Some thoughts on JFK Assassination
Gil Jesus
I believe that the case was closed to protect those involved from
prosecution.
If I am correct, there is no "smoking gun" in the government files
because during the original coverup, evidence that did not support the
guilt of lone-nut Oswald was forged, altered, substituted, destroyed or
lost. Witnesses were threatened, coaxed, pressured and some witnesses
ignored. There is no information which will name the killers or those who
financed this killing. It is foolish for any of us to think that the
government files contain the least little shred of evidence of a
conspiracy in this case. There has never been nor ever will be, an
official legitimate investigation. And because no evidence was ever
pursued that was contrary to Hoover's proclamation that Lee Harvey Oswald
killed John F. Kennedy, history may forever echo that falsehood.
There was tremendous resistance to the President's candidacy (because of
his religion) beginning with the Democratic primaries of 1960, the
attempts to deny him his party's nomination at the convention, his
campaign against Richard Nixon, and the problems he faced with a
conservative majority in Congress. The true motive of why JFK was killed
was that in a conservative system unwilling to change, he was left with
only one choice in his search for peace: back channel dealings with the
Russians. Such dealings made him a threat to the security of the nation
and in my opinion, was the reason why he was executed.
President Kennedy's enemies were militant right-wing forces within the
United States. Many of those forces included both past and present
military officers who were convinced that the President's policies, both
foreign and domestic, threatened the security of the United States and the
American way of life. They imagined that the real threat to America and
the "Free World" was from within its own political system (in particular,
the liberal wing of the Democratic Party) and that this president was
being controlled or blackmailed by the Communists to do their will.
His enemies were upset by Kennedy's refusal to commit American military
support to Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba, his refusal
to support a non-communist leadership in the Congo province of Katanga,
his support of Angolan rebels in their fight for independence from our
ally Portugal, his attempts to keep American troops out of Laos and to
seek its neutrality, and his support of the "communist-controlled" United
Nations. When Soviet missiles were discovered on the island of Cuba,
rather than bomb the silos by air, (which the United States had no legal
right to do) Kennedy opted for a less confrontational naval blockade in
international waters. When the Berlin Wall was erected on
Soviet-controlled territory to prevent refugees from fleeing East Berlin,
he resisted military pressure to use bulldozers to take it down. He
elected to sell wheat to the Soviets, and pushed hard for an agreement
with them to ban the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. And
while he publicly spoke of the importance of keeping military "advisors"
in South Vietnam, he knew that the effort lacked strong support of the
Vietnamese people and was doomed to failure. He secretly wrote the
MacNamara-Taylor report, which recommended the withdrawl of 1,000 CIA
"military advisors" from South Vietnam by Christmas 1963, and planned for
total withdrawl by 1965.
The President's foreign policy was based on his belief that every country
should be allowed to decide for itself, without outside interference,
which form of government it should have. This was a drastic change from
previous policy in which the U.S. would aid those powers which were
anti-communist and co-operative with the American government and American
Corporations. The U.S. looked the other way when many of these governments
grossly violated the human rights of its citizens. Our continued support
of governments which committed such atrocities gave birth to
Anti-Americanism. "Yankee Go Home", was a familiar slogan in Latin
countries in the mid-late 50's. The President sought to change this. His
method of dealing with crises was to seek a peaceful solution through
diplomacy, knowing that such negotiations sometimes required patience. He
believed that the defeat of Communism should not be measured in American
blood, but rather in American aid.
He was certain (and history has proved him correct) that eventually, the
communist economic system was doomed to failure. He felt that the only way
to stop the spread of communism was to eliminate things such as poverty,
disease, hunger, unemployment, and lack of education that peasants could
identify with in their everyday lives and made communism an attractive
alternative. These policies, however, were considered by radicals, such as
the John Birch Society, as a display of weakness and furthering the
Communist quest for world domination.
He understood the plight of and the injustice done to the American Negro,
and was blamed for giving "support and encouragement to the
communist-inspired racial riots" while seeking to work within the system
to effect a change.
Several southern states refused to abide by a Supreme Court ruling that
the exclusion of Negro students from all-white state colleges was
unconstitutional. Those states believed that they had the right to
determine for themselves in such matters, without interference by the
federal government. Governors publicly defied the authority of the Court.
When the Court requested that the federal government enforce its ruling,
the President ordered troops on the scene to enforce the law by ensuring
the students' safe passage to dormitories. Clashes between whites and
blacks resulted in several deaths with many more wounded. Local and state
law enforcement agencies refused to protect black demonstrators and
guarantee their constitutional right to dissent. Instead, law enforcement
officers and their Klan friends were allowed to beat and maim
demonstrators, while the nation watched in horror.
Members of the radical Ku Klux Klan terrorized black families nationwide,
especially in the South.
President Kennedy's assassination was a political murder which was
planned, paid for, and carried out for political reasons. It was the final
blow in a political struggle for power, between a liberal president and
conservative elements both in and out of government, to determine the
course of American domestic and foreign policy. A political coup d'etat.
The major result of the assassination was the continuation of the Cold War
and the return to George Kennan's policy of "containment" of the
Communists, apparent by the escalation of the Vietnam War. With Kennedy's
death, America was once again "the policeman of the world".
In the JFK killing, a new investigative practice was established by FBI
Director J. Edgar Hoover for political murders. That practice being that
the official conclusion was arrived at before the evidence was gathered,
and the investigators were told to gather only that evidence which
supported the conclusion.
In this case, that conclusion was two-fold, that: 1.) one gunman and one
gunman alone killed President Kennedy, and 2.) that Lee Harvey Oswald was
that gunman. Any evidence which did not support these conclusions was
altered, forged, substituted, discredited, or simply ignored. No motive
for Oswald's killing of the President was ever established, and no
verifiable evidence has ever surfaced which could prove premeditation on
Oswald's part. Eyewitnesses whose accounts did not support these
conclusions were either never called before the Warren Commission, or
called and discredited.
The President's autopsy was done by military people with little or no
prior experience in forensic pathology. The President's X-Rays do not
match the autopsy photographs. The photographs themselves look like poor
forgeries and neither they nor the x-rays represent what the doctors in
the emergency room at Parkland Hospital recalled as the President's
wounds. The brain weighed at the autopsy was not John Kennedy's. This
medical fraud of an autopsy was perpetrated on the American people by the
U.S.military.
