The Warren Commission's Objectives
David Von Pein
Many conspiracy theorists believe that the Warren Commission was created
merely to "cover up" the truth about President Kennedy's assassination.
And some conspiracists also believe that Earl Warren's Commission, in
effect, framed the late Lee Harvey Oswald for the murders of both Kennedy
and policeman J.D. Tippit, with those particular conspiracy theorists
believing that the Warren Commission knew full well that Oswald was
totally innocent of both of those murders, but the Commission decided to
conclude in its final report that Oswald was guilty of those crimes and
that he had acted alone.
To the conspiracy theorists who possess such a nonsensical mindset, I
offer up the following excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming
History". And after reading these book excerpts, a good question to then
ask CTers would be this one----
Is this how the Warren Commission would have behaved if the MAIN
OBJECTIVE of the members of that Commission was to rubber-stamp the
"Oswald Did It Alone" conclusion reached by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation in the FBI's 12/9/63 report on the assassination? .....
"The purposes of the Warren Commission, as stated in the executive
order, were "to examine the evidence developed by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and any additional evidence that may hereafter come to light
or be uncovered by Federal or State authorities; to make such further
investigation as the Commission finds desirable; to evaluate all the facts
and circumstances surrounding such assassination, including the subsequent
violent death of the man charged with the assassination, and to report to
me [President Lyndon B. Johnson] its findings and conclusions."
"Although accurate, there are indications that a secondary task was
expected. It was apparent, at least to Chief Justice Warren and President
Johnson, that rumors and speculation had to be quelled.
"Staff counsel Norman Redlich believed that allaying public fears
was "a byproduct of the principal objective which was to discover all the
facts."
"There was an additional, humanly selfish motive for getting at the
truth too. Staff counsel Burt Griffin recalled, "I think it is fair to
say, and it certainly reflects my feeling, and it was certainly the
feeling that I had of all of my colleagues, that we were determined, if we
could, to prove the FBI was wrong, to find a conspiracy if we possibly
could. I think we thought we would be national heroes in a sense if we
could find something sinister beyond what appeared to have gone on." ....
"On December 9 [1963], the FBI submitted a 384-page, five-volume
report (one volume dealing with the assassination, one with Ruby's killing
of Oswald, and three volumes of exhibits) to the Warren Commission
summarizing the bureau's entire investigation to date, and concluding that
Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone.
"At its next meeting, on December 16, after Supreme Court justice
Stanley F. Reed administered an oath to all its members, the Commission
set about to determine the scope of the investigation.
"The first order of business was to consider the FBI's summary
report. "Well, gentlemen," the chief justice said to his fellow Commission
members, "I have read that report two or three times and I have not seen
anything in there yet that has not been in the press." ....
"But that wasn't the biggest problem. It was the obvious deficiency
of the report, mostly attributable, Warren said, to the fact that "they
[FBI] put this thing together very fast."
"Representative Hale Boggs pointed out that, remarkably, "There's
nothing in [the report] about Governor Connally."
"Senator John Cooper: "And whether or not they found any bullets in
him." After reading the report, John McCloy said that "this bullet
business leaves me confused."
""It's totally inconclusive," opined Chief Justice Warren.
Representative Gerald Ford: "[The report] was interesting to read but it
did not have the depth that it ought to have."
"There were so many unanswered questions. For instance,
Representative Boggs observed, "There is still little on this fellow Ruby,
including his movements, what he was doing, how he got in there [City Hall
basement garage]." ....
"Talking about the issue of precisely what took place among the
occupants of the presidential limousine at the time of the shooting,
Warren said, "I wonder if the report we get from the Secret Service
wouldn't pretty much clear that up...They were there, right at the car,
and know exactly what happened."
"Representative Boggs: "Well, this FBI report doesn't clear it up."
Warren: "It doesn't do anything." Boggs: "It raises a lot of new questions
in my mind."
"General Counsel Rankin summed up the feelings of practically all of
the Commission members when he noted that "the report has so many holes in
it. Anybody can look at it and see that it just doesn't seem like they're
looking for things that this Commission has to look for in order to get
the answers that it wants and it's entitled to."
