Jump to content


Photo

The Warren Investigation


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Staffan H Westerberg

Staffan H Westerberg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • LocationStockholm, Sweden

Posted 17 May 2015 - 02:05 PM

The “Warren Investigation”

For almost 52 years, it has been said repeatedly that the Warren Commission did a thorough investigation. The talk has hardly ever been about the FBI investigation (CD1), almost as if it didn’t exist.

If we try to follow the chronology, when it comes to the investigation (or investigations) it seems as if the Dallas Police started to investigate, then the FBI took over, and finally the Warren Commission did its validation; at least that looks to be the intended perception.

Already on the afternoon on the 22nd of November evidence material was sent from the Dallas Police to FBI headquarter in Washington, even if the FBI had no jurisdiction. The FBI then officially took over the investigation from the Dallas Police on the 26th of November.

In the midst of this, Lyndon Johnson initiated the action on the 24th of November, right after Oswald’s death, with talking about creating a blue-ribbon commission, which became the Warren Commission on the 29th of November.

The Secret Service illegally took the body from the Parkland doctors one hour after the assassination on the 22nd of November without following any kind of protocol – even though they must have known they were breaking the chain of custody. Being an investigative branch of the Government, the Secret Service surely must have known about the importance of chain of custody.

Viewing the actions of different authorities involved on that fateful day, it seems as if they all acted outside of any sort of protocol. Wouldn’t such a legal chaos make it easy for a defense lawyer to defend Oswald in a court of law?

Anyway, if the FBI allegedly (and perhaps illegally) took over the investigation from the Dallas Police and then the Warren Commission allegedly took over from FBI – who investigated the murder of the president – all of them or just the Warren Commission – or only the FBI – or no one?

The American public is most surely under the impression that it was the Warren Commission that investigated the murder of JFK - and who can blame them when American newspapers had these types of headlines…

 

JOHNSON NAMES A 7-MAN PANEL TO INVESTIGATE ASSASSINATION; CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN LEADS IT

 

… and whenever the subject arises the public was told (and still is) that “the Commission did a thorough investigation”.

Meanwhile, the Commission itself would just admit to only evaluate the FBI investigation and report on it - which of course anybody can see that Johnsons Executive Order (11130) says. Already in the headline, it becomes clear:

 

APPOINTING A COMMISSION TO REPORT UPON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY.

 

The text itself follows with these sentences:

 

“Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United States, I hereby appoint a Commission to ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts relating to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy and the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination. The purposes of the Commission are to examine the evidence developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any additional evidence that may hereafter come to light or be uncovered by federal or state authorities; to make further investigation as the Commission finds desirable…”

 

This was almost to the letter what Washington columnist Joseph Alsop told Johnson to do in the morning of the 25th of November. Alsop convinced Johnson only to “evaluate” the FBI investigation and that the Commission should not do any investigation of their own.

Consequently, the Commission never did seem to follow its own legal instructions from Johnson - a presidential order is a law. The Commission was supposed to examine the evidence developed by the FBI, and then only to evaluate and report on the FBI report (CD1). This never seemed to be the case.

Furthermore, Executive Order 11130 did not tell the Commission to launch an investigation that was to supersede the FBI investigation, which the Commissions’ investigation seemingly did; (CD1 400 pages – Warren Report 912 pages and 26 volumes). Also important, according to EO 11130, the Commission had to evaluate and report upon the facts relating to the violent death of Lee Harvey Oswald – at least we have not seen any sufficient report of that in the Warren Report.

This entire murky double talk has of course been “greatly successful” for the plotters throughout the years - since nobody seems to take much notice of the discrepancies. Because of this, most people still believe that the Commission truly investigated Kennedy’s murder, even if it was called the Warren Report and not the Warren Investigation. Today we can also see that the FBI investigation was very much a foregone conclusion, (among other things, Hoover told RFK on the afternoon on the 22nd of November who the lone assassin was). The FBI investigation was in fact a shallow and hasty job in which they never looked at anyone else but Oswald, and finished the report on the 9th of December 1963.

We also know that the Commission didn’t agree with Hoovers “results” and thus on their own created the Single Bullet Theory and consequently disregarded Sibert and O’Neils 302 report, which contradicted the whole idea of the SBT with the bullet hole in the president’s back.

So, did anyone – really – investigate this murder at all?

Can we at all talk about a real murder investigation when it comes to the murder of JFK?

The question also becomes, how should we would view the legal ramifications (if any) of the Secret Service “stealing of the body” from Parkland - and what that would do to the case had it gone to trial?

If the chain of custody had been broken, what use would then the autopsy result be in a coming trial with Oswald?

Is an autopsy not an important part of a murder investigation, isn’t the body of the diseased in a case like this equal to the diagram of the shooting?

If the results of the autopsy would not been admissible in a court of law - because of this broken chain of custody – what was then the point of doing an autopsy? Surely, the Secret Service must have known about this dilemma.

