JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[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?)

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 .

Why are you getting so angry Fishy. I’m not ‘squabbling’ as you describe it. I’m simply asking questions and making points as per a forum. That they are questions that you don’t like can hardly be blamed on me. Unless you want to submit a list of questions that you are prepared to respond to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

You are the one claiming to know that evidence is coming to prove conspiracy. I just asked how you could know that which seems like a highly pertinent question under the circumstances. If you have inside information that the rest of us don’t have I’m sure that, whatever ‘side’ were on we would all love to hear it.

Because there was never a trial as Oswald escaped justice the only ‘trial’ based thing that we have available (apart from the HSCA of course who also found Oswald guilty) is the ‘mock trial.’ Using witnesses that both would be considered as supporting conspiracy and lone gunman. Cyril Wecht gave evidence btw. Oswald was found guilty as you know. So unless you believe that they were basing the trial on some imaginary evidence alone it is as it is. However angry that might make you.

[cobalt]

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

They certainly don't. It is obviously easier to assassinate one person rather than four or five. Especially when you build in the complication of kidnapping, unscathed, the real target. These attackers escaped not just with their weapons and undetected at the time, but with their quarry.

When an actual political assassination has been carried out with military efficiency- the very thing the WC supporters allude to as lacking in the JFK case - then they presumably object on the grounds that it cannot be compared because it was more difficult! I think this is what is called as 'undermining your own case.'

Forget semantics about who was killed in Rome and Cologne back in the late 1970s. Nine men lost their lives in two separate attacks. Are the WC apologists suggesting that the BR and the RAF failed to kill Moro and Schleyer during the initial attack, through incompetence, and then decided to a month later? It's just about possible they are.

Our WC armchair experts on assassination are not required. The JFK assassins (numbers unknown) got it lethally right on the day, as did BR (11)and the RAF (6.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?)

Evidence for conspiracy that isn’t strongly disputed by experts.

Evidence that a group of powerful, high level conspirators could act like village idiots in planning the murder of the worlds most powerful man.