At least now you've explained it.
BC can claim JFK was dictators, but that will just make others chuckle. Yes, JFK was ahead of his time. He had other shortcoming common the people in power but he was not behind the times.
Who killed President Kennedy
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
BC can claim JFK was dictators, but that will just make others chuckle. Yes, JFK was ahead of his time. He had other shortcoming common the people in power but he was not behind the times.
S
**Sophie**
Yes. See post #12 which is Carlos Marcellos' admission to a credible informant for the FBI.
We also have the death bed confession of Santos Trafficante relayed to his lawyer Frank Ragano.
The books Ultimate Sacrifice and Legacy of Secrecy uncovered many documents in the National Archives alluding to the unfulfilled plan of a coup d'état in Cuba for December 1st, 2012 with secret U.S. support which the Mob found out via a bribe of a CIA liaison, and blackmailed the U.S. government into not pursuing them after the assassination lest they tell the Russians. Some of these documents are published in promotional websites for their books.
G. Robert Blakey, former Chief Counsel to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) believes it's an historical fact that the Mob murdered JFK. I believe that the Mob coordinated this with some help of rogue CIA agents and anti-Castro Cubans.
Apart from the Mob, there is a plethora of circumstantial evidence that points to a conspiracy with respect to more than one shooter as opposed to the identity of shooters, which is not necessary to a conclusion that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.
Actual evidence is what I am interested in. Neither of them stated that they had done it or even been involved, merely a belief that it had been done and the statements are widely disputed. The second paragraph is about plots in Cuba. Your third is what a person unconnected to the murder believes. The fourth leaves the case against the mob entirely.
In terms of evidence, I'd say not even enough for an indictment.
What are you talking about?
To partially quote one legal definition of conspiracy:
Therefore, the very act of an agreement with criminal intent (along with an overt act, where required) is considered sufficiently dangerous to warrant charging conspiracy as an offense separate from the intended crime.
Carlos Marcello admits that he had him killed and wished he did it hmself, meaning he conspired with others. Marcello was in prison at the time. He died when the document was declassified and uncovered. So you can't have an indictment. John Gotti was indicted on wiretaps, so that informant's memo against Marcello would've have been sufficient evidence under normal circumstances.
Santos Trafficante confessed on his death bed (or when he was critically ill) to his lawyer. He's no longer around and his lawyer would not have indicted him. He only revealed the confession after his client's death so no solicitor-client privilege applies.
G. Robert Blakey is a law professor and he concluded that there was a conspiracy by the mob to kill the President based on the circumstantial evidence he examined, even though he didn't indict anyone.
You do not need to know the shooters or indict them to conclude that there was a conspiracy. All that's required is that there is proof, either direct or circumstantial evidence of a criminal agreement, as is sufficient under the law, to conclude that a conspiracy exists or existed.
For me, the most basic evidence that a conspiracy existed, and one doesn't even need to know who the parties are, is the Zapruder Film. An analysis of that can easily demonstrate that there was more than one shooter, whether or not Oswald was part of it.
Those who are pro-Warren Commission (like you?) will ignore or discount direct or circumstantial evidence that proves or suggests conspiracy, as well as contradictory statements in the Warren Commission Report itself. You need to see a smoking gun but even lone-nutters ignore the statements by witnesses that they smelled smoke or gunpowder around the grassy knoll, or that there was a puff of smoke around there too.
So in other words no evidence. All you have is the belief that it was a conspiracy based on the assumption that it was a conspiracy.
All you have is a tough guy statement to a prison informant and an alleged confession from a guy to his mob lawyer which is completely unverifiable and many believe not from the time he was sick. Hardly more compelling then the evidence supporting Oswald being guilty.
All you have is a tough guy statement to a prison informant and an alleged confession from a guy to his mob lawyer which is completely unverifiable and many believe not from the time he was sick. Hardly more compelling then the evidence supporting Oswald being guilty.
On the contrary, Marcello's admission to an undercover informant 'deemed credible' is testimonial or documentary evidence, regardless of your convenient dismissal of it.
There are many other documents uncovered by Lamar Waldron & Thom Hartmann in their tome Ultimate Sacrifice which can support the confessions and the role of the Mafia in the murder of JFK. Check it out => http://ultimatesacrificebook.com/
The evidence against Oswald is tainted. Barry Krusch has written three books with an appendix that examines the evidence against Oswald according to the Rules of Evidence, and in all cases, it would be inadmissable in a criminal trial for violating principles of authenticity, chain of possession, etc. etc. (Some things were known like CE399 or the Magic Bullet, first observed and described as a pointed bullet and then becoming a rounded bullet to match the ammo of the Mannlicher-Carcano).
http://www.krusch.com/mybook.html
There are many, excellently written critiques of the assassination by others which would raise reasonable doubt in any jurist.