"Very momentously, it was during this December 16 session that the
Commission decided it could not rely solely on the FBI report or reports
from any of the other federal agencies either.
""After studying this [FBI] report," Chief Justice Warren said,
"unless we have the raw materials [i.e., interviews, affidavits,
recordings, photographs, etc.] that went into the making of the report and
have an opportunity to examine those raw materials and make our own
appraisal, any appraisal of this report would be [worth] little or
nothing."
"Warren went on to move "that the Commission request at once from
all investigative agencies and departments of the Government the raw
materials on which their reports to the Commission are based," and his
motion was seconded and adopted.
"The FBI, which would end up doing a monumental amount of very
detailed investigation into the assassination, had failed its first test,
badly.
"In addition to the commissioners wanting to see and appraise the
"raw materials" so they could determine the legitimacy of the conclusions
in the reports from the federal agencies, they decided that among the
commission staff there had to be a lawyer of high caliber who, as Senator
Russell said, "would take this FBI report and this CIA report and go
through it and analyze every contradiction and every soft spot in it...as
if [in the case of an FBI report] he were going to use them to prosecute
J. Edgar Hoover." "I agree with you one hundred percent," Warren said.
....
"The commissioners...left no doubt that they themselves were in a
very investigative mood." -- Pages 326 and 329-331 of Vincent Bugliosi's
"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"
(c.2007)
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b5a929e16d0a29b5
===============================
ADDENDUM:
The Warren Commission's David W. Belin mirrored Burt Griffin's comments in
Belin's 1973 book:
"In those days immediately following the tragedy, I felt it was
highly probable that there was a conspiracy, that Lee Harvey Oswald might
not be the real assassin, despite the claims of the FBI, and that Ruby had
killed Oswald to silence his victim. ....
"The susceptibility of human nature to the mystique of conspiracy
afforded a fertile field for assassination sensationalists. Through
misrepresentation, omission and innuendo, they were successful in
deceiving a large body of world public opinion for one reason: Few people
objectively examined the overall evidence in depth the way a jury would,
had there been an actual trial. ....
"We started with no "foregone conclusions"; in fact, I
subconsciously wanted to find evidence to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was
NOT the assassin. ....
"At no time have we [Joe Ball and David Belin] assumed that Lee
Harvey Oswald was the assassin of President Kennedy. Rather, our entire
study has been based on an independent examination of all of the evidence
in an effort to determine who was the assassin of President Kennedy." --
David Belin; Pages 4 and 15 of "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury"
(c.1973)
www.You-Are-The-Jury.blogspot.com
If I could travel back to late 1963 and early 1964 in a time machine, one
of the things I would be most anxious to do would be to sit in on a few of
the executive sessions of the Warren Commission (in a "fly on the wall"
manner), just to hear for myself what was being discussed (even "off the
record") during those Commission meetings.
And if such "fly on the wall" eavesdropping on the WC could be
accomplished in a handy time machine, I have a feeling that every single
bogus cloud of suspicion that many conspiracy theorists have decided to
hang over the heads of the entire Warren Commission would evaporate very
quickly.
And the reason that such suspicions would disappear in very quick order is
because Griffin and Belin were telling the truth -- they really did want
to find a conspiracy. But they couldn't do it....because Oswald really was
the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy and Jack Ruby really was a
second "lone nut" in Dallas in November 1963.
Sometimes things really ARE as they appear to be.
David Von Pein October 28, 2009
WBurg...@aol.com
They faced a very specific dateline and were told, according to Commission
lawyer Wesley Liebler, who was told in late July or so, after trying to
research the Odio incident, "We are supposed to be closing doors, not
opening them."