The same military which clashed with the President over the many crises
and policies during his thousand days in office. The same military that
moved as slow as it could into Ole Miss. The same military which was not
there to protect the President in Dallas. The same military that did the
autopsy and took the photographs and x-rays. Once Oswald was dead and
there would be no trial, the "evidence" was gathered and presented to the
public in such a manner to prove that: a.) Oswald was the assassin, b.) he
acted alone and had no confederates who were still at large, and c.) he
would have been "convicted at trial."
In the end, the Warren Commission found that Lee Harvey Oswald, a man
completely sane and without premeditation, killed a president whom he had
admired for no apparent reason.
It's as ridiculous as it sounds.
"This crime was beyond the capability of any one person, Oswald or anyone else.
And on that basis, there was a conspiracy."--Harold Weisberg
John Fiorentino
Gil Jesus <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a6a1396f.03011...@posting.google.com...
Rule
Nice post Gil, but you need a comma up there between "admired" and "for".
What a pity that no recourses were to be had for a man who wanted peace
but "back channel dealings", while there were so many "up-front" recourses
for those who wanted war. Or were there...? Seems like killing JFK
required a lot of "back channel dealings", come to think of it...
Rule
Sam McClung
> I have no doubt that this murder was covered up by the U.S. Government and
> I believe that the case was closed to protect those involved from
> prosecution.
>
> If I am correct, there is no "smoking gun" in the government files
> because during the original coverup, evidence that did not support the
> guilt of lone-nut Oswald was forged, altered, substituted, destroyed or
> lost. Witnesses were threatened, coaxed, pressured and some witnesses
> ignored. There is no information which will name the killers
do you mean this universally or within your diameter above of:
"...no 'smoking gun' in the government files..."?
an aside, the government owns the zapruder film
it contains the original from which this was taken:
http://www.flash.net/~sammc/sniper-z.html
(see 4th graphic down)
the original zapruder film owned by the government may in fact render positive
identification of the sniper, in effect "naming" him
i worked on a multi-generation copy, the detail of which was destroyed in the MPI
enhanced version, though present on the same VHS video tape in earlier footage of
the film provided by Robert Groden from the Geraldo show in the 1970s
the enhanced version is wallpaper...
Peter Fokes
"John Fiorentino" <jston...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3e1f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> There you have it!.......Now we can all go home.
If you are referring to your evidence posted above, I agree.
Time to head out to the ski slopes, although downhill skiing may be much
slower than the LN descent from rationale argument to whimisical theorizing
sans evidence.
Peter F
Clark Wilkins
> I believe that the case was closed to protect those involved from
> prosecution.
A "cover-up" only has to 1) involve withholding of files 2) a withholding
of evidence 3) a failure to investigate certain leads. All of these
occurred. In every known case of the above, however, the "cover-up"
employed was done not "to protect those involved from prosecution" but to
protect careers. There is a difference.
>
> If I am correct, there is no "smoking gun" in the government files
> because during the original coverup,
There are "smoking guns" in the gov't files. They are blatantly obvious.
Unless "bureaucratic error" is allowed as the excuse, "errors" of which
only occur in the handling of Oswald's files and no others, LNer's would
be crushed in debate if the USG files became the topic here. JKO has
raised one just recently, asking why Snyder did not place Oswald under
arrest at the USEMB when Oswald threatened to defect and provide the USSR
with information on US radar and "something else" of importance he hinted
of. LNer's can reply that Oswald was not arrested because of the Petrulli
case or they can use Snyder's own statement that Oswald was young and
might yet change his mind, so why call the palace guard? What the LNer's
ignore is that Snyder had invited Oswald to return to the USEMB to
complete his renounciation the following Monday. The USG had the weekend
and all of the following Monday to send orders to the USEMB instructing
Oswald's arrest upon his return. No such order was issued. On 11/03/59
Oswald wrote the USEMB protesting that he was not allowed to to renounce
his citizenship. Our State Department instructed the USEMB to write Oswald
back and inform he was welcome to come in and sign the required papers.
Again, the opportunity was presented for an order to be sent instructing
that Oswald be arrested should he arrive and attempt to do so. Yet there
is no such order to be found. The LNer's have 380 other American defector
cases to choose from. Let them produce just one, outside of Oswald's, of
such similar treatment?
At the same time that JKO was pointing this out, I was pointing out that
US State Dept Office of Soviet Affairs (SOV) had made false and
misleading statements about Oswald to other USG offices and even
recommended violating US passport security laws/procedure in order to
secure his return from the USSR. SOV memos justifying these actions were
based on its desire to debrief Oswald of his information. So after having
deliberately lied to get Oswald out of the USSR, where is the SOV
debriefing of Oswald? Want another "smoking gun"? Look for the Passport
Offices "lookout" cards on Oswald. Here is a "bureaucratic error" repeated
three times over - but it is an error with a purpose. The problem is
addressed in the WR. You can read it for yourself. You can also see where
SOV withheld its Oswald files from the WC as did the Navy. More "smoking
guns". JKO has mentioned that LHO had his passport in hand when he entered
the USEMB when, in fact, it should have been in the hands of the Russians.
Perhaps a small item but the item grows in importance when one considers
that Oswald left his passport at the USEMB with Snyder. Why did Oswald do
this? Because when he did, he broke Soviet law. As soon as he exited the
USEMB, Oswald was required to turn his passport back to the Soviets. If he
didn't have it, they should have sent him back in to get it. They didn't.
Why not?
Every one of these "bureaucratic errors" were necessary in order for
Oswald's return to the US. LNer's, in their blissful ignorance, have never
bothered to ask themselves what would have happened if Oswald hadn't
delivered his passport to to the USEMB, if SOV hadn't lied to other
agencies about him, and if a "lookout" card had been placed in Oswald's
passport file.
And where is State Dept's notification to the AG's Office that Oswald had
returned from the USSR? Another "bureaucratic error"? What would have
happened if they had?
So you see that the US State Dept. alone has left us with evidence of a
"smoking gun" - In fact, someone must have been firing a machinegun over
there by the amount of smoke left behind. Then we have the Navy's refusal
to turn over their files on Oswald - their conviction of Oswald for
"defecting" based on false evidence and their failure to reverse their
decision on appeal. More smoke. Then we have the CIA's files on Oswald -
where he became one of only 300 people in the world to make their
HT/LINGUAL list. As if that wasn't enough to make his treatment "unusual"
they then separated his file from others held at CIA so that only CI/SIG
could access it. No smoking gun here? In spite of having his description,
CIA would go on to provide other agencies with a false physical
description of Oswald. Ask yourself what would have happened if Hosty had
used that description to determine if LHO had called at the SOVEMB in MC?
