Post by Rob Caprio on Nov 5, 2018 8:44:07 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/warren-commission.jpg
Let’s look at more questions concerning this case and see if the Warren Commission (WC) defenders can answer them or explain why things happened the way they did. Most likely not, but let's try anyway.
*********************************
1) Why did the Secret Service (SS) take the body of John F. Kennedy (JFK) and the limousine he was murdered in away from the authorities who had jurisdiction when their own charter says they DO NOT have a responsibility to investigate or apprehend assassins?
This is a key questions as they took the most important pieces of evidence in this case when they whisked away both the body of our slain President and the limousine (i.e. crime scene) from the Dallas Police Department (DPD) who had LEGAL JURISDICTION for this crime.
We know they had no jurisdiction given the laws of the land in 1963, and we know from their own reply to questions by the WC that they had no right getting involved in the investigation of the crime or the apprehension of individuals thought to be suspicious. If we go to CE-1021, a document that was an answer to questions the WC had involving the Dallas trip, we will see this on page 710.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0362b.gif
The Secret Service has consistently followed two general principles in emergencies involving the President. All agents are so instructed. The first duty of the agents in the motorcade is to ATTEMPT TO COVER the President as closely as possible and practicable to shield him by attempting to place themselves between the President and any source of danger. Secondly, agents are instructed to remove the President as quickly as possible from known or IMPENDING DANGER. Agents are instructed that is it is NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE or evaluate a present danger, but to consider any untoward circumstances as serious and to afford the President maximum protection at all times. NO RESPONSIBILITY rests upon those agents near the President for the identification or ARREST of an assassin or an attacker. Their primary responsibility is to stay with and protect the President. (CE 1021, p. 710; p. 7 in original) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0362b.htm
Quote off
We firstly see what the SS SHOULD HAVE DONE in Dallas, but did NOT do. Why was NO attempt made to cover JFK? Why were the SS agents so slow in recognizing IMPENDING DANGER? Given they failed at their PRIMARY duty—protecting the President—why did they get so wrapped up in the areas they had NO mandate to do (i.e. investigation) to the point of harming the evidence?
Can any WC defender answer these questions?
2) Why was the WC silent about the prints found in alleged SN area that were NOT a match to Lee Harvey Oswald?
We know other prints were found, and we know by mid-1964 all those that had a reason to be on sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) had been fingerprinted (and palm printed as well), so why was the WC silent on whether any of those found that did NOT match LHO matched someone else?
Here is a document from the FBI to the WC regarding who else was fingerprinted and palm printed. It was designated CE 1980 and we see it on page 7.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0013a.jpg
It says the following people were fingerprinted and palm printed:
1) Daniel Arce
2) Jack Dougherty
3) Buell Frazier
4) Charles Givins
5) James Jarman
6) Frankie Kaiser
7) Roy Lewis
8) Billy Lovelady
9) Eddie Piper
10) William Shelley
11) Troy West
12) Bonnie Ray Williams
It states in the last sentence that “these fingerprints will be compared with the identifiable latent fingerprints and latent palm prints found on these cartons”, but we never heard if any of them matched the prints NOT claimed to be LHO’s. Why? Furthermore, the FBI had the most extensive fingerprint (and one would have to assume palm print) databases in the country in 1963, so why did we get no word on if they got a hit against the millions of samples they had in their possession? Why were these prints either allowed to go unidentified or the results kept from us?
Can any WC defender answer these questions?
3) Why did what James Rowley write in CE-1021 NOT correspond to what we see in CE-760?
If we go back to CE 1021 and look on page 706 (page three in the document) we will see the following question and answer.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0360b.gif
Question
c. According to the December 18 report, the FBI office in Dallas gave the local Secret Service the name of a possibly dangerous individual in the Dallas area, and the Dallas Secret Service office also conducted an investigation of persons connected with the disturbance during Ambassador Stevenson’s recent visit to Dallas, and obtained the photographs of some of these individuals. Were the names of these persons ADDED to the PRS files before or after the Dallas trip? [My note: What good would this do AFTER the trip?]
Answer:
The names of these individuals referred to the Dallas office and investigated by them were added to the Protective Research Section files as soon as reports were received on these in Protective Research. The INDIVIDUAL, whose name was furnished to us by the FBI and the Dallas Police, was investigated by Dallas office of the Secret Service prior to the Dallas trip. The subject was interviewed and a report had been submitted to PRS on November 13, 1963.
