JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

The lies of the Warren Report.

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

More selective quoting by your "source".

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were---that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142--whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?
Mr. CADIGAN. I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. CADIGAN. And I couldn't find any such markings.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any absence of markings or absence of bulges or absence of creases which would cause you to say that the rifle was not carried in the paper bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is whether it had been wrapped or not wrapped?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is something I can't say.
Mr. DULLES. Would the scratches indicate there was a hard object inside the bag, as distinct from a soft object that would make no abrasions or scratches?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you were to characterize it that way, yes. I mean there were a few scratches here. What caused them, I can't say. A hard object; yes. Whether that hard object was part of a gun----

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I won’t be responding to any responses that might be made c.d.

[c.d.]

I won’t be responding to any responses that might be made c.d.

Yes, and I have decided to give up drinking beer.

Stay strong in your fight, my friend.

c.d.

[scottnapa]

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 could 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.

e 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 noThere other autopsy of a murder victim was ever held outside Dallas when the murder was committed there.
d]c
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,, e
OneRound

Thank you for yiur response. Thank you for quoting me to me.
It is a simple or as complicated as one wants.
One, the chain of evidence is broken, it ceases to be evidence. As I say, remember the OJ trial.
WC apologists are used to engaging with everyone who criticizes the mediocre autopsy. and so there is a knee jerk reaction to defend the autopsy.
.
"probably impossible to be absolutely certain as to what the judge would have done"
Your notion of certainly is not true. The confrontation with Dr Rose and the secret service on exiting the hospital, is clea r that Rose thinks this death has to treated like any other murder and the SS demanding that exceptions be made, as this is the President. While
did.
"On November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas, Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President John F. Kennedy. During this time, Earl F. Rose was the medical examiner for Dallas County and he was in hils office when Kennedy was brought into the Parkland Memorial Hospital Emergency Room. Rose immediately went to the ER because this death was a homicide, and medicolegal considerations took priority for the future trial. At this time, the federal government had no criminal jurisdiction over murder, even the murder of the president, so this was a matter of the state, meaning the courts of Texas had exclusive jurisdiction over this matter."
The US government in response to the clusterfudge at the Dallas hospital, passed a law in 1964 to address this issue and make the killing of aPresident a federal crime so that it would have jurisdiction. The reason pass this bill is do solve the issues the caused by the exit of the body and a plethora of other crimes that might be needed in the future. kidnapping, etc. Now the Federal government has jurisdiction. In 1963 it did not. State of Texas
United States Code: Presidential Assassination, Kidnaping, and Assault, 18 U.S.C. § 1751 (Suppl. 2 1964).

https://www.loc.gov/item/uscode1964-016018084/

[scottnapa]

The files are released.
On the home front, I have new Kennedy documents.
My housemate saw my jfk pages on the kitchen table and she told me her grandfather in Baton Rouge was an ex-police officer who nvestigated the assassination of Kennedy in Louisiana. He met with Marguerite Oswald, who gave him a picture of Lee Oswald.
It is an interesting emotions touching something historical. (One year in Dallas, the owner of Jack Ruby's pistol handed to me to hold under the table, because he understood emotional it is to hold history. Even if it is regrettable history.)

[scottnapa]

More from Joe Cooper --
The car crash had the family thinking conspiracy. He dies later of a gunshot would to the head.
Interestingly, the family is divided, just are we are on this forum. Half the family is for conspiracy and half the family for lone nut.

I have made efforts in my posts to introduce quotes from books most would not have read,
Robert Oswald's book, the Making of the President 1964, Secrets from the 6th floor, with the hope there would be interesting new things to discuss.

Sadly that is not what is happening. The disrespect shown to each other is tiresome.
I see very little curiosity in the conversations online, it's mostly game of fools vs liars.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, and I have decided to give up drinking beer.

Stay strong in your fight, my friend.

c.d.

[A P Tomlinson]

Have you got a source for these alleged eight metteing between the FBI and Jack Ruby?

