Post by Rob Caprio on Jun 3, 2020 20:33:00 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/warren-commission.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) assassinated President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself on November 22, 1963.
In trying to make this claim seem possible the WC would ignore many leads showing that a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK.
This isn't wild “CT kooky thinking” either, but rather what an honest person can deduce from reading the WC Report (WCR). This post will look at some of the examples of the WC simply ignoring things when it pointed to a conspiracy.
****************************************
The “Speculation And Rumors” section of the WCR is loaded with doublespeak, distraction, diversion, assumption, and outright lies. There are so many distortions that this will take more than one installment to cover this section. The main topics which have been covered thoroughly will be skipped.
If a subject has been well covered in my series then I will simply point out why their “finding” is bogus, but if it hasn't been covered then I will show why it is bogus.
The very first item is filled with doublespeak.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0332a.gif
Speculation. – The shots that killed the President came the railroad overpass above the triple underpass.
Commission finding. – The shots that entered the neck and head of the President and wounded Governor Connally came from behind and above. There is no evidence that any shots were fired at the President from anywhere other than the Texas School Book Depository Building. (WCR, pp. 639-640)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0332a.htm
Quote off
Firstly, the WC claims that JFK was shot in the neck, but there is NO evidence supporting this claim. Even the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said that JFK was shot in the BACK and not the neck. The neck claim was invented by WC member Gerald Ford and WC staff lawyer Arlen Specter after it was made clear that one of the three bullets allegedly fired by LHO missed both men. This required the bullet that did not hit JFK in the head to have caused all the non-fatal wounds in both JFK and Governor John B. Connally (JBC), thus, the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) was born EIGHT months after the assassination.
Secondly, their claim that there is “no evidence” of a shot coming from any location other than the Texas School Book Depository Building (TSBD) is a complete lie as there were numerous witnesses that said that they thought that shots came from the Grassy Knoll (GK). In fact, nearly two-thirds of those asked this basic question answered for the GK. Additionally, doctors, nurses, and Secret Service (SS) agents all described wounds that were consistent with a shot from the front. The WC had to ignore all this evidence to conclude that the shots only came from the TSBD.
This is not searching for the truth as the WC claimed they were doing. The next claim is also meant to distract from the whole truth.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0332b.gif
Speculation. – The railroad overpass was left unguarded on November 22.
Commission finding. – On November 22 the railroad overpass was guarded by two Dallas policemen, Patrolman J.W. Foster and J.C. White, who have testified that they permitted only railroad personnel on the overpass. (WCR, p. 640)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0332b.htm
Quote off
The first issue seems like a straw man to me as I am not sure who said that the overpass was left unguarded. The police stationed on it where pretty clear to me. The real issue was did they do the job assigned to the them.
Mr. BALL - Did you have a special assignment on November 22?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - 1963. And what was that?
Mr. FOSTER - That was assigned to the triple overpass to keep all unauthorized personnel off of it.
Why would ANY personnel or people be allowed on the overpass? It was a security risk, wasn't it? Who decided who was authorized?
Mr. BALL - How did you determine they were railroad employees?
Mr. FOSTER - By identification they had with them. Identification they had and the other men that was with them verifying that they were employees.
How hard would it be to get railroad identification? What if the verifying system was flawed? Again, why was anyone allowed on the overpass?
We also have an issue to deal with in regards to the testimony given by Foster above. The other officer assigned to the overpass, J.C. White, said something different.
Mr. BALL. You had certain instructions, didn't you?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What were they?
Mr. WHITE. Not to let any unauthorized personnel on top of the overpass.
Mr. BALL. Now, you did permit some people to stay on the overpass, didn't you?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Who were they?
Mr. WHITE. Workers of the railroad company.
Mr. BALL. Were they people you knew?
Mr. WHITE. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Well, how did you know they were workers with the railroad company?
Mr. WHITE. Majority of them were there when we got there, working on the rails.
Mr. BALL. And you let them stay there?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.
This is quite different from the testimony given by Foster. There's NO mention of checking identification as he claimed. Instead we see a group of people on the overpass when the police arrived and they were allowed to stay with no checking to make sure that they actually worked for the railroad according to one of the officers. He too said that he was given orders for ONLY authorized personnel to be allowed to stay on the overpass, but according to him they didn't check for identification. Furthermore, he testified to not knowing any of these people, so again, how do we know that they actually worked for the railroad? We then see more ridiculousness by these officers.
Mr. BALL. Before the train went by, did you see some railroad personnel over on the-would it be the—
Mr. WHITE. East side?
Mr. BALL. How many people?
Mr. WHITE. About 10, approximately. I didn't count them.
