https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.png
In order to do that, you had to allow and disallow evidence
according to judicial rules and protocol.
But the Commission didn't do that.
They allowed the wife to testify against her husband.
They allowed witness identifications from lineups that were obviously unfair.
They allowed evidence that was never identified by the person who found it. They allowed hearsay statements allegedly made by the accused.
They called witnesses who had no evidence to offer and ignored others who did.
They disavowed testimony from their own experts.
This was not a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect. And they did not present the evidence in such a way that Oswald, "would have been convicted at trial".
Otherwise, we wouldn't be here 60 years later debating this issue.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.png
In order to do that, you had to allow and disallow evidence
according to judicial rules and protocol.
But the Commission didn't do that.
They allowed the wife to testify against her husband.
They allowed witness identifications from lineups that were obviously unfair.
They allowed evidence that was never identified by the person who found it.
They allowed hearsay statements allegedly made by the accused.
They called witnesses who had no evidence to offer and ignored others who did.
They disavowed testimony from their own experts.
This was not a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect.
And they did not present the evidence in such a way that Oswald, "would have been convicted at trial".
Otherwise, we wouldn't be here 60 years later debating this issue.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 5:51:57 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Katzenbach is clearly saying that any investigation into the assassination needed to produce enough evidence *that could be used* in a court - that is legal/court standards - to show to the public, to satisfy the public, that Oswald was guilty. He is not
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.png
In order to do that, you had to allow and disallow evidence
according to judicial rules and protocol.
But the Commission didn't do that.
They allowed the wife to testify against her husband.
They allowed witness identifications from lineups that were obviously unfair.
They allowed evidence that was never identified by the person who found it.
They allowed hearsay statements allegedly made by the accused.
They called witnesses who had no evidence to offer and ignored others who did.
They disavowed testimony from their own experts.
This was not a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect. And they did not present the evidence in such a way that Oswald, "would have been convicted at trial".It was not intended to be a trial. It was a fact finding body. There was no prosecution, no
defense, no judge, and no jury. The Commission was given one task. Gather the evidence
and determine the truth of the JFK assassination. They did their job admirably and reached
the correct conclusion. The fact that some people refuse to accept that is not an indictment
of the WC. It is an indictment of those who refuse to accept the plain truth.
You can lead a horse to water...
Otherwise, we wouldn't be here 60 years later debating this issue.The reason we are still here 60 years later is because there is a small but fervent army of
assclowns who can't accept what the evidence obviously proves, that Oswald killed two men.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.png
In order to do that, you had to allow and disallow evidence
according to judicial rules and protocol.
But the Commission didn't do that.
They allowed the wife to testify against her husband.
They allowed witness identifications from lineups that were obviously unfair.
They allowed evidence that was never identified by the person who found it. They allowed hearsay statements allegedly made by the accused.
They called witnesses who had no evidence to offer and ignored others who did.
They disavowed testimony from their own experts.
This was not a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect. And they did not present the evidence in such a way that Oswald, "would have been convicted at trial".
Otherwise, we wouldn't be here 60 years later debating this issue.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 4:51:57 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:people or the person who killed John F. Kennedy. Could you comment on this?
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.pngStill bringing up the Katzenbach memo? He's been interviewed about it many times. Here's an excerpt from one interview:
https://www.emkinstitute.org/resources/nicholas-katzenbach
Knott
Can I take you a little bit far afield here? There’s a new book out on the Warren Commission. Paul, do you recall it?
Martin
I don’t recall the title but it’s a reputable book, written by a historian, University of Kansas Press. But go ahead. [Ed. Note: Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, by Gerald D. McKnight.]
Knott
I believe he’s somewhat critical of your whole role in creating the Warren Commission, arguing that you were attempting to just immediately discredit the conspiracy theories without wanting a thorough investigation of all possible sources of the
Katzenbachthat an investigation by the State of Texas would be believed. I did not think that the FBI investigation would be believed, and I thought there ought to be a very thorough investigation, which is why I suggested the Warren Commission. Not Warren
Conspiracy is a popular American pastime. I don’t know. What really went through my head more than anything was the [Abraham] Lincoln assassination. To this day, you have conspiracy theories that pop up all the time about it. I did not really think
Martinwho killed the President.