The anti-Stevenson pickets were identified and available photos were in the hands of security personnel at the Trade Mart. These names were added to the PRS files after the trip. (CE 1021, p. 706; p. 3 in original) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0360b.htm
Quote off
So we see the local SS office investigated the name given to them by the FBI BEFORE the trip per this document done by James Rowley, but if we go to CE-760 we something different. CE-760 was done by SAIC Bouck (PRS) and on page 530 we see the following comment by him:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0278b.gif
On or about November 8, 1963, PRS was officially notified of the itinerary for the proposed trip of President Kennedy and Vice President Johnson to Texas.
A clerical employee of this office immediately checked the trip index file for PRS SUBJECTS OF CONCERN in relation to the Texas trip. NO CARDS WERE FOUND in the file that would indicate the presence of any known seriously dangerous PRS subjects as residing in the Dallas area, nor in any other in Texas where stops were scheduled except for Houston.
On November 14, 1963, the above indicated clerical employee prepared an office memorandum advising the name of one PRS subject who had previously been referred to the interested offices and was still of concern, and furnishing identifying data on a NEW PRS subject who had not previously been included in the alert. (CE 760, p. 530; p. 2 in original) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0278b.htm
Quote off
We see initially when the trip itinerary was announced the PRS officer found NO cards for anyone dangerous in the Dallas area. Then, on November 14, 1963 (the day after the interview with the person mentioned by Rowley was submitted) we see the same clerical employee prepared an office memo outlining this person. We can safely assume this is the person Rowley mentioned as it says, “subject who had been previously referred” and we know this person was given to the SS by the FBI. Could this be LHO? We don’t know, but so far so good. Then we come to the comment about a NEW PRS subject who had NOT been previously included in the alert! Who was this? Why did Rowley NOT mention this to the WC in CE-1021? No mention of this is made as the only other issue covered in Rowley’s answer is regarding the anti-Stevenson picketers.
Who was this person and what threat did they pose to JFK?
Can any WC defender answer this question?
We again see evidence that disputes the claims of the WC, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.
www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/warren-commission.jpg
Let’s look at more questions concerning this case and see if the Warren Commission (WC) defenders can answer them or explain why things happened the way they did. Most likely not, but let's try anyway.
*********************************
1) Why did the Secret Service (SS) take the body of John F. Kennedy (JFK) and the limousine he was murdered in away from the authorities who had jurisdiction when their own charter says they DO NOT have a responsibility to investigate or apprehend assassins?
This is a key questions as they took the most important pieces of evidence in this case when they whisked away both the body of our slain President and the limousine (i.e. crime scene) from the Dallas Police Department (DPD) who had LEGAL JURISDICTION for this crime.
We know they had no jurisdiction given the laws of the land in 1963, and we know from their own reply to questions by the WC that they had no right getting involved in the investigation of the crime or the apprehension of individuals thought to be suspicious. If we go to CE-1021, a document that was an answer to questions the WC had involving the Dallas trip, we will see this on page 710.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0362b.gif
The Secret Service has consistently followed two general principles in emergencies involving the President. All agents are so instructed. The first duty of the agents in the motorcade is to ATTEMPT TO COVER the President as closely as possible and practicable to shield him by attempting to place themselves between the President and any source of danger. Secondly, agents are instructed to remove the President as quickly as possible from known or IMPENDING DANGER. Agents are instructed that is it is NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE or evaluate a present danger, but to consider any untoward circumstances as serious and to afford the President maximum protection at all times. NO RESPONSIBILITY rests upon those agents near the President for the identification or ARREST of an assassin or an attacker. Their primary responsibility is to stay with and protect the President. (CE 1021, p. 710; p. 7 in original) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0362b.htm
Quote off
We firstly see what the SS SHOULD HAVE DONE in Dallas, but did NOT do. Why was NO attempt made to cover JFK? Why were the SS agents so slow in recognizing IMPENDING DANGER? Given they failed at their PRIMARY duty—protecting the President—why did they get so wrapped up in the areas they had NO mandate to do (i.e. investigation) to the point of harming the evidence?
Can any WC defender answer these questions?
