[Ben Holmes]

Found on the Amazon forums:

Quote:It isn't for me to prove the case for the WC. That is the official stand. The stand I agree with. If you don't agree with what evidence is in the WC let us have the conspiracy that takes its place. Just include a name or two with what they did with supporting credible evidence to back it up.

We've waited over 50 years with some idea from someone. So take your time and let us know when you are ready.

But this is, of course, a lie.

The "official stand" of the U.S. Government is that there was a "probable conspiracy".

And absent another investigation - that's where it stands now.

[miker]

The Department of Justice reversed the ruling of a probably conspiracy.

In 1988, the DOJ sent a letter to the House of Reps. In this letter the DOJ concluded that there was no evidence to support a conspiracy in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

In the HSCA final report they (the HSCA) requested the DOJ to perform a few tasks and then report back to them (the HSCA) after those tasks were complete. One of those tasks was to conduct a study on the value of acoustics to forensic science. The DOJ was not able to complete that task, instead, the hired the National Research Council (NRC) to evaluate the specific acoustic evidence presented to the HSCA. The NRC report was very critical of the acoustic analysis and of course the cross talk issue was discovered. The DOJ was greatly influenced by the NRC report and one can see that when reading their letter to the House of Reps.

Here is a link to the letter from the DOJ. In this letter the DOJ revokes the finding that there was a conspiracy.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/J%20Disk/Justice%20Department%20of/Justice%20Department%20of%20JFK-King%20Reinvestigation/Item%2014.pdf">http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg ... m%2014.pdf</a><!-- m -->

[Ben Holmes]

miker Wrote:The Department of Justice reversed the ruling of a probably conspiracy.

Cannot happen.

The DOJ is merely one small branch of the federal government. They are under the jurisdiction of Congress. They don't have the power to over-rule what the House & Senate concluded in their investigation.

miker Wrote:In 1988, the DOJ sent a letter to the House of Reps. In this letter the DOJ concluded that there was no evidence to support a conspiracy in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

To be precise, they stated: "Accordingly, the Department of Justice has concluded that no persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a conspiracy in either the assassination of President Kennedy or the assassination of Dr. King"

This was based almost exclusively on their 'examination' of the acoustic evidence... The DOJ also claimed to have reviewed FBI reports, but such a claim can't be taken seriously, as the FBI info reveals quite a bit of evidence for conspiracy... as critics have pointed out time and time again.

As the DOJ conducted no 'investigation' worthy of the name, their opinion is just that...

miker Wrote:In the HSCA final report they (the HSCA) requested the DOJ to perform a few tasks and then report back to them (the HSCA) after those tasks were complete. One of those tasks was to conduct a study on the value of acoustics to forensic science. The DOJ was not able to complete that task, instead, the hired the National Research Council (NRC) to evaluate the specific acoustic evidence presented to the HSCA. The NRC report was very critical of the acoustic analysis and of course the cross talk issue was discovered. The DOJ was greatly influenced by the NRC report and one can see that when reading their letter to the House of Reps.

Here is a link to the letter from the DOJ. In this letter the DOJ revokes the finding that there was a conspiracy.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/J%20Disk/Justice%20Department%20of/Justice%20Department%20of%20JFK-King%20Reinvestigation/Item%2014.pdf">http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg ... m%2014.pdf</a><!-- m -->

Now, can you explain how the Department of Justice has the power to over-rule a Congressional investigation?

Or why the DOJ, which tried to influence a state trial related to the JFK case, would be unbiased?

And, as I previously stated in the original post: The "official stand" of the U.S. Government is that there was a "probable conspiracy".

And absent another investigation - that's where it stands now.

[miker]

Quote:Accordingly, the Department of Justice has concluded that no
persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a
conspiracy in either the assassination of President Kennedy or
the assassination of Dr. King. No further investigation appears
to be warranted in either matter unless new information which is
sufficient to support additional investigative activity becomes
available. While this report is intended to "close" the
Department's formal response to the Select Committee final
report, it is the Department's intention to continue to review
all correspondence and to investigate, as appropriate, any
potentially productive information.

Read the letter. It is self explanatory.

As far as the DOJ is concerned, they CLOSED the case because they did not believe there was any evidence of conspiracy.

That is actually the final word, unless they obtain new evidence. So I suggest you start focusing on the evidence.

Again, read the the letter.

The DOJ gets the final word.

[Ben Holmes]

miker Wrote:

Quote:Accordingly, the Department of Justice has concluded that no
persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a
conspiracy in either the assassination of President Kennedy or
the assassination of Dr. King. No further investigation appears
to be warranted in either matter unless new information which is
sufficient to support additional investigative activity becomes
available. While this report is intended to "close" the
Department's formal response to the Select Committee final
report, it is the Department's intention to continue to review
all correspondence and to investigate, as appropriate, any
potentially productive information.