This is the memo to Bill Moyers?
Katzenbach
Yes, there’s a bad sentence in it. But that’s all I was trying to do. Why I would have any interest in trying to destroy a conspiracy theory I don’t know. It was just hard for me to see why I would care. I thought it was important that you know
Martinthought it might lead to war or something like that, and that the country would be safer with this explanation. Not that there was any malicious intent, but that—and Oswald—
Some of the sense is more along the lines that the country just needed to move on and that Johnson may have had reasons to want to end the conspiracy questions, especially with respect to whether Cuba was involved or Russia was involved, because he
Katzenbachthis country could do it? And boy, did they have a bunch of good lawyers. Young lawyers and older lawyers come in and volunteer for that job.
If Johnson felt that way, he sure didn’t think a commission was the way to do it, did he? Because he was opposed to it. He wanted Texas to do it. I thought it was just nuts.
Martin
Did you keep track or keep in touch with people on the commission?
Katzenbach
Indirectly, not very much. I put Howard Willens in the Justice Department as the number-two guy in the criminal division, and I made him the liaison. A lot of people objected; they say, why did you have the Bureau do all their work? Well, who else in
Knottdidn’t want to be hit by the same bullet that had hit Kennedy. I think he was afraid his blood would be poisoned or something if that happened. The real problem was that shot, because that shot hit both of them. Connally insisted on having his own
For the Commission?
Katzenbach
Yes, you could put those people together in a law firm and you’d make zillions of dollars, I’ll tell you. They were really good people. They did the best investigation they could. They had some difficulties with things. Governor [John] Connally
Martinthey handled them and said what they thought about them, and I think did as well as they could. Bobby never cared about it very much. I don’t know whether he was worried about it.
In what part do you think he wasn’t fair and square?
Katzenbach
He knew things that he did not tell the commission.
Knott
The attempts to kill—
Katzenbach
That were clearly relevant. What?
Knott
The efforts to kill [Fidel] Castro?
Katzenbach
Yes, they were all clearly relevant to their investigation and he didn’t tell them about it.
Martin
So when the commission produced its final report, did you think at that time that they had done a good job?
Katzenbach
Yes, I do today. I think they did as good a job—I don’t think anybody has knocked any holes in it. I mean, the problems that they had when they wrote it are the same problems that exist today. You can talk about those problems. They faced them and
Martinvery devastated young man.
Was Ted involved in any way?
Katzenbach
He may have been worried that his organized crime activities were part of this in some way. I don’t really know whether he was or not. My feeling is that he just felt the President was dead and what difference did it make who killed him. He was a
recommended making the assassination the POTUS and VP a federal crime, which it wasn't prior to JFK's murder.In order to do that, you had to allow and disallow evidenceYes, in a CRIMINAL TRIAL, stupid. OSWALD WASN'T ON TRIAL.
according to judicial rules and protocol.
But the Commission didn't do that.We don't try dead people, stupid. This has been explained countless times to you. The commission was a fact finding group to ascertain who killed JFK and Tippit and the resulting report also highlighted deficiencies in the protection of the POTUS and
They allowed the wife to testify against her husband.
They allowed witness identifications from lineups that were obviously unfair.
They allowed evidence that was never identified by the person who found it.
They allowed hearsay statements allegedly made by the accused.
They called witnesses who had no evidence to offer and ignored others who did.
They disavowed testimony from their own experts.
This was not a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect. And they did not present the evidence in such a way that Oswald, "would have been convicted at trial".In your opinion.
Sixty years of stomping your tiny feet and waving your tiny fists to the heavens, crying over the unfairness of it all. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Puzzle me this, Sherlock Jesus: Why didn't Team Oswald, in the subsequent years, run their own tests, put together their own recreations of the event, etc. and come up with their own conclusion? Why just bitch for the past 21,900 days or so?