There is a common theme to these "bureaucratic errors". Just as Posner's
"errors" were always made in favor of convicting Oswald in the minds of
his readers, the "bureaucratic errors" made were always made to keep
Oswald free. The USG didn't just ignore Oswald. It helped him. You have
your "smoking gun". It has already been found.
> evidence that did not support the
> guilt of lone-nut Oswald was forged,
JKO seemes to have found a problem with a fingerprint card exhibit.
> altered,
The shimming of Oswald's scope.
>substituted,
The "composite" file on Oswald Navy gave the WC
>destroyed
Army's file on Oswald.
Ruby's phone records.
or
> lost.
The missing portion of Oswald's postal box rental form.
The CIA's DRE records which would have reported Oswald.
> Witnesses were threatened, coaxed, pressured and some witnesses
> ignored.
Or, whjen they said the wrong thing (Stuckey), recalled and made to
testify again, this time ommitting the previous unacceptable testimony.
>There is no information which will name the killers or those who
> financed this killing.
There never was. CTer's think that someday that a file will be found
naming JFK's true killers. No. That will never happen. Such a file never
existed either before, or after, the assassination.
>It is foolish for any of us to think that the
> government files contain the least little shred of evidence of a
> conspiracy in this case.
The files will not show evidence of a conspiracy in the case. The files
will, and do, show evidence of something else though - And this is what
must be kept from the American people.
>There has never been nor ever will be, an
> official legitimate investigation.
Both the HSCA and WC were honest.
Both had limited powers to investigate.
Neither received full cooperation from other USG Agencies.
> And because no evidence was ever
> pursued that was contrary to Hoover's proclamation
Actually, Nicholas Katzenbach's
>that Lee Harvey Oswald
> killed John F. Kennedy, history may forever echo that falsehood.
>
Correct. There are only three people left alive today who know who killed
JFK and one them is now senile, and the second nearly 100 years old. Time
has a way of eliminating witnesses.
> There was tremendous resistance to the President's candidacy (because of
> his religion) beginning with the Democratic primaries of 1960, the
> attempts to deny him his party's nomination at the convention, his
> campaign against Richard Nixon, and the problems he faced with a
> conservative majority in Congress.
Every President faces such problems. JFK was not assassinated for
political reasons. If that were the case, no President would live out his
term in office.
> The true motive of why JFK was killed
> was that in a conservative system unwilling to change, he was left with
> only one choice in his search for peace: back channel dealings with the
> Russians.
JFK, LBJ, and Nixon all found that they could not rely on being provided
accurate, safeguarded intelligence reports. They all wanted to go
"outside" the existing system in order to find the truth. All three sought
to control the information they received. LBJ eventually solved the
problem by simply telling his subordinates what he wanted reported or just
believing whatever he wanted to believe and rejecting whatever else was
told him. He survived office. Both JFK and Nixon though took the extra
step of seeking to bypass the existing information system by which all
presidents are controlled. They then took up the additional step of
creating their own security operations and this is not allowed. Neither
would finish their terms.
You control a President by the information that reaches his desk just as
the WC was controlled by the information reaching their desks.
If you cannot control the information reaching a president, you cannot
control him. One man, alone, is not allowed to run our foreign policy.
>Such dealings made him a threat to the security of the nation
> and in my opinion, was the reason why he was executed.
>
>
> President Kennedy's enemies were militant right-wing forces within the
> United States.
That is a two way street. The RW found the Kennedys to be an aggressive,
and dangerous, enemy as well.
> Many of those forces included both past and present
> military officers who were convinced that the President's policies, both
> foreign and domestic, threatened the security of the United States and the
> American way of life.
Walker and Curtis LeMay.
> They imagined that the real threat to America and
> the "Free World" was from within its own political system (in particular,
> the liberal wing of the Democratic Party) and that this president was
> being controlled or blackmailed by the Communists to do their will.
No. They thought the President was ignoring the intelligence reports they
were placing on his desk. And they were right.
> His enemies were upset by Kennedy's refusal to commit American military
> support to Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba,
Nope. The BOP was a group decision. As a group, blame was placed on CIA
planning and optimistic reports. It was these reports which caused JFK to
distrust the CIA and create a new intelligence agency.
The RW was no longer able to feed intelligence information to JFK via the
CIA. Check to see when the Kennedy's ceased requesting William George
Gaudet's reports.
Information control was lost.
He who controls information controls the President and - in turn - the
country..
Two days ago Prime Minister Sharon of Israel appeared on national TV to
attempt to explain illegal campaign finance loans. The program was cut off
the air in mid broadcast. The reason? To much information was being
provided to the Israeli people during an election. It was not Sharon's
decision to cut the broadcast. Other, more powerful, people made that
decision. If you control the information, you control the country. Lose
control of the information and you lose control of the country.
RW control over the Kennedy Administration was being exercised through
reports to JFK by the CIA and by Otto Otempka's blocking of Kennedy
appointments to State. By 1963, Otto and the CIA had both been bypassed.
Information control was now in the hands of the Kennedys.
> his refusal
> to support a non-communist leadership in the Congo province of Katanga,
> his support of Angolan rebels in their fight for independence from our
> ally Portugal,
Nope and nope.
> his attempts to keep American troops out of Laos and to
> seek its neutrality,
JFK put US troops in Laos.
>and his support of the "communist-controlled" United
> Nations.
He was fullfilling the wishes of the Rockefeller Republicans when he did
so.
>When Soviet missiles were discovered on the island of Cuba,
> rather than bomb the silos by air, (which the United States had no legal
> right to do) Kennedy opted for a less confrontational naval blockade in
> international waters.
Exit LeMay. Enter Maxwell Taylor.
The RW is now out of the military.
> When the Berlin Wall was erected on
> Soviet-controlled territory to prevent refugees from fleeing East Berlin,
> he resisted military pressure to use bulldozers to take it down. He
> elected to sell wheat to the Soviets,
On which we made money.
> and pushed hard for an agreement
> with them to ban the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.
Which he didn't get.
The RW could still get information to US senators, such as Eastland and
Dodd, to influence their vote on any foreign policy that came up for vote.
It was the foreign policy though which was not coming up for vote on which
the RW was being isolated.
But JFK was not assassinated for cutting off RW information. That's just
part of the political game. He was taken out of office for the same reason
Nixon was - for the security he put in place.