Approximately 10 people? But he didn't count them? What? If you are assigned to an area that is supposed to be kept restricted to only authorized personnel isn't it a requirement to check identification and record both their names and total count for your report? I would think so, but White testified to not only NOT checking identification but failing to count the number of people as well! This is a total absurdity.
Let's see what Foster said on this issue.
Mr. BALL - Did you permit some people to be there?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Who?
Mr. FOSTER – People that were working for the railroad there.
Mr. BALL - Were there many people?
Mr. FOSTER – About 10 or 11.
Firstly, the correct statement is that these people were on the overpass when he got there. This doesn't mean that they worked for the railroad as he claims.
Secondly, he is also vague as he says “10 or 11 people” were there. Why did he not get an accurate count and names for his report?
All of this shows that the claim of the WC was not accurate as there is no way to prove that everyone on the overpass at the time of the assassination worked for the railroad as they claimed.
I can hear the WC eroders saying, “So you think these cops were involved in the conspiracy?” Perhaps they were as they were in a key position – the overpass – but they didn't have to be. Instead this horrible “security” work could simply reflect just how little the Dallas Police Department (DPD) personnel cared about protecting JFK.
More sleight of hand is found in this next item.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0333a.gif
Speculation. – A bullet was found on the stretcher used for President Kennedy at Parkland Hospital.
Common finding. – No bullet was found on the stretcher used by President Kennedy. An almost whole bullet was found when it rolled off the stretcher used by Governor Connally. (WCR, p. 641)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0333a.htm
Quote off
We have seen before in this series that there is NO evidence whatsoever that CE 399 was found in Parkland Hospital (PH) at all, let alone on a particular stretcher. The person who found A bullet, Darrell Tomlinson, would NOT say that it was on JBC's stretcher despite numerous efforts by WC staff lawyer Arlen Specter to get him to do so. The description of the stretcher he found it on (in terms of bandages and wrappings) did not match what was seen on JBC's stretcher.
The person Tomlinson gave the bullet that he found to, head of security O.P. Wright, would say that CE 399 was NOT the bullet that he was given. I have looked at the chain of custody issue for CE 399 in this series and it shows that none exists for it.
Basically the WC is saying that their UNSUPPORTED claim trumps everything else. This was a common practice used by them. They would claim that issues with supporting evidence were not as valid as their OPINION which was totally devoid of evidence. Basically they said things happened in a certain way because they said so. Pure nonsense.
We again see that the WC made claims that they had no supporting evidence for and ignored what the existing evidence actually showed. Thus, their conclusion is sunk again.
www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/warren-commission.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) assassinated President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself on November 22, 1963.
In trying to make this claim seem possible the WC would ignore many leads showing that a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK.
This isn't wild “CT kooky thinking” either, but rather what an honest person can deduce from reading the WC Report (WCR). This post will look at some of the examples of the WC simply ignoring things when it pointed to a conspiracy.
****************************************
The “Speculation And Rumors” section of the WCR is loaded with doublespeak, distraction, diversion, assumption, and outright lies. There are so many distortions that this will take more than one installment to cover this section. The main topics which have been covered thoroughly will be skipped.
If a subject has been well covered in my series then I will simply point out why their “finding” is bogus, but if it hasn't been covered then I will show why it is bogus.
The very first item is filled with doublespeak.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0332a.gif
Speculation. – The shots that killed the President came the railroad overpass above the triple underpass.
Commission finding. – The shots that entered the neck and head of the President and wounded Governor Connally came from behind and above. There is no evidence that any shots were fired at the President from anywhere other than the Texas School Book Depository Building. (WCR, pp. 639-640)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0332a.htm
Quote off
Firstly, the WC claims that JFK was shot in the neck, but there is NO evidence supporting this claim. Even the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said that JFK was shot in the BACK and not the neck. The neck claim was invented by WC member Gerald Ford and WC staff lawyer Arlen Specter after it was made clear that one of the three bullets allegedly fired by LHO missed both men. This required the bullet that did not hit JFK in the head to have caused all the non-fatal wounds in both JFK and Governor John B. Connally (JBC), thus, the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) was born EIGHT months after the assassination.
Secondly, their claim that there is “no evidence” of a shot coming from any location other than the Texas School Book Depository Building (TSBD) is a complete lie as there were numerous witnesses that said that they thought that shots came from the Grassy Knoll (GK). In fact, nearly two-thirds of those asked this basic question answered for the GK. Additionally, doctors, nurses, and Secret Service (SS) agents all described wounds that were consistent with a shot from the front. The WC had to ignore all this evidence to conclude that the shots only came from the TSBD.
This is not searching for the truth as the WC claimed they were doing. The next claim is also meant to distract from the whole truth.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0332b.gif
Speculation. – The railroad overpass was left unguarded on November 22.