Why would the personnel at Bethesda have to sign statements to keep quiet of what they saw during the autopsy on that night?

Why was that so important in the quest for investigating how the president had died?

Wouldn’t a court want to be able to ask anybody involved in the autopsy about anything, be it Humes, O´Connor or Riebe, of what they saw that night in the morgue?

To us, the entire chain of events look planned. It looks like they all (DPD/FBI/WC) from the beginning acted as if Oswald, the accused, wasn’t going to live long enough to be able to stand trial and answer his accusers. It looks like it was important to create a legally chaotic scenario, a sort of designed confusion, which made sure the case ended up in a position unreachable for any legal attacks. What if there had been a legal foundation for the FBI to act in a “normal” fashion? Would an investigative commission still had been an option? It actually seemed as if  Hoover’s main objective from the get-go could have been not to investigate, but to take the investigation away from the Dallas Police and put it in the hands of a political commission, where it would then be untouchable for the legal system. No real law enforcement would investigate, and no court would ever try any suspect. This in fact became the real result of these planned events.

How else do we explain the lack of any criticism for any entity involved?


  • Kennethdus, JustinBami and Williamkr like this

#2 Kenneth Drew

Kenneth Drew

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • LocationLouisiana

Posted 26 May 2015 - 08:24 PM

An excellent assessment Steffan.  Of course the entire assassination was planned with appropriate contingences, for example the shooters were made up of Mafia, Cubans, Corsicans, amongst potentially some others, so that, in the event there were 'clearly' more than one shooter, they could blame it on a conspiracy of one or the other of those groups.  But if everything clicked, only the Lone Nut would be involved.  Of course having possession of the body was extremely important to being able to control 'who the shooter' was and 'where' he was located..  Certainly all of the correct details, such as the 'proof' that LHO ordered a rifle, etc were taken care of to ensure that LHO would successfully be the Lone Nut.  Having possession of the limo was also key to cover up all the loose details, such as the bullet through the windshield.   Who 'investigated'?  No one, it was a cover up from beginning to end.


  • Kennethdus likes this

#3 Charles Drago

Charles Drago

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationWherever I am observed by myself.

Posted 27 May 2015 - 04:49 AM

Of course ... the shooters were made up of Mafia, Cubans, Corsicans, amongst potentially some others

 

Please provide documentary proof.


"[Y]ou can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity." -- Graham Greene, The Quiet American

"If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence. He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave." -- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods

a wind has blown the rain away and blown
the sky away and all the leaves away,
and the trees stand. i think i too have known
autumn too long
-- e. e. cummings

#4 Charles Drago

Charles Drago

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationWherever I am observed by myself.

Posted 27 May 2015 - 05:09 AM

To the author(s) of "The 'Warren Investigation'" -- Please defend the value to a seminar conducted by Harold Bloom of a presentation establishing the presence of blank verse in the plays of William Shakespeare.


"[Y]ou can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity." -- Graham Greene, The Quiet American

"If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence. He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave." -- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods

a wind has blown the rain away and blown
the sky away and all the leaves away,
and the trees stand. i think i too have known
autumn too long
-- e. e. cummings

#5 Vasilis Vazakas

Vasilis Vazakas

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 78 posts

Posted 27 May 2015 - 11:45 AM

i don't believe anyone can name the shooters and if they were certainly mafia, Corsicans etc. We can only speculate


  • Charles Drago likes this

#6 Staffan H Westerberg

Staffan H Westerberg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • LocationStockholm, Sweden

Posted 28 May 2015 - 01:44 AM

Charles, my english is not advanced enough to be able to understand what you mean by "Please defend the value to a seminar conducted by Harold Bloom of a presentation establishing the presence of blank verse in the plays of William Shakespeare." There is (as always) an option to ridicule me because of this fact, I suppose there is a lot of irony imbedded here, but can you lower your standards a bit, and explain what you mean in common english. Thank you.



#7 Charles Drago

Charles Drago

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationWherever I am observed by myself.

Posted 28 May 2015 - 03:25 AM

If you apply to this conundrum the same research techniques that informed your original essay, then you should not require my explication.

 

I might note, in the spirit of collegiality, that playing (yet again) your dog-eared "my english [sic] is not advanced" card invites the conclusion that the value --literary and otherwise -- of all of your work in my native tongue is fatally impaired.

 

Or as Professor Melvin Brooks so pointedly observed, "You either got it, or you ain't."

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I must attend to submission of my "Feed a Cold, Starve a Fever" paper to the editorial board of The Lancet.


"[Y]ou can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity." -- Graham Greene, The Quiet American

"If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence. He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave." -- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods

a wind has blown the rain away and blown
the sky away and all the leaves away,
and the trees stand. i think i too have known
autumn too long
-- e. e. cummings

#8 Staffan H Westerberg

Staffan H Westerberg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • LocationStockholm, Sweden

Posted 28 May 2015 - 09:00 AM

If you dont want to be bothered with my questions, Charles, it seems to me strange why you keep commenting my topics/posts.