Otherwise, we wouldn't be here 60 years later debating this issue.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:17:40 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:people or the person who killed John F. Kennedy. Could you comment on this?
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 4:51:57 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.pngStill bringing up the Katzenbach memo? He's been interviewed about it many times. Here's an excerpt from one interview:
https://www.emkinstitute.org/resources/nicholas-katzenbach
Knott
Can I take you a little bit far afield here? There’s a new book out on the Warren Commission. Paul, do you recall it?
Martin
I don’t recall the title but it’s a reputable book, written by a historian, University of Kansas Press. But go ahead. [Ed. Note: Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, by Gerald D. McKnight.]
Knott
I believe he’s somewhat critical of your whole role in creating the Warren Commission, arguing that you were attempting to just immediately discredit the conspiracy theories without wanting a thorough investigation of all possible sources of the
that an investigation by the State of Texas would be believed. I did not think that the FBI investigation would be believed, and I thought there ought to be a very thorough investigation, which is why I suggested the Warren Commission. Not WarrenKatzenbach
Conspiracy is a popular American pastime. I don’t know. What really went through my head more than anything was the [Abraham] Lincoln assassination. To this day, you have conspiracy theories that pop up all the time about it. I did not really think
who killed the President.Martin
This is the memo to Bill Moyers?
Katzenbach
Yes, there’s a bad sentence in it. But that’s all I was trying to do. Why I would have any interest in trying to destroy a conspiracy theory I don’t know. It was just hard for me to see why I would care. I thought it was important that you know
thought it might lead to war or something like that, and that the country would be safer with this explanation. Not that there was any malicious intent, but that—and Oswald—Martin
Some of the sense is more along the lines that the country just needed to move on and that Johnson may have had reasons to want to end the conspiracy questions, especially with respect to whether Cuba was involved or Russia was involved, because he
this country could do it? And boy, did they have a bunch of good lawyers. Young lawyers and older lawyers come in and volunteer for that job.Katzenbach
If Johnson felt that way, he sure didn’t think a commission was the way to do it, did he? Because he was opposed to it. He wanted Texas to do it. I thought it was just nuts.
Martin
Did you keep track or keep in touch with people on the commission?
Katzenbach
Indirectly, not very much. I put Howard Willens in the Justice Department as the number-two guy in the criminal division, and I made him the liaison. A lot of people objected; they say, why did you have the Bureau do all their work? Well, who else in
didn’t want to be hit by the same bullet that had hit Kennedy. I think he was afraid his blood would be poisoned or something if that happened. The real problem was that shot, because that shot hit both of them. Connally insisted on having his ownKnott
For the Commission?
Katzenbach
Yes, you could put those people together in a law firm and you’d make zillions of dollars, I’ll tell you. They were really good people. They did the best investigation they could. They had some difficulties with things. Governor [John] Connally
and they handled them and said what they thought about them, and I think did as well as they could. Bobby never cared about it very much. I don’t know whether he was worried about it.Martin
In what part do you think he wasn’t fair and square?
Katzenbach
He knew things that he did not tell the commission.
Knott
The attempts to kill—
Katzenbach
That were clearly relevant. What?
Knott
The efforts to kill [Fidel] Castro?
Katzenbach
Yes, they were all clearly relevant to their investigation and he didn’t tell them about it.
Martin
So when the commission produced its final report, did you think at that time that they had done a good job?
Katzenbach
Yes, I do today. I think they did as good a job—I don’t think anybody has knocked any holes in it. I mean, the problems that they had when they wrote it are the same problems that exist today. You can talk about those problems. They faced them
very devastated young man.Martin
Was Ted involved in any way?