2) Why was the WC silent about the prints found in alleged SN area that were NOT a match to Lee Harvey Oswald?
We know other prints were found, and we know by mid-1964 all those that had a reason to be on sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) had been fingerprinted (and palm printed as well), so why was the WC silent on whether any of those found that did NOT match LHO matched someone else?
Here is a document from the FBI to the WC regarding who else was fingerprinted and palm printed. It was designated CE 1980 and we see it on page 7.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0013a.jpg
It says the following people were fingerprinted and palm printed:
1) Daniel Arce
2) Jack Dougherty
3) Buell Frazier
4) Charles Givins
5) James Jarman
6) Frankie Kaiser
7) Roy Lewis
8) Billy Lovelady
9) Eddie Piper
10) William Shelley
11) Troy West
12) Bonnie Ray Williams
It states in the last sentence that “these fingerprints will be compared with the identifiable latent fingerprints and latent palm prints found on these cartons”, but we never heard if any of them matched the prints NOT claimed to be LHO’s. Why? Furthermore, the FBI had the most extensive fingerprint (and one would have to assume palm print) databases in the country in 1963, so why did we get no word on if they got a hit against the millions of samples they had in their possession? Why were these prints either allowed to go unidentified or the results kept from us?
Can any WC defender answer these questions?
3) Why did what James Rowley write in CE-1021 NOT correspond to what we see in CE-760?
If we go back to CE 1021 and look on page 706 (page three in the document) we will see the following question and answer.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0360b.gif
Question
c. According to the December 18 report, the FBI office in Dallas gave the local Secret Service the name of a possibly dangerous individual in the Dallas area, and the Dallas Secret Service office also conducted an investigation of persons connected with the disturbance during Ambassador Stevenson’s recent visit to Dallas, and obtained the photographs of some of these individuals. Were the names of these persons ADDED to the PRS files before or after the Dallas trip? [My note: What good would this do AFTER the trip?]
Answer:
The names of these individuals referred to the Dallas office and investigated by them were added to the Protective Research Section files as soon as reports were received on these in Protective Research. The INDIVIDUAL, whose name was furnished to us by the FBI and the Dallas Police, was investigated by Dallas office of the Secret Service prior to the Dallas trip. The subject was interviewed and a report had been submitted to PRS on November 13, 1963.
The anti-Stevenson pickets were identified and available photos were in the hands of security personnel at the Trade Mart. These names were added to the PRS files after the trip. (CE 1021, p. 706; p. 3 in original) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0360b.htm
Quote off
So we see the local SS office investigated the name given to them by the FBI BEFORE the trip per this document done by James Rowley, but if we go to CE-760 we something different. CE-760 was done by SAIC Bouck (PRS) and on page 530 we see the following comment by him:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0278b.gif
On or about November 8, 1963, PRS was officially notified of the itinerary for the proposed trip of President Kennedy and Vice President Johnson to Texas.
A clerical employee of this office immediately checked the trip index file for PRS SUBJECTS OF CONCERN in relation to the Texas trip. NO CARDS WERE FOUND in the file that would indicate the presence of any known seriously dangerous PRS subjects as residing in the Dallas area, nor in any other in Texas where stops were scheduled except for Houston.
On November 14, 1963, the above indicated clerical employee prepared an office memorandum advising the name of one PRS subject who had previously been referred to the interested offices and was still of concern, and furnishing identifying data on a NEW PRS subject who had not previously been included in the alert. (CE 760, p. 530; p. 2 in original) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0278b.htm
Quote off
We see initially when the trip itinerary was announced the PRS officer found NO cards for anyone dangerous in the Dallas area. Then, on November 14, 1963 (the day after the interview with the person mentioned by Rowley was submitted) we see the same clerical employee prepared an office memo outlining this person. We can safely assume this is the person Rowley mentioned as it says, “subject who had been previously referred” and we know this person was given to the SS by the FBI. Could this be LHO? We don’t know, but so far so good. Then we come to the comment about a NEW PRS subject who had NOT been previously included in the alert! Who was this? Why did Rowley NOT mention this to the WC in CE-1021? No mention of this is made as the only other issue covered in Rowley’s answer is regarding the anti-Stevenson picketers.
Who was this person and what threat did they pose to JFK?
Can any WC defender answer this question?
We again see evidence that disputes the claims of the WC, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.