> And
> while he publicly spoke of the importance of keeping military "advisors"
> in South Vietnam, he knew that the effort lacked strong support of the
> Vietnamese people and was doomed to failure. He secretly wrote the
> MacNamara-Taylor report, which recommended the withdrawl of 1,000 CIA
> "military advisors" from South Vietnam by Christmas 1963, and planned for
> total withdrawl by 1965.
You ignore that this order was given while Diem was still alive and not
"responding" to JFK's wishes. When Diem was assassinated, the door was
open for JFK to replace him with a leader he could support. In that event,
he would have canceled the scheduled troop withdrawal. Vietnam had nothing
to do with JFK's assassination.
>
> The President's foreign policy was based on his belief that every country
> should be allowed to decide for itself, without outside interference,
> which form of government it should have.
Then why did he sponsor the BOP?
What was the US Navy, with marines aboard, doing holding "practice" off
Haiti during the summer of 1963?
> This was a drastic change from
> previous policy in which the U.S. would aid those powers which were
> anti-communist and co-operative with the American government and American
> Corporations. The U.S. looked the other way when many of these governments
> grossly violated the human rights of its citizens. Our continued support
> of governments which committed such atrocities gave birth to
> Anti-Americanism. "Yankee Go Home", was a familiar slogan in Latin
> countries in the mid-late 50's. The President sought to change this. His
> method of dealing with crises was to seek a peaceful solution through
> diplomacy, knowing that such negotiations sometimes required patience. He
> believed that the defeat of Communism should not be measured in American
> blood, but rather in American aid.
> He was certain (and history has proved him correct) that eventually, the
> communist economic system was doomed to failure. He felt that the only way
> to stop the spread of communism was to eliminate things such as poverty,
> disease, hunger, unemployment, and lack of education that peasants could
> identify with in their everyday lives and made communism an attractive
> alternative. These policies, however, were considered by radicals, such as
> the John Birch Society, as a display of weakness and furthering the
> Communist quest for world domination.
>
The JBS was effectively destroyed as a political force in 1963 as
evidenced by the 1964 elections. What CIA journalist (National Review)
effectively split the JBS?
> He understood the plight of and the injustice done to the American Negro,
What domestic security protection did RFK provide the American Negro in
the civil rights movement?
> and was blamed for giving "support and encouragement to the
> communist-inspired racial riots"
The riots at Mississippi State were inspired not by communists but by
General Walker.
What was General Walker's reward?
> while seeking to work within the system
> to effect a change.
> Several southern states refused to abide by a Supreme Court ruling that
> the exclusion of Negro students from all-white state colleges was
> unconstitutional. Those states believed that they had the right to
> determine for themselves in such matters, without interference by the
> federal government. Governors publicly defied the authority of the Court.
> When the Court requested that the federal government enforce its ruling,
> the President ordered troops on the scene to enforce the law by ensuring
> the students' safe passage to dormitories. Clashes between whites and
> blacks resulted in several deaths with many more wounded. Local and state
> law enforcement agencies refused to protect black demonstrators and
> guarantee their constitutional right to dissent. Instead, law enforcement
> officers
What 300 man domestic security force are we talking about here?
> and their Klan friends were allowed to beat and maim
> demonstrators, while the nation watched in horror.
> Members of the radical Ku Klux Klan terrorized black families nationwide,
> especially in the South.
What happened when the three CORE workers were killed in Mississippi?
Who responded?
With what?
>
> President Kennedy's assassination was a political murder
Nope.
No politics involved at all.
The game was life and death.
Bill Clinton emulated JFK more than any other president in history. What
domestic security force did he organize under HIS Attorney General for
Waco and Ruby Ridge? What truck bomb was detonated in Oklahoma City as a
result? No politics were involved at all. The game was life and death.
What US security force is in Saudi Arabia that led to 9/11 and a jetliner
headed for the White House? No politics were involved. The game was life
and death.
>which was
> planned, paid for, and carried out for political reasons.
No money changed hands.
No politics involved.
> It was the final
> blow in a political struggle for power, between a liberal president and
> conservative elements both in and out of government, to determine the
> course of American domestic and foreign policy.
Nope. To determine the course of domestic security.
How was JFK enforcing domestic policy?
>A political coup d'etat.
> The major result of the assassination was the continuation of the Cold War
Who got SALT started again?
> and the return to George Kennan's policy of "containment" of the
> Communists, apparent by the escalation of the Vietnam War. With Kennedy's
> death, America was once again "the policeman of the world".
>
> In the JFK killing, a new investigative practice was established by FBI
> Director J. Edgar Hoover for political murders. That practice being that
> the official conclusion was arrived at before the evidence was gathered,
> and the investigators were told to gather only that evidence which
> supported the conclusion.
If it worked in 1963...
> In this case, that conclusion was two-fold, that: 1.) one gunman and one
> gunman alone killed President Kennedy,
And has this conclusion been proven incorrect?
and 2.) that Lee Harvey Oswald was
> that gunman.
Was it his rifle?
Who else had access to it?
What did he do after the shots?
>Any evidence which did not support these conclusions was
> altered, forged, substituted, discredited, or simply ignored. No motive
> for Oswald's killing of the President was ever established,
Nor still.
> and no
> verifiable evidence has ever surfaced which could prove premeditation on
> Oswald's part.
Oswald's obtaining a roominghouse under an alias could be considered
evidence of premeditation.
> Eyewitnesses whose accounts did not support these
> conclusions were either never called before the Warren Commission, or
> called and discredited.
The HSCA had the same opportunity to call these witnesses.
How'd they do?
> The President's autopsy was done by military people with little or no
> prior experience in forensic pathology.
At the time a foreign attack upon the US was a consideration. National
Security was at stake. The military wanted to be the first to know, and
control, the results - And not hear it at a Dallas press conference held
by a county coroner.
>The President's X-Rays do not
> match the autopsy photographs. The photographs themselves look like poor
> forgeries and neither they nor the x-rays represent what the doctors in
> the emergency room at Parkland Hospital recalled as the President's
> wounds. The brain weighed at the autopsy was not John Kennedy's. This
> medical fraud of an autopsy was perpetrated on the American people by the
> U.S.military.
See Tony Marsh's comments.
> The same military which clashed with the President over the many crises
> and policies during his thousand days in office.
JFK had removed the RWers from command. None were in a position to plan
the assassination.
> The same military that
> moved as slow as it could into Ole Miss.
Those were state National Guard.
>The same military which was not
> there to protect the President in Dallas.
There was an Army Intelligence officer in the lead car.
>The same military that did the
> autopsy and took the photographs and x-rays.