And please explain how the whole thing was put together, making it
virtually impossible for any lay person to follow or understand. Sure, the
FBI initially handed them crap and then after their initial reaction,
received more detailed crap from both the FBI and the CIA. It was a lot of
crap. And the stuff that's still not released, like Joaniddes and Oswald's
taxes, which might show a payment or two from the CIA or from a certain
dentist which would prove he was not who he said he was, is probably not
crap.
jfk...@gmail.com
GIGO. Live with it.
davidemerling
> If I could travel back to late 1963 and early 1964 in a time machine, one
> of the things I would be most anxious to do would be to sit in on a few of
> the executive sessions of the Warren Commission (in a "fly on the wall"
> manner), just to hear for myself what was being discussed (even "off the
> record") during those Commission meetings.
>
> And if such "fly on the wall" eavesdropping on the WC could be
> accomplished in a handy time machine, I have a feeling that every single
> bogus cloud of suspicion that many conspiracy theorists have decided to
> hang over the heads of the entire Warren Commission would evaporate very
> quickly.
Hell, if I could travel back in time, I'd set the DeLorean to an early
morning hour on November 22, 1963. Of course, I would need the 1.21
million gigawatts of power for the flux-capacitor and have enough
straight-away to get the DeLoreon up to 88mph.
I'd sit outside the Texas School Book Depository and watch Lee Harvey
Oswald walk into the building carrying a long package wrapped in brown
paper and say, "Hey! Wesley Frazier was right. He DID have a long package.
And Frazier was wrong about the way he carried it. And I can see why he
was wrong because Frazier was walking way behind Oswald."
I'd sit outside Dealey Plaza and stroll around and take in the sights. I'd
hangout behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll to see if anybody was
"setting up" back there. And, of course, I would see nothing. I'd just get
a bunch of mud on my shoes because of the early morning rain.
I'd stair up at the 6th floor window and see if anybody was rearranging
any boxes and, of course, I would see Lee Oswald doing the arranging. He
would, on occasion, sheepishly glance out the window to see if anybody was
paying much attention. And, of course, nobody would be. nobody would
notice. Nobody cared. Why would they?
I'd look at my watch and notice that we were getting close to 12:30. I'd
get my digital video camera out and take a seat next to a man wearing a
hardhat. I'd introduce myself to him. He'd introduce himself back to me.
Howard Brennan would be his name.
And then I'd start filming Oswald taking his three shots. They would be
the only shots recorded on the camera. There would no other sounds.
And then I'd jump back into my DeLorean - return to 2009 - and make a
friggin' fortune.
Of course, the conspiracy community would not believe me. They would say
that it is all photographic trickery. But I would have them all killed by
the Terminators from the future who would be programmed to kill not only
them, but anybody named Sarah Connor.
C'mon Dave - you gotta make much better use out of your time machine than
do something as mundane as go back to sit in on a Warren Commission
executive session. Geez! :)
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
>
> Many conspiracy theorists believe that the Warren Commission was created
> merely to "cover up" the truth about President Kennedy's assassination.
>
> And some conspiracists also believe that Earl Warren's Commission, in
> effect, framed the late Lee Harvey Oswald for the murders of both Kennedy
> and policeman J.D. Tippit, with those particular conspiracy theorists
> believing that the Warren Commission knew full well that Oswald was
> totally innocent of both of those murders, but the Commission decided to
> conclude in its final report that Oswald was guilty of those crimes and
> that he had acted alone.
>
Wrong. The Warren Commission really did believe that Oswald was the
shooter. But they also believed that Oswald was working for Castro. THAT
is what they had to cover up.
> To the conspiracy theorists who possess such a nonsensical mindset, I
> offer up the following excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming
> History". And after reading these book excerpts, a good question to then
> ask CTers would be this one----
>
> Is this how the Warren Commission would have behaved if the MAIN
> OBJECTIVE of the members of that Commission was to rubber-stamp the
> "Oswald Did It Alone" conclusion reached by the Federal Bureau of
> Investigation in the FBI's 12/9/63 report on the assassination? .....
