Post by Rob Caprio on Sept 2, 2019 20:07:24 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Garrison_Jim.jpg
www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/films/2017/10/26/TELEMMGLPICT000001279125_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq7HVybmJHsiZ-in9phuBAJ7XzV_KsTEhUpmRqZ_r5t68.jpeg
The Warren Commission (WC) was not a legal court, therefore, their conclusion is not a legal finding. It is nothing but an unsupported theory. The judges involved in the Clay Shaw proceedings confirmed this as reported by researcher Joachim Joesten in his book “The Garrison Inquiry”.
Quote on
The Warren Report? All three judges in the case [Clay Shaw] agreed that it was inadmissible as evidence in judicial proceedings.
"If we are going to accept the Warren Report as factual, then we have wasted a week of time", Judge Bagert declared near the end of the hearing.
Another judge, Matthew S. Braniff, said of the Warren Report: "It is fraught with hearsay and contradictions."
"And that's putting it mildly," Bagert commented.
A few days later, Judge Edward A. Haggerty Jr., who had been appointed to preside at the trial of Clay Shaw, also said the Warren Report could not be admitted as evidence at the trial.
(Excerpted from "The Garrison Inquiry" by Joachim Joesten, 1967, p. 70)
Quote off
These were judges who said that the WC Report was “fraught with hearsay and contradictions” and that was “putting it mildly.” Judge Bagert said that if they accepted the WC Report as factual then “they had wasted a week of time”! This says it all.
And yet, the media, the education system and officialdom keep repeating it like it was a court verdict when the court wouldn't even use it!
The WC had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren, on it too. Why did he allow all this if they were seeking the truth?
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Garrison_Jim.jpg
www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/films/2017/10/26/TELEMMGLPICT000001279125_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq7HVybmJHsiZ-in9phuBAJ7XzV_KsTEhUpmRqZ_r5t68.jpeg
The Warren Commission (WC) was not a legal court, therefore, their conclusion is not a legal finding. It is nothing but an unsupported theory. The judges involved in the Clay Shaw proceedings confirmed this as reported by researcher Joachim Joesten in his book “The Garrison Inquiry”.
Quote on
The Warren Report? All three judges in the case [Clay Shaw] agreed that it was inadmissible as evidence in judicial proceedings.
"If we are going to accept the Warren Report as factual, then we have wasted a week of time", Judge Bagert declared near the end of the hearing.
Another judge, Matthew S. Braniff, said of the Warren Report: "It is fraught with hearsay and contradictions."
"And that's putting it mildly," Bagert commented.
A few days later, Judge Edward A. Haggerty Jr., who had been appointed to preside at the trial of Clay Shaw, also said the Warren Report could not be admitted as evidence at the trial.
(Excerpted from "The Garrison Inquiry" by Joachim Joesten, 1967, p. 70)
Quote off
These were judges who said that the WC Report was “fraught with hearsay and contradictions” and that was “putting it mildly.” Judge Bagert said that if they accepted the WC Report as factual then “they had wasted a week of time”! This says it all.
And yet, the media, the education system and officialdom keep repeating it like it was a court verdict when the court wouldn't even use it!
The WC had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren, on it too. Why did he allow all this if they were seeking the truth?