And then did nothing after the autopsy, correct? Did any of those officers
present at the autopsy attempt to block the WC?
> Once Oswald was dead and
> there would be no trial, the "evidence" was gathered and presented to the
> public in such a manner to prove that: a.) Oswald was the assassin,
Try and prove he wasn't.
b.) he
> acted alone and had no confederates who were still at large, and
Where are the bullets fired by his confederates?
c.) he
> would have been "convicted at trial."
Put me on the jury.
I'll find him guilty.
>
> In the end, the Warren Commission found that Lee Harvey Oswald, a man
> completely sane and without premeditation, killed a president whom he had
> admired for no apparent reason.
That is the LN theory - a theory contradicted by its own evidence.
>
> It's as ridiculous as it sounds.
It doesn't work. That's true.
But your explanation doesn't work either.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
Ben Holmes
wrote:
>
>"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:a6a1396f.03011...@posting.google.com...
>> I have no doubt that this murder was covered up by the U.S. Government and
>> I believe that the case was closed to protect those involved from
>> prosecution.
>
>A "cover-up" only has to 1) involve withholding of files 2) a withholding
>of evidence 3) a failure to investigate certain leads. All of these
>occurred. In every known case of the above, however, the "cover-up"
>employed was done not "to protect those involved from prosecution" but to
>protect careers. There is a difference.
Untrue. Unless you know of a career that would have gone down the
tubes if a conspiracy had been uncovered? You may say Hoover - but he
was *secured* in his post by the assassination - he only had the
public perception of the FBI as his problem at this point.
There was, AFAIK, no-one's career at stake when the DPD, FBI, and WC
refused to ask a single question of the two policemen closest to the
victims.
No. They recognized many of the major problems. I'm quite sure some
of them must have understood - if vaguely - just where the evidence
was leading. The WC, for example, understood completely that the FBI
had already come to a conclusion, and was *not* cooperative on
subjects that might lead to a conspiracy finding. The failure of the
commissioners to *act* on this knowledge was dishonest.
>Both had limited powers to investigate.
>Neither received full cooperation from other USG Agencies.
And the fact that they did not *do* something about this lack of
cooperation is dishonest in itself.
>> And because no evidence was ever
>> pursued that was contrary to Hoover's proclamation
>
>Actually, Nicholas Katzenbach's
I seem to have seen somewhere an allegation that the famous memo of
Katzenbach's was *authored* by Hoover. But it *is* interesting that
the Justice Dept seemed to have an ongoing interest in this case.
Clark Wilkins
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:7s122v0ga97gokvvm...@4ax.com...
> On 11 Jan 2003 21:05:56 -0500, "Clark Wilkins" <clwi...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:a6a1396f.03011...@posting.google.com...
> >> I have no doubt that this murder was covered up by the U.S. Government
and
> >> I believe that the case was closed to protect those involved from
> >> prosecution.
> >
> >A "cover-up" only has to 1) involve withholding of files 2) a withholding
> >of evidence 3) a failure to investigate certain leads. All of these
> >occurred. In every known case of the above, however, the "cover-up"
> >employed was done not "to protect those involved from prosecution" but to
> >protect careers. There is a difference.
>
> Untrue. Unless you know of a career that would have gone down the
> tubes if a conspiracy had been uncovered? You may say Hoover - but he
> was *secured* in his post by the assassination - he only had the
> public perception of the FBI as his problem at this point.
I don't think you understood what I meant. Although USG Agencies and
investigators have been caught withholding files and evidence in the JFK
case, none have been found to have done so in order to protect the guilty.
If you know of an exception, please share it.
>
> There was, AFAIK, no-one's career at stake when the DPD, FBI, and WC
> refused to ask a single question of the two policemen closest to the
> victims.
>
And this is an action intended to protect the conspiracy?
>
> >> If I am correct, there is no "smoking gun" in the government files
> >> because during the original coverup,
> >
> >There are "smoking guns" in the gov't files. They are blatantly obvious.
> >Unless "bureaucratic error" is allowed as the excuse, "errors" of which
> >only occur in the handling of Oswald's files and no others, LNer's would
> >be crushed in debate if the USG files became the topic here. JKO has
> >raised one just recently, asking why Snyder did not place Oswald under
> >arrest at the USEMB when Oswald threatened to defect and provide the USSR
> >with information on US radar and "something else" of importance he hinted
> >of. LNer's can reply that Oswald was not arrested because of the Petrulli
> >case or they can use Snyder's own statement that Oswald was young and
> >might yet change his mind, so why call the palace guard? What the LNer's
> >ignore is that Snyder had invited Oswald to return to the USEMB to
> >complete his renounciation the following Monday. The USG had the weekend
> >and all of the following Monday to send orders to the USEMB instructing
> >Oswald's arrest upon his return. No such order was issued. On 11/03/59
> >Oswald wrote the USEMB protesting that he was not allowed to renounce
The WC did act. They sent a message to RFK to request oversight of Hoover.
RFK, in theory, was Hoover's boss and so this is where they went.
RFK requested that they please not ask him to do this as Hoover would just
ignore him.
>
> >Both had limited powers to investigate.
> >Neither received full cooperation from other USG Agencies.
>
> And the fact that they did not *do* something about this lack of
> cooperation is dishonest in itself.
The WC tried.
IMO, the HSCA tried but was torpedoed by the removal of its chairman and his
replacement by Robert Blakey. IMO, CIA was responsible for this. As soon as
Blakey was put in charge the CIA was let off the hook and the "Get Hoffa"
squad was reinstated.
>
> >> And because no evidence was ever
> >> pursued that was contrary to Hoover's proclamation
> >
> >Actually, Nicholas Katzenbach's
>
> I seem to have seen somewhere an allegation that the famous memo of
> Katzenbach's was *authored* by Hoover. But it *is* interesting that
> the Justice Dept seemed to have an ongoing interest in this case.
>
Katzenbach was involved in eliminating conspiracy charges as early asv
Friday night, 11/22/63 when he contacted Dallas and told the PA there not to
charge Oswald with conspiracy (The PA had drawn up such charges,
identifyiing Oswald as being an agent for an unnamed foreign country.
Katzenbach talked him out it). As soon as Oswald was dead, Katzenbach was on
the phone with Hoover and delivering the same sales pitch. Hoover then
raised it with an LBJ aide. Katzenbach then called on the Washington Post on
Monday morning and had one of their editors call LBJ to get the ball rolling
for the WC.
The AG's Office had a very keen interest in seeing to it that Oswald be
found to be acting alone - whether he was or not.