>
Hoover did not believe that Oswald was the only one involved. He
believed that Oswald was hired by Castro.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/62346a061fc73921
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/3388bc5f355c5daa
David Emerling,
You wouldn't have any desire to SAVE John Kennedy (via your "time
machine" excursion)? ~wink~
Let me add these possibilities:
In addition to being a fly on the wall during my own personal "time
machine" trip back to 1963 and 1964, I would have also taken a trip to
Irving, Texas, and would have sneaked into Ruth Paine's garage on the
morning of November 21, 1963, to steal Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.
After pilfering the Mannlicher-Carcano, I would then dispose of the
weapon in some manner.
This November 21st rifle heist would have, of course, saved the life
of the 35th U.S. President the following day during his trip to
Dallas.
Mr. Oswald would have been a tad bit peeved when he went into Ruth's
garage and found an empty blanket. But that's just too bad for Lee
Harvey. His next attempted assassination will have to wait until
another day.
Of course, the above Nov. '63 time machine scenario would mean that my
"fly on the wall" eavesdropping on the Warren Commission would never
have any chance of taking place, since the WC would never exist, since
JFK won't be shot in Dealey Plaza.
So, if I had to pick between the two "time machine" choices, I'd have
to go with the rifle-swiping effort.
Another idea --- I could use my time machine to spoil Oswald's
murderous plan in another (very spiteful) manner: I won't steal his
rifle from the Paine garage....but I WILL hide all of Lee's 6.5-mm.
Carcano bullets.
I'll then have an irate Oswald on my hands (once again), as he
searches high and low for those damn bullets and his rifle clip (yes,
I'll take the clip too).
I'm a sneaky little bastard, aren't I? ;)
davidemerling
> DavidEmerling,
>
> You wouldn't have any desire to SAVE John Kennedy (via your "time
> machine" excursion)? ~wink~
No! No! No!
Don't you know ANYTHING about time travel? You can't change the course
of history! It would create a time paradox and destroy mankind.
Kennedy MUST die.
This would be a gross violation of the "Butterfly Effect."
Even the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Nimitz, when it went back in time to
the day *before* the bombing of Pearl Harbor, could not prevent
December 7, 1941 from living in infamy - even with all their modern
firepower at their disposal. ("Final Countdown")
Even Sam couldn't prevent the assassination in that episode of
"Quantum Leap" - no matter how hard he tried. (episode 76, 5th season)
You really need to watch more TV - then you would know these things.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
MSwanberg
Sure woulda' been interesting if the Executive Order said, "we're forming
a commission to cover up the fact that we have no idea what's going on and
we're too afraid to ask any real questions about it."
In the end, what'd you EXPECT it to say?
-Mike
tomnln
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f055c11a-3816-4352...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Clark
> Many conspiracy theorists believe that the Warren Commission was created
> merely to "cover up" the truth about President Kennedy's assassination.
>
> And some conspiracists also believe that Earl Warren's Commission, in
> effect, framed the late Lee Harvey Oswald for the murders of both Kennedy
> and policeman J.D. Tippit, with those particular conspiracy theorists
> believing that the Warren Commission knew full well that Oswald was
> totally innocent of both of those murders, but the Commission decided to
> conclude in its final report that Oswald was guilty of those crimes and
> that he had acted alone.
Are these CTer's who believe the WC knew Oswald "was totally innocent"
posting here?
>
> To the conspiracy theorists who possess such a nonsensical mindset, I
> offer up the following excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming
> History". And after reading these book excerpts, a good question to then
> ask CTers would be this one----
I smell a "straw man" argument. First, we have "many" and "some"
CTer's and, in the next paragraph, it's just "CTers". What happened
to "some"?
It looks to me like you're asking ALL CTers to respond to an argument I
can't find. It would seem to me that you should have posted this in
response to a CTer here who posted the accusation that the WC knew Oswald
was innocent and framed him anyway. That you had to start a new one
suggests to me that you couldn't find such a post.
<SNIP>
>
> "Although accurate, there are indications that a secondary task was
> expected. It was apparent, at least to Chief Justice Warren and President
> Johnson, that rumors and speculation had to be quelled.
The source for this was Nicholas Katzenbach.