Katzenbach
He may have been worried that his organized crime activities were part of this in some way. I don’t really know whether he was or not. My feeling is that he just felt the President was dead and what difference did it make who killed him. He was a
recommended making the assassination the POTUS and VP a federal crime, which it wasn't prior to JFK's murder.In order to do that, you had to allow and disallow evidenceYes, in a CRIMINAL TRIAL, stupid. OSWALD WASN'T ON TRIAL.
according to judicial rules and protocol.
But the Commission didn't do that.We don't try dead people, stupid. This has been explained countless times to you. The commission was a fact finding group to ascertain who killed JFK and Tippit and the resulting report also highlighted deficiencies in the protection of the POTUS and
They allowed the wife to testify against her husband.
They allowed witness identifications from lineups that were obviously unfair.
They allowed evidence that was never identified by the person who found it.
They allowed hearsay statements allegedly made by the accused.
They called witnesses who had no evidence to offer and ignored others who did.
They disavowed testimony from their own experts.
This was not a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect. And they did not present the evidence in such a way that Oswald, "would have been convicted at trial".In your opinion.
Sixty years of stomping your tiny feet and waving your tiny fists to the heavens, crying over the unfairness of it all. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Puzzle me this, Sherlock Jesus: Why didn't Team Oswald, in the subsequent years, run their own tests, put together their own recreations of the event, etc. and come up with their own conclusion? Why just bitch for the past 21,900 days or so?
I'm glad to see Katzenbach acknowledged that one key sentence was badly worded. The memoOtherwise, we wouldn't be here 60 years later debating this issue.
reflects that Katzenbach had already seen enough evidence to be convinced that Oswald was
the assassin. The way he worded the memo made it sound as if he didn't want to even consider
the possibility of a conspiracy. He didn't believe there was and the way he worded it indicated
that. I think if he knew that the memo would become public, he would have been more judicious
in his choice of words.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:37:07 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:people or the person who killed John F. Kennedy. Could you comment on this?
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:17:40 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 4:51:57 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.pngStill bringing up the Katzenbach memo? He's been interviewed about it many times. Here's an excerpt from one interview:
https://www.emkinstitute.org/resources/nicholas-katzenbach
Knott
Can I take you a little bit far afield here? There’s a new book out on the Warren Commission. Paul, do you recall it?
Martin
I don’t recall the title but it’s a reputable book, written by a historian, University of Kansas Press. But go ahead. [Ed. Note: Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, by Gerald D. McKnight.]
Knott
I believe he’s somewhat critical of your whole role in creating the Warren Commission, arguing that you were attempting to just immediately discredit the conspiracy theories without wanting a thorough investigation of all possible sources of the
think that an investigation by the State of Texas would be believed. I did not think that the FBI investigation would be believed, and I thought there ought to be a very thorough investigation, which is why I suggested the Warren Commission. Not WarrenKatzenbach
Conspiracy is a popular American pastime. I don’t know. What really went through my head more than anything was the [Abraham] Lincoln assassination. To this day, you have conspiracy theories that pop up all the time about it. I did not really
know who killed the President.Martin
This is the memo to Bill Moyers?
Katzenbach
Yes, there’s a bad sentence in it. But that’s all I was trying to do. Why I would have any interest in trying to destroy a conspiracy theory I don’t know. It was just hard for me to see why I would care. I thought it was important that you
thought it might lead to war or something like that, and that the country would be safer with this explanation. Not that there was any malicious intent, but that—and Oswald—Martin
Some of the sense is more along the lines that the country just needed to move on and that Johnson may have had reasons to want to end the conspiracy questions, especially with respect to whether Cuba was involved or Russia was involved, because he
in this country could do it? And boy, did they have a bunch of good lawyers. Young lawyers and older lawyers come in and volunteer for that job.Katzenbach
If Johnson felt that way, he sure didn’t think a commission was the way to do it, did he? Because he was opposed to it. He wanted Texas to do it. I thought it was just nuts.
Martin
Did you keep track or keep in touch with people on the commission?