I can start with the big one...
HSCA Document: F-586, (its round about the page 200 mark in Volume 5) its his PCI record form, that includes the date he was signed up (March 1st 1959) along with the added, "...advice he was not to consider himself an employee of the FBI, and he was not to contact the Dallas Department personally" (the following section is "Arrangements for Payment" where it is noted that he had it explained to him that any money forthcoming was to be considered as taxable income.) That form includes a follow up date of the 11th March.
Following that in the HSCA report are a number of further action memos on criminal activities and instructions to contact "Jack Ruby" "Jack Leon Ruby" and "Jack Leon Ruby, PCI" culminating in the 6 Nov 1959 memo stating that he was essentially a bit of a waste of time and effort, and to cut him loose.

This has been around since the HSCA, the Church Committee dug a lot of this up when it was investigating the general level of skullduggery the FBI and CIA had been up to, and as more and more shady JFK crap came to the surface they expanded the investigation to accommodate it.

[Fiver]

The lies of the Warren Report.

#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 )

There are three civilian witnesses that Oswald pulled a gun on the police.

George Jefferson Applin, Jr. He worked at a service station.
"this boy took a swing at the officer and then the next thing I could see was this boy had his arm around the officer's left shoulder and had a pistol in his hand. I heard the pistol snap at least once."

Johnny Calvin Brewer. he was assistant manager at a shoe store.
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.

John Gibson. He managed a camera store.
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. GIBSON. Well, he had this pistol in his hand.

So where is the lie?

[Fiver]

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".

So you believe in a Conspiracy that:
* Couldn't tell a 7.65 Mauser from a 6.5 Carcano.
* Planted the wrong rifle in the TSBD.
* Gave several police officers the chance to see the wrong rifle.
* Let the police take photos of the wrong rifle.
* Let the police eject a round from the wrong rifle.
* Let the police dust the wrong rifle for prints at the scene.
* Let the police record the serial number for the wrong rifle at the scene.
* Let the police scratch "J. C. Day" on the stock of the wrong rifle at the scene.
* Let the news take film of the wrong rifle at the scene.
* Let multiple newspapers take still photos of the wrong rifle as it was being taken out of the TSBD.
* Managed to switch rifles without anyone noticing.
* Managed to switch the ejected bullet without anyone noticing.

And you think that's more credible than three police officers who glanced at the rifle might have been mistaken?

[Patrick Differ]

First of all I guess I should have clarified who on the WC hated Kennedys guts so for the record it would be Dulles ( the real Power in the CIA ), Hoover ( FBI) and LBJ. The Republicans and Democrats then as now had opposing views and Agendas. Civil Rights was being changed by MLK more than either Party. To think Republicans were fond of Kennedy is naive. The American South was very different back then but Republicans were ultra conservative. Not Liberal like Kennedy.

I would add General Curtis LeMay and the MOB to the list of Kennedy haters. These were powerful forces at work at that time and they ALL benefited significantly from Kennedys murder. The relationship between the CIA and the MOB was disturbing. Oswald was known because of his defection to Russia and work in New Orleans. The Feds knew him and the FBI kept some track of his movements.

Curtis LeMay was the poster boy for the Military Industrial Complex. He was behind the Carpet Bombing of Japan in WW2 and was all for using Nukes against N.Korea in that conflict. After Kennedy was murdered he and LBJ escalated Vietnam into yet another major War. LBJ and LeMays cronies at Halliburton were big winners in the Vietnam War and every War since.

I stand by my distrust of that government and their conclusions based on probabilities at the time. Therefore I fall on the side of " show us everything". I am very skeptical about the Leaders who were behind the WC. Specter only gets attention in my view because of his single bullet theory. A theory that does not appear to match the Zapruder film. If Kennedy showed a reaction at Frame 225 for example, why didn't Connally? It was a high velocity jacketed bullet. Or maybe my eyes are bad.

Will there be any revelations in the 80000 new documents? One I heard today was that if the CIA and FBI knew about Oswald well before the murder. That is confirmed. Did they screw up by not keeping track of Oswald or was he a Patsy. Seems odd that they would lose the fact that Oswald was in the Book Depository and then 30 minutes after the assassination have a full APB on the guy.