Read the letter. It is self explanatory.

As far as the DOJ is concerned, they CLOSED the case because they did not believe there was any evidence of conspiracy.

That is actually the final word, unless they obtain new evidence. So I suggest you start focusing on the evidence.

Again, read the the letter.

The DOJ gets the final word.

I'm amused that you couldn't even quote my response, and respond to what I stated.

Your opinion that the DOJ can over-rule a Congressional Investigation is quite amusing indeed. Can you document any time that this happened in American History?

The DOJ closed their investigation - they had no power to change the conclusions of the Congressional investigation...

Can you explain why you refuse to address my refutation of your statements?

And can you explain why believers consistently refer back to the earliest investigation, despite the fact that there were several later investigations?

[miker]

I do not have to quote your response.

I provided the letter from the DOJ to the House of Reps. Most researchers do not even know that it exists.

I am interested in the evidence.

P.S. I know it is your forum, but you have to post much much less. You are trying to dominate. If you want to attract many good and diverse members, relax, sit on the sidelines and do not use this as your own personal playground. I mean this constructively.

[Ben Holmes]

miker Wrote:I do not have to quote your response.

Of course not. If you cannot answer my refutation, then it's wise not to further point it out.

Just don't expect me to remain silent on the issue... you're making implied claims with no support whatsoever.

You can have an opinion that the DOJ over-ruled Congress - but you cannot support such an opinion with any supporting evidence.

miker Wrote:I provided the letter from the DOJ to the House of Reps. Most researchers do not even know that it exists.

I am interested in the evidence.

Not, however, any evidence that contradicts the Warren Commission.

miker Wrote:P.S. I know it is your forum, but you have to post much much less. You are trying to dominate. If you want to attract many good and diverse members, relax, sit on the sidelines and do not use this as your own personal playground. I mean this constructively.

If one were to poll believers in online forums, I rather suspect that you'd have 95% or more of believers favoring such a suggestion. When I was posting on Amazon - I virtually always had the last word... believers would simply stop responding to the topic.

I can well understand why you'd prefer that knowledgeable critics remain silent while you make statements that you cannot support... If I were making unsupportable statements, it would embarrass me if people pointed it out.

[miker]

Your response was and is irrelevant.

I posted the memo from the DOJ to the House of Reps.

You did not know about that memo and you did not say a word. I tried to add some good information to your forum and website. That is what you should be striving for, a place were good evidence is presented.

I am getting the idea that posting in this forum is always going to be a constant fight with the moderator, even though we are on the same side. While I do not mind arguing I do not want to argue about everything and I can see that you like to argue about every single thing and I doubt that you are ever going to admit when you are wrong.

[Ben Holmes]

miker Wrote:Your response was and is irrelevant.

Pointing out that the DOJ cannot over-rule a Congressional Investigation is perfectly relevant to your claim.

miker Wrote:I posted the memo from the DOJ to the House of Reps.

You did not know about that memo and you did not say a word. I tried to add some good information to your forum and website. That is what you should be striving for, a place were good evidence is presented.

Actually, I was quite familiar with the memo, and you've no evidence to support your assertion that I was unaware of it. I've made the point that believers virtually always cite the Warren Commission - and stay far away from the fact that the official stance of the U.S. Government is that there was a probable conspiracy.

Whether you believe that they were right or not is merely an opinion.

That this is the official stance of the U.S. Government is something you cannot deny. Just as I have no problem accepting that the DOJ disputes the official conclusions of the HSCA.

miker Wrote:I am getting the idea that posting in this forum is always going to be a constant fight with the moderator, even though we are on the same side. While I do not mind arguing I do not want to argue about everything and I can see that you like to argue about every single thing and I doubt that you are ever going to admit when you are wrong.

Simply quote what I stated, and then cite the evidence that I'm in conflict with - and I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong... but until that happens, why would I state something that's incorrect?

There's only one "side" ... as far as I'm concerned... and that is the credible and reasonable theory that is supported by the evidence. If you state an opinion that is based on evidence you can cite - evidence that is not contradicted by other evidence, what possible argument could I have?

You've been unable to explain why believers invariably cite the Warren Commission, and ignore the fact that the official stance of the U.S. Government is a 'probable conspiracy'.

You see, that is a fact... any opinion to the contrary is meaningless. You don't have to accept the official stance, but to claim that it's not the current and official stance of the U.S. Government is untrue.

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben Holmes Wrote:The DOJ is merely one small branch of the federal government. They are under the jurisdiction of Congress. They don't have the power to over-rule what the House & Senate concluded in their investigation.

The DOJ may be small, but its 1988 budget was $5.6 billion. In comparion, the HSCA lasted 30 months and spent $5.6 million. (Neither figure corrected for inflation.)