Gil Jesus
government would have had no need to lock away files and to keep the
information from the American people. If the "evidence" proved the
government's case against Oswald, one needs to ask oneself why they
would not release ALL of the files.
One needs to ask why the autopsy photos and x-rays are not consistent
with what the Dallas doctors said they saw. We need to ask why the
Zapruder film was missing frames at critical points where shots may
have been fired. Coincidence?
We need to ask why witnesses were threatened and ignored. Is this the
way that a murder investigation is conducted ? We need to ask why the
Dallas Police line-ups were conducted in such a way as to "lead"
witnesses to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer. Is this the way a
constitutional government is supposed to work in a Democracy ?
We need to ask why MILITARY doctors did the autopsy, when there were
plenty of pathologists in the Washington-Baltimore area who would have
done a more professional job, especially in light of the fact that
Oswald was still alive at the time of the autopsy and would face trial
in Texas.
We need to ask why the proceedings of the Warren Commission were
conducted behind closed doors.
There are still plenty of questions in this case and our government
continues to keep files locked away to protect those who were
responsible for the killing and the cover-up.
Ben Holmes
My point was directed at your number 3 - where you described a failure
to investigate certain leads. You stated that the *reason* for this
failure was to protect careers.
I disagree. I see *NO* careers that are threatened by an honest
investigation of this case - other than the perps...
It would certainly have been a disaster in the public perception of
the ability of the SS and FBI had a conspiracy been uncovered, but I
simply don't see any careers being destroyed.
>> There was, AFAIK, no-one's career at stake when the DPD, FBI, and WC
>> refused to ask a single question of the two policemen closest to the
>> victims.
>
>And this is an action intended to protect the conspiracy?
Of course. Can you come up with an alternative suggestion?
I'm sure you're aware that the testimony that would have been given
was contrary to the WC conclusions, and would have been very powerful
statements - having come from policemen who were only 10 ft away.
Not good enough. Not *nearly* good enough.
If the politics of the situation are making a real investigation
impossible, there should have been some public resignations.
At the *very* least, the WC could have used their power to hire real
investigators.
This was a political exercise that had to be complete before the next
election, nothing more...
>> >Both had limited powers to investigate.
>> >Neither received full cooperation from other USG Agencies.
>>
>> And the fact that they did not *do* something about this lack of
>> cooperation is dishonest in itself.
>
>The WC tried.
Not hard enough.
>IMO, the HSCA tried but was torpedoed by the removal of its chairman and his
>replacement by Robert Blakey. IMO, CIA was responsible for this. As soon as
>Blakey was put in charge the CIA was let off the hook and the "Get Hoffa"
>squad was reinstated.
The HSCA was even more political than the WC - and yet, strangely
enough, actually accomplished more in the way of investigation.
>> >> And because no evidence was ever
>> >> pursued that was contrary to Hoover's proclamation
>> >
>> >Actually, Nicholas Katzenbach's
>>
>> I seem to have seen somewhere an allegation that the famous memo of
>> Katzenbach's was *authored* by Hoover. But it *is* interesting that
>> the Justice Dept seemed to have an ongoing interest in this case.
>
>Katzenbach was involved in eliminating conspiracy charges as early asv
>Friday night, 11/22/63 when he contacted Dallas and told the PA there not to
>charge Oswald with conspiracy (The PA had drawn up such charges,
>identifyiing Oswald as being an agent for an unnamed foreign country.
>Katzenbach talked him out it). As soon as Oswald was dead, Katzenbach was on
>the phone with Hoover and delivering the same sales pitch. Hoover then
>raised it with an LBJ aide. Katzenbach then called on the Washington Post on
>Monday morning and had one of their editors call LBJ to get the ball rolling
>for the WC.
>
>The AG's Office had a very keen interest in seeing to it that Oswald be
>found to be acting alone - whether he was or not.
I suspect that Hoover was far more of a motivated partner (or in my
mind, the leader) than merely a subordinate following Katzenbach's
lead.
And although the FBI had a clear public relations interest in finding
a "Lone Nut" rather than a conspiracy, I don't see any interest that
the AG would have had...
Ben Holmes
>It seems to me that if there were no conspiracy to kill JFK the
>government would have had no need to lock away files and to keep the
>information from the American people. If the "evidence" proved the
>government's case against Oswald, one needs to ask oneself why they
>would not release ALL of the files.
Actually, there were a great many files that had a legitimate reason
to be locked away... most of the Mexico City evidence, for example.
But it's clear that the amount of information that was locked away
absolutely demonstrates a guilty knowledge on the part of the
government.
>One needs to ask why the autopsy photos and x-rays are not consistent
>with what the Dallas doctors said they saw. We need to ask why the
>Zapruder film was missing frames at critical points where shots may
>have been fired. Coincidence?
> We need to ask why witnesses were threatened and ignored. Is this the
>way that a murder investigation is conducted ? We need to ask why the
>Dallas Police line-ups were conducted in such a way as to "lead"
>witnesses to identify Oswald as Tippit's killer. Is this the way a
>constitutional government is supposed to work in a Democracy ?
>We need to ask why MILITARY doctors did the autopsy, when there were
>plenty of pathologists in the Washington-Baltimore area who would have
>done a more professional job, especially in light of the fact that
>Oswald was still alive at the time of the autopsy and would face trial
>in Texas.
My favorite question: Why weren't the two policemen, who were just 10
feet away from the murder victim at the time of the murder, ever asked
even a single question by the DPD, FBI, or WC?
There is NO justification for this. Any LN'ers care to try?
AnthonyMarsh
>
> On 11 Jan 2003 21:05:56 -0500, "Clark Wilkins" <clwi...@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:a6a1396f.03011...@posting.google.com...
> >> I have no doubt that this murder was covered up by the U.S. Government and
> >> I believe that the case was closed to protect those involved from
> >> prosecution.
> >
> >A "cover-up" only has to 1) involve withholding of files 2) a withholding
> >of evidence 3) a failure to investigate certain leads. All of these
> >occurred. In every known case of the above, however, the "cover-up"
> >employed was done not "to protect those involved from prosecution" but to
> >protect careers. There is a difference.
>
> Untrue. Unless you know of a career that would have gone down the
> tubes if a conspiracy had been uncovered? You may say Hoover - but he
> was *secured* in his post by the assassination - he only had the
> public perception of the FBI as his problem at this point.
