[Hollywood]

(03-30-2017, 08:55 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(03-30-2017, 07:29 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  

(03-30-2017, 07:14 PM)Nick Principe Wrote:  

(03-30-2017, 03:51 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  

(03-30-2017, 03:09 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:   

Bugliosi and the WC BOTH laid out a most convincing case for LHO's guilt.

And therein lies the key problem, which funnily comes straight from your own mouth. It was not the WC's job to lay out a case against LHO. Their job (officially) was to "investigate" the assassination. Yet the notion that it *might* have been someone other than LHO is never even broached. An investigation that refuses to entertain more than one theory, especially considering all the victim's enemies and their motives, is incompetent and irresponsible at best. Corrupt and complicit at worst.

Bugliosi, as the prosecuting attorney, is supposed to lay out a case for Oswald's guilt. Not the WC.

Ironocally, David belin stated that he and others were hired to determine if there was a conspiracy in the assassination - the actual evidence dispelled that notion rather quickly. There was an entire segment of the WC staff whose area of concentration was conspiracy, especially involving foreign countries. They found nothing credible - there IS nothing credible indicating conspiracy.

If he said that, then he was lying.

The outline for the Warren Commission shows very clearly that the conclusions were there from the beginning, and ABSOLUTELY NO investigation was considered for determining if there had been a conspiracy...

Indeed, the very first bombshell for the Commission - and one quite revealing as far as how they were going to operate, is what they did when they discovered evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant.

The claim that there's nothing "credible" to indicate conspiracy is quite a dishonest statement... since you've NEVER (and will never) give a credible reason why James Chaney wasn't ever asked A SINGLE SOLITARY QUESTION for the Warren Commission - you know that the Commission was INTENTIONALLY dodging any evidence of conspiracy.

And yet MANY witnesses were called and testified  to things contrary to the WC's official conclusion - shots from the bushes, smoke on the GK, people in windows other than the snipr's nest - this belies the Chaney claim. Many of the staff hired by the WC saw this as their chance to make a name for themselves if they uncovered the conspiracy - they found nothing and lost their chance at fame - to a creep like Oswald - sorry.

---

(03-31-2017, 03:09 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  

(03-30-2017, 08:55 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(03-30-2017, 07:29 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  

(03-30-2017, 07:14 PM)Nick Principe Wrote:  

(03-30-2017, 03:51 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Bugliosi and the WC BOTH laid out a most convincing case for LHO's guilt.

And therein lies the key problem, which funnily comes straight from your own mouth. It was not the WC's job to lay out a case against LHO. Their job (officially) was to "investigate" the assassination. Yet the notion that it *might* have been someone other than LHO is never even broached. An investigation that refuses to entertain more than one theory, especially considering all the victim's enemies and their motives, is incompetent and irresponsible at best. Corrupt and complicit at worst.

Bugliosi, as the prosecuting attorney, is supposed to lay out a case for Oswald's guilt. Not the WC.

Ironocally, David belin stated that he and others were hired to determine if there was a conspiracy in the assassination - the actual evidence dispelled that notion rather quickly. There was an entire segment of the WC staff whose area of concentration was conspiracy, especially involving foreign countries. They found nothing credible - there IS nothing credible indicating conspiracy.

If he said that, then he was lying.

The outline for the Warren Commission shows very clearly that the conclusions were there from the beginning, and ABSOLUTELY NO investigation was considered for determining if there had been a conspiracy...

Indeed, the very first bombshell for the Commission - and one quite revealing as far as how they were going to operate, is what they did when they discovered evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant.

The claim that there's nothing "credible" to indicate conspiracy is quite a dishonest statement... since you've NEVER (and will never) give a credible reason why James Chaney wasn't ever asked A SINGLE SOLITARY QUESTION for the Warren Commission - you know that the Commission was INTENTIONALLY dodging any evidence of conspiracy.

And yet MANY witnesses were called and testified  to things contrary to the WC's official conclusion - shots from the bushes, smoke on the GK, people in windows other than the snipr's nest - this belies the Chaney claim. Many of the staff hired by the WC saw this as their chance to make a name for themselves if they uncovered the conspiracy - they found nothing and lost their chance at fame - to a creep like Oswald - sorry.

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 "The American Scholar" by Howard Willens and Richard Mosk - both WC staffers.