Katzenbach
Indirectly, not very much. I put Howard Willens in the Justice Department as the number-two guy in the criminal division, and I made him the liaison. A lot of people objected; they say, why did you have the Bureau do all their work? Well, who else
didn’t want to be hit by the same bullet that had hit Kennedy. I think he was afraid his blood would be poisoned or something if that happened. The real problem was that shot, because that shot hit both of them. Connally insisted on having his ownKnott
For the Commission?
Katzenbach
Yes, you could put those people together in a law firm and you’d make zillions of dollars, I’ll tell you. They were really good people. They did the best investigation they could. They had some difficulties with things. Governor [John] Connally
and they handled them and said what they thought about them, and I think did as well as they could. Bobby never cared about it very much. I don’t know whether he was worried about it.Martin
In what part do you think he wasn’t fair and square?
Katzenbach
He knew things that he did not tell the commission.
Knott
The attempts to kill—
Katzenbach
That were clearly relevant. What?
Knott
The efforts to kill [Fidel] Castro?
Katzenbach
Yes, they were all clearly relevant to their investigation and he didn’t tell them about it.
Martin
So when the commission produced its final report, did you think at that time that they had done a good job?
Katzenbach
Yes, I do today. I think they did as good a job—I don’t think anybody has knocked any holes in it. I mean, the problems that they had when they wrote it are the same problems that exist today. You can talk about those problems. They faced them
very devastated young man.Martin
Was Ted involved in any way?
Katzenbach
He may have been worried that his organized crime activities were part of this in some way. I don’t really know whether he was or not. My feeling is that he just felt the President was dead and what difference did it make who killed him. He was a
and recommended making the assassination the POTUS and VP a federal crime, which it wasn't prior to JFK's murder.In order to do that, you had to allow and disallow evidenceYes, in a CRIMINAL TRIAL, stupid. OSWALD WASN'T ON TRIAL.
according to judicial rules and protocol.
But the Commission didn't do that.We don't try dead people, stupid. This has been explained countless times to you. The commission was a fact finding group to ascertain who killed JFK and Tippit and the resulting report also highlighted deficiencies in the protection of the POTUS
Warren: "We had evidence that Allen Dulles ordered the assassination but it was based on hearsay and the chain of possession of the documents was shaky. We'd never be able to use it in court. So, we shut that line of investigation down."They allowed the wife to testify against her husband.
They allowed witness identifications from lineups that were obviously unfair.
They allowed evidence that was never identified by the person who found it.
They allowed hearsay statements allegedly made by the accused.
They called witnesses who had no evidence to offer and ignored others who did.
They disavowed testimony from their own experts.
This was not a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect. And they did not present the evidence in such a way that Oswald, "would have been convicted at trial".In your opinion.
Sixty years of stomping your tiny feet and waving your tiny fists to the heavens, crying over the unfairness of it all. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Puzzle me this, Sherlock Jesus: Why didn't Team Oswald, in the subsequent years, run their own tests, put together their own recreations of the event, etc. and come up with their own conclusion? Why just bitch for the past 21,900 days or so?
Of course Gil ignores the parts of the memo that carry heavier weight and are not controversial:I'm glad to see Katzenbach acknowledged that one key sentence was badly worded. The memoOtherwise, we wouldn't be here 60 years later debating this issue.
reflects that Katzenbach had already seen enough evidence to be convinced that Oswald was
the assassin. The way he worded the memo made it sound as if he didn't want to even consider
the possibility of a conspiracy. He didn't believe there was and the way he worded it indicated
that. I think if he knew that the memo would become public, he would have been more judicious
in his choice of words.
"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the Untied States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now."
Gil is taking things out of context to fit his narrative.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:37:07 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:people or the person who killed John F. Kennedy. Could you comment on this?
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:17:40 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 4:51:57 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.pngStill bringing up the Katzenbach memo? He's been interviewed about it many times. Here's an excerpt from one interview:
https://www.emkinstitute.org/resources/nicholas-katzenbach
Knott
Can I take you a little bit far afield here? There’s a new book out on the Warren Commission. Paul, do you recall it?