What did Oswald say in the Dallas jail? " they knew I lived in the Soviet Union". They who? FBI,CIA?

in truth I would have no interest in the bit players on the WC. I guess their biographies interest some people. Did they all hate Kennedy? I guess that was a poor choice of words. But the men in real Power absolutely did !

[Fiver]

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

So you believe in a Conspiracy that:
* Used an automatic instead of a revolver.
* Used an automatic that multiple witnesses did not see eject shells like an automatic.
* Used an automatic that multiple witnesses saw the shooter break open like a revolver.
* Used an automatic that multiple witnesses saw the shooter manually eject spent shells from like a revolver.
* Used an automatic that multiple witnesses saw the shooter manually insert live rounds into like a revolver.
* Left these wrong shells to be collected by random civilians over the course of the next few hours.
* Trusted to blind luck that none of these civilians could tell a .38 auto shell from a .38 revolver shell.
* Let multiple police officers see the wrong shells.
* Let the police mark the wrong shells on site.
* Trusted to blind luck that none of these police could tell a .38 auto shell from a .38 revolver shell.
* Somehow replaced the wrong shells with the right ones without anybody noticing.

And you think that's more credible than one police officer who had been told the shooter had manually reloaded might have misspoken on the radio?

[FISHY1118]

So you believe in a Conspiracy that:
* Used an automatic instead of a revolver.
* Used an automatic that multiple witnesses did not see eject shells like an automatic.
* Used an automatic that multiple witnesses saw the shooter break open like a revolver.
* Used an automatic that multiple witnesses saw the shooter manually eject spent shells from like a revolver.
* Used an automatic that multiple witnesses saw the shooter manually insert live rounds into like a revolver.
* Left these wrong shells to be collected by random civilians over the course of the next few hours.
* Trusted to blind luck that none of these civilians could tell a .38 auto shell from a .38 revolver shell.
* Let multiple police officers see the wrong shells.
* Let the police mark the wrong shells on site.
* Trusted to blind luck that none of these police could tell a .38 auto shell from a .38 revolver shell.
* Somehow replaced the wrong shells with the right ones without anybody noticing.

And you think that's more credible than one police officer who had been told the shooter had manually reloaded might have misspoken on the radio?

Your playing the "why would they ,why wouldn't they" game again fiver . It does work.

Your missing the point of the entire debate. !!! "Clue" below , see if you can work it out , its not hard

Ive given you the facts "on the day" of the assassination from dozens of witnesses who contradicts the w.c.findings.

There is so much more, so stand by ,the next one a gem .

[Fiver]

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

So you believe in a Conspiracy that:
* Got Ginny Randle to initially identify the package as about 3 feet long.
* Created a fake package big enough to hold the rifle.
* And was able to plant Oswald's prints on the fake package.
* And was able to plant fiber evidence on the fake package.
* And was get Oswald to take a package of curtain rods to the TSBD on the right day.
* And was able to get Oswald to leave the TSBD without his curtain rods.
* And was able to disappear the curtain rods without anyone noticing.
* But wasn't smart enough to tell a 38" package from one that was 27".

And that's more credible to you than a man who said "I didn't pay much attention" nine different times in his testimony, might have misjudged the size of the package?

[FISHY1118]

So you believe in a Conspiracy that:
* Got Ginny Randle to initially identify the package as about 3 feet long.
* Created a fake package big enough to hold the rifle.
* And was able to plant Oswald's prints on the fake package.
* And was able to plant fiber evidence on the fake package.
* And was get Oswald to take a package of curtain rods to the TSBD on the right day.
* And was able to get Oswald to leave the TSBD without his curtain rods.
* And was able to disappear the curtain rods without anyone noticing.
* But wasn't smart enough to tell a 38" package from one that was 27".

And that's more credible to you than a man who said "I didn't pay much attention" nine different times in his testimony, might have misjudged the size of the package?

You you believe in the Warren Conspiracy that show the fake autopsy photos of the back of jfks head all intact?

"Clue" . Parkland Doctors. Clint Hill, Jackie Kennedy, Audrey Bell ,that say otherwise.

The warren commission lied . Its as simple as that .

The fact that you and other dismiss the above as liars is deplorable.