC report is clearly at odds with actual eyewitness testimony from people who where there on that day, whos evidence directly contradicts the WC findings.

People who evidence was never admitted or called upon to give testimony to the WC.

Proven evidence i might add on this thread already submitted that confirms the WC was wrong in its lone gunman theory .

I'll simply repeat my reasoning for this

For the WC to be 100 per cent correct and Oswald according to many was the man who shot and killed both Kennedy and officer Tippit, required ever person who ever gave evidence direct to the contrary of this was of the opinion of the WC apologist

1 , A Liar
2 Was mistaken
3 DIdnt exist
4 Was an idiot and a moron.

What are the odds of that happening?

A list of these name has already been given,and its a biggggg list .

I will continue to submitted any new material that supports LHO innocence as I see fit ,what I won't do is entertain futile discussion from any poster who simply want to engage in a merry-go-round dialog for their own satisfaction just for the sake of argument.
.

There’s nothing ironic about it Fishy. You were made a claim. I asked for evidence. You refused point blank to provide it (claiming that it had already been posted) I said I was unaware of this and asked you to take a few seconds to pot them for me to examine. You again refused using the weakest and most unbelievable of excuse.

Rather than taking one minute to provide an answer (which is what this forum is for after all) you come up with the above to try and hide your very obvious embarrassment at being caught out and unable to provide evidence.

……

Your reasoning is hardly the stuff of Sherlock Holmes is it?

Your list of names to which you would apply your 1, 2, 3, 4 points to amount to nothing because I could provide you with a much longer list to which the same points would have to be applied. The difference is of course that I can back every single point up with evidence. Something which I’ve never known you to do.

I will continue to submitted any new material that supports LHO innocence as I see fit ,what I won't do is entertain futile discussion from any poster who simply want to engage in a merry-go-round dialog for their own satisfaction just for the sake of argument.

This speaks volumes Fishy. You only wish to listen to evidence that you think supports an innocent Oswald. What you are quite obviously showing is that you cannot debate this case because you know next-to-nothing about it except for what you have learned by watching the Oliver Stone fantasy.

So….no problem Fishy……I have no desire either to debate the case with you. You know nothing about it and refuse to back up any points with evidence, then you try and change the subject when time and time again you are given the very simple chance to provide evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Which you obviously have chosen to ignore on this thread already. No problem your choice.

Youve made 6 posts now. Posting a couple of examples would have taken one minute but you can’t. As an alternative you expect me to trawl back through 2000 posts. Yeah right.

Point proven….no evidence given….I can move on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ll just take the time to re-iterate a few facts purely because it’s so staggering that these can be dismissed and ignored.

We know from Oswald’s wife the she took photographs of him with the rifle and the revolver. Those photographs have been proven genuine by multiple experts. We know that Michael Paine saw one in April and that one was found in the possessions of George de Mohrenschildt 15 years after the assassination with a message on the back written by Oswald (handwriting verified by experts)

We know from Oswald’s wife that he owned a rifle and that he kept it in Ruth Paine’s garage and that it was missing on the afternoon of the assassination. Marine said this numerous times over the years and only came to deny it around 40 years later when conspiracy theorists had gotten hold of her and convinced her that there was money to be made from jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon.

We know that for the very first time ever Oswald unexpectedly turned up at the Paine’s on the Thursday rather than on the Friday as he’d done on every single previous occasion.

We know from two witnesses that Oswald told a ridiculous, easily disprovable lie about curtain rods (which provably never existed)

We know for a fact that Oswald ordered the rifle and the revolver and that this ‘innocent’ man was carrying cards in his wallet in the name of Hidell.

We know for a fact that Oswald did no work on the 6th floor that morning.

We know that no one else was on the 6th floor and no strangers were seen in the building.

We know from scientific evidence that the rifle was the one that killed Kennedy.

We know from Oswald’s record that he was easily a competent enough shot to have killed Kennedy.

We know from scientific evidence that Oswald’s prints were found and one of them was in such a position as could only have come from someone that had assembled the rifle.

We know from scientific evidence that the shell casings were from Oswald’s gun.

We know that fibres found on the gun matched exactly Oswald’s shirt.

We know for a fact that Oswald fled the scene.

We know for a fact that he took an unnecessarily convoluted route back to his rooming house and that he deliberately got his taxi driver to drop him 300 yards or so away.

We know for a fact that he picked up his revolver.

We know for a fact that he killed Tippit. Science identified his weapon as the weapon used and he was identified by far more than would be required by any jury.

We know for a fact that he pulled a gun on Officer MacDonald and assaulted him.

We know that after he was arrested he never mentioned a conspiracy. Even on TV when he made his ‘patsy’ comment he still didn’t mention a conspiracy.

We know for a fact that Jack Ruby simply couldn’t have planned to kill Oswald.

We know for a fact that Ruby was absolutely explicit in private and in public that he operated alone. He even pleaded for a lie detector test so that he could proved.

How could this man possibly have been innocent? It’s neither possible nor credible.


I could post 10 times as much. CT’s simply have “oh, it’s a fake,” with nothing to back that up, or witnesses who say one thing then later start ‘remembering all manner of nonsense. We could compile a huge list of their witnesses with evidence of error or outright lies.

And finally we have to recall which side of the debate is responsible for the wacko theories. I think that we all know the answer to that one?

The evidence shows that Oswald was guilty. The ongoing problem on here is that conspiracy theorists simply will not debate properly or answer questions. Those on the lone gunman side address all points and back their own points up with evidence. A perfect example of this problem is Fishy’s recent posts which I’d challenge anyone to read honestly and disagree with my point. All that he was asked for was a couple of examples of the point that he was making for me to comment on. He made 6 posts simply avoiding doing this. This proving the baseless nature of the original claim. There is no possible chance of reasonable debate and the blame for this lies 100% at the feet of the conspiracists side.