>
Perhaps Richard Helms. If not the mastermind himself, just the fact that
he got wind of a plot and kept it to himself. There was a theory quite
popular in France in 1964 that there was a CIA officer who had lied to
President Kennedy about something important and when Kennedy found out
he vowed to fire the CIA officer. But then the CIA officer found out
about the plot to kill the President and decided to not act on it so
that the President would be assassinated. Then one day I found the
document which proves that it was Richard Helms who had lied to
President Kennedy.
If you believe that Oswald was the lone nut, then the CIA getting wind
of a plot might be its tape recording of Oswald telling the KGB officers
down in Mexico City that he was going to shoot the President.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
art guerrilla
clark left out part of the equation -
>I don't think you understood what I meant. Although USG Agencies and
>investigators have been caught withholding files and evidence in the JFK
>case, none have been found to have done so in order to protect the guilty.
...*NOT* that they *KNEW* of (at least
comtemporaneously, or so one would
hope), which is not to say that it did
not turn out that way all the same...
hee hee hee
*just* as the 'benign coverup' -in terms
of not starting world war III- was deemed
desirable and necessary by most/all of
those involved; so too would an 'honest'
cop/agent/investigator/lawyer/etc easily
be either duped or convinced that
whatever hinky actions they pulled in not
pursuing witnesses, evidence destruction,
etc, was for an overriding principle they
believed in, *NOT* that it may have
inadvertantly protected some guilty
party(s)...
ak ak ak
ann logic-police archy
eof
Clark Wilkins
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 07:39:28 GMT, "Clark Wilkins"
> <clwi...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>
>
> My point was directed at your number 3 - where you described a failure
> to investigate certain leads. You stated that the *reason* for this
> failure was to protect careers.
>
> I disagree. I see *NO* careers that are threatened by an honest
> investigation of this case - other than the perps...
>
> It would certainly have been a disaster in the public perception of
> the ability of the SS and FBI had a conspiracy been uncovered, but I
> simply don't see any careers being destroyed.
>
Suppose an investigation revealed that LHO worked for "our" side prior to
11/22/63. What would happen to the careers of those who employed him?
> >> There was, AFAIK, no-one's career at stake when the DPD, FBI, and WC
> >> refused to ask a single question of the two policemen closest to the
> >> victims.
> >
> >And this is an action intended to protect the conspiracy?
>
> Of course. Can you come up with an alternative suggestion?
>
> I'm sure you're aware that the testimony that would have been given
> was contrary to the WC conclusions, and would have been very powerful
> statements - having come from policemen who were only 10 ft away.
>
I'm not sure which two policemen you are referring to or what you think they
would have said.
<SNIP>
> >>
> >> I seem to have seen somewhere an allegation that the famous memo of
> >> Katzenbach's was *authored* by Hoover. But it *is* interesting that
> >> the Justice Dept seemed to have an ongoing interest in this case.
> >
> >Katzenbach was involved in eliminating conspiracy charges as early asv
> >Friday night, 11/22/63 when he contacted Dallas and told the PA there not
to
> >charge Oswald with conspiracy (The PA had drawn up such charges,
> >identifyiing Oswald as being an agent for an unnamed foreign country.
> >Katzenbach talked him out it). As soon as Oswald was dead, Katzenbach was
on
> >the phone with Hoover and delivering the same sales pitch. Hoover then
> >raised it with an LBJ aide. Katzenbach then called on the Washington Post
on
> >Monday morning and had one of their editors call LBJ to get the ball
rolling
> >for the WC.
> >
> >The AG's Office had a very keen interest in seeing to it that Oswald be
> >found to be acting alone - whether he was or not.
>
> I suspect that Hoover was far more of a motivated partner (or in my
> mind, the leader) than merely a subordinate following Katzenbach's
> lead.
Hoover made a career out of making embarrassing political problems go away
for his superiors. He handled Marilyn Monroe and Judith Exner for JFK and
Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes for LBJ. By doing so, he maintained "dirt"
on presidents. None dared fire him or even retire him at the mandatory
retirement age.
Hoover was actively pursuing conspiracy leads (Always eager to get those
"pinko" communist bastards) right up until Katzenbach called him on Sunday
and said "We have to find no conspiracy."
>
> And although the FBI had a clear public relations interest in finding
> a "Lone Nut" rather than a conspiracy,
If Hoover could have hung it on some LW outfit, he'd have jumped to do so.
> I don't see any interest that
> the AG would have had...
>
Well... the AG's assistant called Dallas on Friday night and asked them not
to file conspiracy charges on Oswald and the AG's assistant was calling
Hoover on Sunday and asking that no conspiracy be found against Oswald. In
return, Hoover got exactly what he wanted - RFK's private phone line removed
from his office. And did RFK push for a conspiracy to be found? Nope! When
the WC asked him for help in getting Hoover not to feed them "no conspiracy"
information, RFK declined to so order Hoover. And when the WR was published
did RFK whisper a word of opposition? Not a peep. He was quite content with
Hoover's investigation which was feeding the WR with "no conspiracy". Yet
in December, 1963 RFK sent a courier to the USSR identifying that his
brother was killed by a RW conspiracy.
It appears that RFK was willing to let "sleeping dogs lie" and his own
assistant, Katzenbach, provided the dogfood.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
<SNIP>
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:31e32vso62ngjgugc...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 07:39:28 GMT, "Clark Wilkins"
>> <clwi...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>>
><SNIP>
>>
>> My point was directed at your number 3 - where you described a failure
>> to investigate certain leads. You stated that the *reason* for this
>> failure was to protect careers.
>>
>> I disagree. I see *NO* careers that are threatened by an honest
>> investigation of this case - other than the perps...
>>
>> It would certainly have been a disaster in the public perception of
>> the ability of the SS and FBI had a conspiracy been uncovered, but I
>> simply don't see any careers being destroyed.
>
>Suppose an investigation revealed that LHO worked for "our" side prior to
>11/22/63. What would happen to the careers of those who employed him?
You're making assumptions here.
I don't see persuasive argument that *anyone's* career was at stake if a real
investigation was performed.
Nor do I see any reason *why* someone who was *NOT* guilty of anything, wouldn't
want the truth to come out.
>> >> There was, AFAIK, no-one's career at stake when the DPD, FBI, and WC
>> >> refused to ask a single question of the two policemen closest to the
>> >> victims.
>> >
>> >And this is an action intended to protect the conspiracy?
>>
>> Of course. Can you come up with an alternative suggestion?
>>
>> I'm sure you're aware that the testimony that would have been given
>> was contrary to the WC conclusions, and would have been very powerful
>> statements - having come from policemen who were only 10 ft away.