And by the way, I wouldnt call "my work" research, because it is not. But you can call it analysis. Research is when you actually dig for new information, find documents and do interviews etc. That I do for a living, but not when it comes to the JFK case, simply due to geographical problems.



#9 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,070 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 28 May 2015 - 11:23 AM

Staffan

 

Just on a side note...

 

You said: "A Presidential order is a law."

 

That is not correct. According to the US Constitution only Congress can pass laws.

 

Article I - Section 8 -

 

"The Congress shall have power:  [clause 18] -- to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

 

The President can issue an Executive Order, which is not the same thing as a "law." In fact, nowhere in the US Constitution is the term "Executive Order" even mentioned. However, the authority to issue Executive Orders derives from an interpretation of Article II - Section I - Clause I, which in part states that:

 

"The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows..."

 

So this clause "vests" Executive Power in the President to enable him to direct that the laws, which were passed by Congress, be implemented by whatever means necessary within the confines of the Constitution. It's easy to see why most Executive Orders are obeyed. Theoretically they reflect the will of the people, serve to enforce the Laws of the Land as passed by Congress, and/or fulfill the president's duty to Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

However, in the case of the Warren Commission, Congress did not pass a law to create a Blue Ribbon Commission to evaluate the FBI Report of its investigation. LBJ achieved "buy in" from Congress by including members of the House and the Senate, as well as insuring that any potentially inflammatory un-Constitutional concerns would be immediately doused by appointing the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as its head. Allen Dulles protected the interests of the intelligence community and Ford kept Hoover in the loop.

 

​Additionally, Staffan, if the Warren Commission was not supposed to conduct an investigation, how could it have drawn any conclusions about the efficacy of the Bureau's investigation? I am not defending the job they did. They purposely failed (or succeeded depending on intent). However, it would seem to be impossible for any commission to evaluate an investigation without themselves conducting "an investigation of the investigation" on which they are reporting. Perhaps you are correct, though. LBJ should have only tasked the Commission with reporting its evaluation of the FBI report rather than issue a report of its own investigation. The latter is like asking Colonel Sander's to "baby-sit your chickens." But, as it is, LBJ did, in fact, task the WC with developing its own investigation when he said: "...to make further investigation as the Commission finds desirable."


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#10 Staffan H Westerberg

Staffan H Westerberg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • LocationStockholm, Sweden

Posted 29 May 2015 - 12:01 AM

Thank you Greg for that information. I stand corrected then on the "law part". It goes to show you should not trust what any researcher say, always check info out, but actually there are many out there that have called it a law - I took that for granted. I will save your contribution. Thanks.



#11 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,070 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 29 May 2015 - 10:08 AM

Also note:

 

On December 13, 1963, Congress passed Senate Joint Resolution 137 (Public Law 88-202) authorizing the Commission to subpoena witnesses and obtain evidence concerning any matter relating to the investigation. The resolution also gave the Commission the power to compel the testimony of witnesses by granting immunity from prosecution to witnesses testifying under compulsion. The Commission, however, did not grant immunity to any witness during the investigation.


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#12 Phil Dragoo

Phil Dragoo

    Founding Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 585 posts

Posted 30 May 2015 - 02:59 AM

Johnson had the Commission thrust upon him by the persuasive powers of Rostow, Alsop et al per Donald Gibson.

 

Dulles, Ford, McCloy the most active members.

 

Dulles infamously foisting a book touting the lone-gunman in American assassinations.

 

Ruby's gunrunning studiously ignored.  Ditto the myriad curious loose ends of this man Oswald.

 

All the volumes of all the witnesses devoid of conspiracy taint, and of course, no index--until Sylvia Meagher's opus.

 

She and Mark Lane did the best initial dissection.

 

I recommend Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, 2005.

 

The great Dan Rather ("What's the frequency, Kenneth?") sent word to the late Tom Wilson that there was not a scintilla of evidence of conspiracy.

 

First used in 1661, scintilla in the Latin, spark, and I offer one from McKnight:

 

Harold Weisberg, the flint to strike a spark, wrested the documents showing AEC Oak Ridge Lab confirmed the Dallas police paraffin test on Oswald's cheek as negative, then went to the length of testing seven actual shooters of the Mannlicher Carcano which FBI "expert" Cortland Cunningham said was too tight to leave GSR--and all seven tested positive.

 

Three members had doubts which were buried. 

 

To hear Dulles tell it the Commission was the bee's knees:

 

 

I find the more accurate judgment of this Kabuki Klub rendered by a familiar face from American telemarketing:

 

2i6h2yx.jpg



#13 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,070 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 30 May 2015 - 10:35 AM

Nice!


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Web Work by: XmasZen.com