Commission finding. – On November 22 the railroad overpass was guarded by two Dallas policemen, Patrolman J.W. Foster and J.C. White, who have testified that they permitted only railroad personnel on the overpass. (WCR, p. 640)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0332b.htm
Quote off
The first issue seems like a straw man to me as I am not sure who said that the overpass was left unguarded. The police stationed on it where pretty clear to me. The real issue was did they do the job assigned to the them.
Mr. BALL - Did you have a special assignment on November 22?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - 1963. And what was that?
Mr. FOSTER - That was assigned to the triple overpass to keep all unauthorized personnel off of it.
Why would ANY personnel or people be allowed on the overpass? It was a security risk, wasn't it? Who decided who was authorized?
Mr. BALL - How did you determine they were railroad employees?
Mr. FOSTER - By identification they had with them. Identification they had and the other men that was with them verifying that they were employees.
How hard would it be to get railroad identification? What if the verifying system was flawed? Again, why was anyone allowed on the overpass?
We also have an issue to deal with in regards to the testimony given by Foster above. The other officer assigned to the overpass, J.C. White, said something different.
Mr. BALL. You had certain instructions, didn't you?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What were they?
Mr. WHITE. Not to let any unauthorized personnel on top of the overpass.
Mr. BALL. Now, you did permit some people to stay on the overpass, didn't you?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Who were they?
Mr. WHITE. Workers of the railroad company.
Mr. BALL. Were they people you knew?
Mr. WHITE. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. Well, how did you know they were workers with the railroad company?
Mr. WHITE. Majority of them were there when we got there, working on the rails.
Mr. BALL. And you let them stay there?
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.
This is quite different from the testimony given by Foster. There's NO mention of checking identification as he claimed. Instead we see a group of people on the overpass when the police arrived and they were allowed to stay with no checking to make sure that they actually worked for the railroad according to one of the officers. He too said that he was given orders for ONLY authorized personnel to be allowed to stay on the overpass, but according to him they didn't check for identification. Furthermore, he testified to not knowing any of these people, so again, how do we know that they actually worked for the railroad? We then see more ridiculousness by these officers.
Mr. BALL. Before the train went by, did you see some railroad personnel over on the-would it be the—
Mr. WHITE. East side?
Mr. BALL. How many people?
Mr. WHITE. About 10, approximately. I didn't count them.
Approximately 10 people? But he didn't count them? What? If you are assigned to an area that is supposed to be kept restricted to only authorized personnel isn't it a requirement to check identification and record both their names and total count for your report? I would think so, but White testified to not only NOT checking identification but failing to count the number of people as well! This is a total absurdity.
Let's see what Foster said on this issue.
Mr. BALL - Did you permit some people to be there?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Who?
Mr. FOSTER – People that were working for the railroad there.
Mr. BALL - Were there many people?
Mr. FOSTER – About 10 or 11.
Firstly, the correct statement is that these people were on the overpass when he got there. This doesn't mean that they worked for the railroad as he claims.
Secondly, he is also vague as he says “10 or 11 people” were there. Why did he not get an accurate count and names for his report?
All of this shows that the claim of the WC was not accurate as there is no way to prove that everyone on the overpass at the time of the assassination worked for the railroad as they claimed.
I can hear the WC eroders saying, “So you think these cops were involved in the conspiracy?” Perhaps they were as they were in a key position – the overpass – but they didn't have to be. Instead this horrible “security” work could simply reflect just how little the Dallas Police Department (DPD) personnel cared about protecting JFK.
More sleight of hand is found in this next item.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0333a.gif
Speculation. – A bullet was found on the stretcher used for President Kennedy at Parkland Hospital.
Common finding. – No bullet was found on the stretcher used by President Kennedy. An almost whole bullet was found when it rolled off the stretcher used by Governor Connally. (WCR, p. 641)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0333a.htm
Quote off
We have seen before in this series that there is NO evidence whatsoever that CE 399 was found in Parkland Hospital (PH) at all, let alone on a particular stretcher. The person who found A bullet, Darrell Tomlinson, would NOT say that it was on JBC's stretcher despite numerous efforts by WC staff lawyer Arlen Specter to get him to do so. The description of the stretcher he found it on (in terms of bandages and wrappings) did not match what was seen on JBC's stretcher.
The person Tomlinson gave the bullet that he found to, head of security O.P. Wright, would say that CE 399 was NOT the bullet that he was given. I have looked at the chain of custody issue for CE 399 in this series and it shows that none exists for it.
Basically the WC is saying that their UNSUPPORTED claim trumps everything else. This was a common practice used by them. They would claim that issues with supporting evidence were not as valid as their OPINION which was totally devoid of evidence. Basically they said things happened in a certain way because they said so. Pure nonsense.
We again see that the WC made claims that they had no supporting evidence for and ignored what the existing evidence actually showed. Thus, their conclusion is sunk again.