<SNIP>
>
> "On December 9 [1963], the FBI submitted a 384-page, five-volume
> report (one volume dealing with the assassination, one with Ruby's killing
> of Oswald, and three volumes of exhibits) to the Warren Commission
> summarizing the bureau's entire investigation to date, and concluding that
> Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone.
Hoover produced this report in order to influence and direct the
Commission's fundings.
In fact, the WC decided it could not rely on the FBI at all. Hoover
had decided "who killed Cock Robin".
>
> "The FBI, which would end up doing a monumental amount of very
> detailed investigation into the assassination, had failed its first test,
> badly.
>
It successfully beat the WC to a published finding. That was it's
goal.
Just a fact.
::Clark::
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 29, 9:01 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Many conspiracy theorists believe that the Warren Commission was created
>> merely to "cover up" the truth about President Kennedy's assassination.
>>
>> And some conspiracists also believe that Earl Warren's Commission, in
>> effect, framed the late Lee Harvey Oswald for the murders of both Kennedy
>> and policeman J.D. Tippit, with those particular conspiracy theorists
>> believing that the Warren Commission knew full well that Oswald was
>> totally innocent of both of those murders, but the Commission decided to
>> conclude in its final report that Oswald was guilty of those crimes and
>> that he had acted alone.
>
> Are these CTer's who believe the WC knew Oswald "was totally innocent"
> posting here?
>
Nope. They knew that Oswald was working for Castro.
Sandy McCroskey
If you say "they knew [not "believed" or "thought"] Oswald was working for
Castro," you are saying you believe it is a fact Oswald was working for
Castro.
And yet you think Richard Helms was behind the assassination. Richard
Helms was working for Castro?
/sm
Clark
> On 11/3/2009 8:56 PM, Clark wrote:
>
> > On Oct 29, 9:01 am, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Many conspiracy theorists believe that the Warren Commission was created
> >> merely to "cover up" the truth about President Kennedy's assassination.
>
> >> And some conspiracists also believe that Earl Warren's Commission, in
> >> effect, framed the late Lee Harvey Oswald for the murders of both Kennedy
> >> and policeman J.D. Tippit, with those particular conspiracy theorists
> >> believing that the Warren Commission knew full well that Oswald was
> >> totally innocent of both of those murders, but the Commission decided to
> >> conclude in its final report that Oswald was guilty of those crimes and
> >> that he had acted alone.
>
> > Are these CTer's who believe the WC knew Oswald "was totally innocent"
> > posting here?
>
> Nope. They knew that Oswald was working for Castro.
>
>
The WC knew Oswald was working for Castro?
Here is Bud's shovel.
Sorry it's so well used.
::Clark::
Anthony Marsh
No, not exactly. Facts change from day to day. For several days after
the assassination everyone in Washington knew for a fact that Oswald was
working for Castro. It wasn't until several days later that they found
out it was all a hoax.
> And yet you think Richard Helms was behind the assassination. Richard
> Helms was working for Castro?
>
No.
> /sm
>
Bud
I used it to bury Clark.
> ::Clark::
Sandy McCroskey
Oh, I see. You are just misusing the very common word "know."
This explains a lot.
/sandy
Thalia
> "The susceptibility of human nature to the mystique of conspiracy
> afforded a fertile field for assassination sensationalists. Through
> misrepresentation, omission and innuendo, they were successful in
> deceiving a large body of world public opinion for one reason: Few people
> objectively examined the overall evidence in depth the way a jury would,
> had there been an actual trial. ....
>
> "We started with no "foregone conclusions"; in fact, I
> subconsciously wanted to find evidence to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was
> NOT the assassin. ....
I wonder if the Kaztenbach memo had been released at the time of
belin's 1973 book?
Thalia
teh HSCA investigation.
Anthony Marsh
I am making fun of the word "know" just as I make fun of the word "facts."
Sandy McCroskey
The words or the concepts?
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Both. The idealization of the words as if they are absolute truths in
and of themselves. And the concept that once the government says
something it is a fact.