There are many other documents uncovered by Lamar Waldron & Thom Hartmann in their tome Ultimate Sacrifice which can support the confessions and the role of the Mafia in the murder of JFK. Check it out => http://ultimatesacrificebook.com/
The evidence against Oswald is tainted. Barry Krusch has written three books with an appendix that examines the evidence against Oswald according to the Rules of Evidence, and in all cases, it would be inadmissable in a criminal trial for violating principles of authenticity, chain of possession, etc. etc. (Some things were known like CE399 or the Magic Bullet, first observed and described as a pointed bullet and then becoming a rounded bullet to match the ammo of the Mannlicher-Carcano).
http://www.krusch.com/mybook.html
There are many, excellently written critiques of the assassination by others which would raise reasonable doubt in any jurist.
Keep in mind, there was a mock trial in the 80's done for the BBC. Real witnesses from the event, etc. They got a guilty verdict on Oswald.
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/35208/on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald/
n 1986, attorney Vincent Bugliosi, the celebrated attorney who successfully prosecuted Charles Manson, was approached by London Weekend Television to participate in a filmed trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy. No actors were to be used in the trial, with the jury consisting of real Dallas citizens, and the courtroom presided over by Federal U.S. Judge Lucius D. Bunton III. Defending Oswald (who would not be enacted by a performer; a large photo blow-up of Oswald sits in the defendant's chair) would be Gerry Spence, the noted criminal defense attorney who won a judgment in the Karen Silkwood case, and who, before he retired, had never lost a criminal case in his 50 year career. Actual participants and witnesses to the events of November 22, 1963 were to be sworn in and cross-examined. And most importantly, there would be no script. Events would unfold as in a real trial, with Spence and Bugliosi free to examine witnesses as they saw fit.
I saw and recorded it on video cassette but thought Spence didn't do a great job. Bugliosi who was planning to write his book was better prepared but nobody has done what Barry Krusch recently did with his specific research and evaluation of the evidence by applying the court rules. His conclusion is that most if not all 'incriminating evidence' would be inadmissible.
Take note that a recent mock trial by the Texas Bar Association resulted in a hung jury => http://www.wfaa.com/jfk/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-found-not-guilty-in-mock-trial-212564441.html
Also take note that the American Bar Association had a mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald years ago (at their 1992 convention) and that also resulted in a hung jury. => http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weis...Bar Association Oswald Mock Trial/Item 12.pdf
I joked earlier that Rob Ford may be related to the late President Gerald Ford who also sat on the Warren Commission and admitted to raising the description of the wound from the back below the shoulders to above the shoulders at the rear of the neck (this resulted in a better alignment for the Single Bullet Theory trajectory).
Rob Ford may indeed have those sinister connections you speak of Fuji.
Furthermore, why would anyone, particularly a Mafia don, make up a death bed confession (he didn't die at that point but was very ill so he lived longer) about the murder of JFK (he told his lawyer Frank Ragano that they fucked up and should've got Bobby, not Giovanni). What he told his lawyer was privileged anyways.
Robert Groden claims that this enhanced photo of Zapruder Frame 335 is of enormous historical importance due to the avulsion at the back of JFK's head indicating a shot from in front and corroborative of the Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses who saw a back of head wound:
Yes, a blurry 'enhanced' photo from a decades old video camera is such compelling evidence that it says nothing. You could argue it is Jackie's pubes....
Robert Groden claims ...
And an alleged statement from a sick guy found in confusing notes remembered years later by a guy planning to profit from a book on the topic seems weaker than the photo.
Both sides make claims.
Groden's a photographic expert but you don't have to be one to see that there's an avulsion to the back of Kennedy's head which can't be confused with anything else (idiotic of you to even joke that it's Jackie's pubes which shows your level of extreme bias).
Warren Commission apologists Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi profited from their books so what does that make them?
The Zapruder film is regarded as an important piece of evidence from both sides of the argument, and not categorically dismissed (unlike you who seems ignorant of this case).
Carlos Marcello's admission corroborated by a fellow Mafia Don hardly seems like the rant of a senile invalid.
Thank God for the people dedicated to finding the real truth behind this case who have spent time and resources in publicizing their findings. They deserve to make a buck too for their years of efforts.
Here's another photo but bigger of Zapruder Frame 335 for your viewing pleasure. Man that outline at the back of the head sure doesn't look neat and intact.
