[Hollywood]

(03-31-2017, 09:47 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(03-31-2017, 04:25 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  

(03-31-2017, 03:26 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  Indeed, I gave a perfect example above - when the Commission learned of evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant. That would have "made the name" of anyone brave enough to leak such information to the press.

 "evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant."  Obviously that "evidence" wasn't deemed to be credible evidence. Interesting how believers in conspiracy consider ommissions by the WC to be damning evidence of their performance while dismissing a myriad of forensic, credible evidence proving Oswald's guilt.

How do you know that it wasn't "deemed to be credible evidence?"

Can you supply a citation to a section in the Warren Report where this was dealt with? Where witnesses were called to testify? Where an actual investigation was performed to determine the worth & credibility of the evidence?

Or did the Warren Commission immediately begin covering this up?

An honest person would look into the facts of the Jan. 22 meeting, and conclude that the Warren Commission had no intention of seeking the truth.
 

(03-31-2017, 04:25 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  We staffers were anxious and determined and felt the weight of the task ahead of us. Regardless of age or background, all of us would later remember the enthusiasm and excitement of reporting for work at Washington's VFW Memorial Building in early 1964. Many of us voiced our skepticism about the FBl's view that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone and were determined to ferret out any conspiracy that the bureau had missed. At our first meeting with Chief Justice Warren on January 20, he told us of his reluctance to assume this nonjudicial responsibility, but went on to say that President Johnson expected the commission to find "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Warren, a former prosecutor, said emphatically, “That is what I intend to do." He and Rankin would often remind us that "truth is our only client."

From "American Scholar" by Howard Willens & Richard Mosk, staffers for the WC (I posted this earlier and strangely it disappeared)

Interestingly, the post where you claim it "disappeared" was edited by you. It's still there.

You can keep quoting Warren Commission staff on their honesty & credibility - but until you actually deal with the HISTORICAL FACTS I present that show a different picture, you're unlikely to convince anyone.

Now, tell us why the Warren Commission wanted to seek out the truth, yet were unwilling to have any independent investigators...

Tell us why the Warren Commission refused to allow any cross-examination of eyewitnesses...

Tell us why the Warren Commission called some of the silliest witnesses, and refused to call the most obvious witnesses... (You can start with James Chaney...)

You want to defend the honor of the Warren Commission - YOU'LL HAVE TO EXPLAIN THEIR ACTIONS WHICH SHOW THEM TO BE LESS THAN HONORABLE.

Never made a statement regarding honesty and credibility - just a statement supporting my claim that they began the process LOOKING for a plot.

Don't know why they didn't have independent investigators - you don't either. Just suspicions and innuendo.

It wasn't a trial so, no cross examination of witnesses.

Don't know why Chaney wasn't called - you don't either - you ASSUME it was because of the nature of his testimony - don't assume.

Don't have to explain the actions of anybody - the WC made its case and published it - it's on you to shoot it down - hasn't happened in 54 years so I doubt you'll get anywhere either. I've been posting here for a week or two - you seem like a typical, garden variety theorist - no evidence, just quibbling and cherry picking - not impressive. You seem to have an extremely active, disordered imagination - that's typical of theorists too.