>
>I'm not sure which two policemen you are referring to or what you think they
>would have said.
Chaney and Jackson, as I recall. The two motorcycle cops riding to the right
rear of the limo. As to what they would have said, it would have been simple -
Connally was hit by a separate bullet than JFK. Feel free to research their
statements, or I can point to a citation or two...
But it doesn't really matter... they could have been looking away the whole
time. There simply is NO justification for not asking questions of two
policemen who were just 10 feet (approx) away from JFK and Connally. No real
investigation could possibly have missed them.
I find that rather difficult to believe. Can you point to *any* statement of
Hoover's that weekend that indicated that he was willing to do a real
investigation? Conspiracy included?
Clark Wilkins
Let's use Anthony Marsh's post and mine to create the example. I have
pointed out where RFK made no effort to get a serious investigation going in
the assassination of his brother, in spite of the fact that he was AG and
Hoover answered to him and in spite of the fact that he believed his brother
was killed by a RW conspiracy. Marsh pointed out that Helms at CIA had lied
to JFK. If we combine this with the fact that someone in the State Dept was
trying to get Oswald back from the USSR and that CIA that State provide them
with a list of requirements that had to be met in order to get Oswald out of
the USSR, then the argument can be made (and has been made) that Oswald had
a relationship with the CIA. RFK's AG Office should have been notified when
Oswald returned from the USSR for the purposes of allowing him to decide if
Oswald should be prosecuted or not for aiding and abetting the enemy. An AG
Office would be opened on Oswald in which his case would be reviewed and
noted for either prosecution or "no action". In Oswald's case, a review of
his file apparently resulted in a decision of "no action". If one speculates
that "no action" was taken because of a request of the AG's Office by CIA to
do so, then here is what will happen. When LHO's name is broadcast as JFK's
suspected assassin, Nicholas Katzenbach, RFK's assistant, can go to the
Office's filing cabinet and pull LHO's file and find CIA's request that LHO
not be prosecuted. Conclusion: LHO is one of "our" boys (Did not RFK say
this very thing in a phone call after the assassination?). Thus, Katzenbach
would instantly know that LHO is not a Soviet or Cuban agent, that he is one
of ours, and any conspiracy charges by Dallas including Castro or Krushev
must be avoided unless we want to risk war with them when we know they are
innocent. Thus, Katzenbach gets on the phone with Dallas prosecutor's on
Friday night and talks them out of filing conspiracy charges on behalf of an
unnamed foreign country. Katzenbach informs RFK who immediately suspects
that Helms, or someone similar, used Oswald to kill his brother. Yet RFK
dares not pursue Helms on this because of RFK's own use of CIA to kill
Castro. On Sunday, Oswald is killed. Katzenbach sees the fact that Oswald
can't say differently as the opportunity to solve two problems. A "blue
ribbon" commission that the public has faith in will find Oswald acted
alone - thereby getting rid of the Russian angle and RFK will stay out of
it, thereby getting rid of the CIA angle also. Katzenbach enlists Hoover's
aid who agrees on condition that RFK take his phone out of his office and go
"disappear". RFK will now decline to press Hoover for a better investigation
when the WC requests that he do so and he will not question the WR since, to
do thjat means he must point a finger at Helms/CIA and if he does that
Helms/CIA will point a finger right back accusing him of trying to
assassinatre Castro. In order for RFK to achieve justice for his brother he
must incriminate himself in his own wrong doings.
Note that I am not claiming that any of this happened, be it that
Oswald was a CIA "agent" or that AG had a file on Oswald (Although they
should have). I am using this simply as an example of how information can be
withheld from the WC in order to protect careers.
Okay. That's who I thought you meant. Carlos Quiroga is another witness who
wasn't called and who should have been.
His telephone calls to LBJ.
Lech K. Lesiak
> We need to ask why MILITARY doctors did the autopsy, when there were
> plenty of pathologists in the Washington-Baltimore area who would have
> done a more professional job, especially in light of the fact that
> Oswald was still alive at the time of the autopsy and would face trial
As well as asking why the military MD doing the autopsy burned his notes
upon hearing Oswald had been killed, and started all over again.
Cheers,
Lech
AnthonyMarsh
I think you have the timing wrong. Humes supposedly burned the notes and
first draft in his fireplace on Saturday morning after he learned about
the throat wound and had to rewrite it. Oswald was killed on Sunday, the
day after.
> Cheers,
> Lech
Ritchie Linton
>
> As well as asking why the military MD doing the autopsy burned his notes
> upon hearing Oswald had been killed, and started all over again.
+++
Fair enough in question=in answer see post already under "helm's
testified" and cross-post "what if"=taken together they answer your
question.We are battling here your ability to cross-reference file
understanding.This NG now offers you that ability without the effort
of all the research that supports such simple understanding=the Oswald
file was military responsibitity when they picked it as fitting the
'perfect profile' for patsy in Dallas
>
> Cheers,
> Lech
Ben Holmes
wrote:
>"Lech K. Lesiak" wrote:
>>
>> On 12 Jan 2003, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>
>> > We need to ask why MILITARY doctors did the autopsy, when there were
>> > plenty of pathologists in the Washington-Baltimore area who would have
>> > done a more professional job, especially in light of the fact that
>> > Oswald was still alive at the time of the autopsy and would face trial
>>
>> As well as asking why the military MD doing the autopsy burned his notes
>> upon hearing Oswald had been killed, and started all over again.
>>
>
>I think you have the timing wrong. Humes supposedly burned the notes and
>first draft in his fireplace on Saturday morning after he learned about
>the throat wound and had to rewrite it. Oswald was killed on Sunday, the
>day after.
Commander HUMES - In privacy of my own home, early in the morning of
Sunday, November 24th, I made a draft of this report which I later
revised, and of which this represents the revision. That draft I
personally burned in the fireplace of my recreation room.
Humes could hardly have burned on Saturday a draft that wasn't written
until Sunday morning. Since he "later" revised it, it's quite
unlikely that he was burning it before LHO was murdered.
Once again, it's demonstrated to me the value of checking primary
sources whenever I hear a LN'er asserting what happened...
>> Cheers,
>> Lech
Gil Jesus
original draft or else he'd have nothing to go on for the second draft.
Ben Holmes
If LHO had lived, there would have been no burning. Dr. Humes was not
a stupid man, contrary to the opinions of some on this NG... he knew
very well what evidence is defined as.
Evidence was burned *only* when it was clear that there was going to
be no trial, and no cross-examination.