Martin
I don’t recall the title but it’s a reputable book, written by a historian, University of Kansas Press. But go ahead. [Ed. Note: Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, by Gerald D. McKnight.]
Knott
I believe he’s somewhat critical of your whole role in creating the Warren Commission, arguing that you were attempting to just immediately discredit the conspiracy theories without wanting a thorough investigation of all possible sources of the
think that an investigation by the State of Texas would be believed. I did not think that the FBI investigation would be believed, and I thought there ought to be a very thorough investigation, which is why I suggested the Warren Commission. Not WarrenKatzenbach
Conspiracy is a popular American pastime. I don’t know. What really went through my head more than anything was the [Abraham] Lincoln assassination. To this day, you have conspiracy theories that pop up all the time about it. I did not really
know who killed the President.Martin
This is the memo to Bill Moyers?
Katzenbach
Yes, there’s a bad sentence in it. But that’s all I was trying to do. Why I would have any interest in trying to destroy a conspiracy theory I don’t know. It was just hard for me to see why I would care. I thought it was important that you
thought it might lead to war or something like that, and that the country would be safer with this explanation. Not that there was any malicious intent, but that—and Oswald—Martin
Some of the sense is more along the lines that the country just needed to move on and that Johnson may have had reasons to want to end the conspiracy questions, especially with respect to whether Cuba was involved or Russia was involved, because he
in this country could do it? And boy, did they have a bunch of good lawyers. Young lawyers and older lawyers come in and volunteer for that job.Katzenbach
If Johnson felt that way, he sure didn’t think a commission was the way to do it, did he? Because he was opposed to it. He wanted Texas to do it. I thought it was just nuts.
Martin
Did you keep track or keep in touch with people on the commission?
Katzenbach
Indirectly, not very much. I put Howard Willens in the Justice Department as the number-two guy in the criminal division, and I made him the liaison. A lot of people objected; they say, why did you have the Bureau do all their work? Well, who else
didn’t want to be hit by the same bullet that had hit Kennedy. I think he was afraid his blood would be poisoned or something if that happened. The real problem was that shot, because that shot hit both of them. Connally insisted on having his ownKnott
For the Commission?
Katzenbach
Yes, you could put those people together in a law firm and you’d make zillions of dollars, I’ll tell you. They were really good people. They did the best investigation they could. They had some difficulties with things. Governor [John] Connally
and they handled them and said what they thought about them, and I think did as well as they could. Bobby never cared about it very much. I don’t know whether he was worried about it.Martin
In what part do you think he wasn’t fair and square?
Katzenbach
He knew things that he did not tell the commission.
Knott
The attempts to kill—
Katzenbach
That were clearly relevant. What?
Knott
The efforts to kill [Fidel] Castro?
Katzenbach
Yes, they were all clearly relevant to their investigation and he didn’t tell them about it.
Martin
So when the commission produced its final report, did you think at that time that they had done a good job?
Katzenbach
Yes, I do today. I think they did as good a job—I don’t think anybody has knocked any holes in it. I mean, the problems that they had when they wrote it are the same problems that exist today. You can talk about those problems. They faced them
very devastated young man.Martin
Was Ted involved in any way?
Katzenbach
He may have been worried that his organized crime activities were part of this in some way. I don’t really know whether he was or not. My feeling is that he just felt the President was dead and what difference did it make who killed him. He was a
and recommended making the assassination the POTUS and VP a federal crime, which it wasn't prior to JFK's murder.In order to do that, you had to allow and disallow evidenceYes, in a CRIMINAL TRIAL, stupid. OSWALD WASN'T ON TRIAL.
according to judicial rules and protocol.
But the Commission didn't do that.We don't try dead people, stupid. This has been explained countless times to you. The commission was a fact finding group to ascertain who killed JFK and Tippit and the resulting report also highlighted deficiencies in the protection of the POTUS
They allowed the wife to testify against her husband.
They allowed witness identifications from lineups that were obviously unfair.
They allowed evidence that was never identified by the person who found it.
They allowed hearsay statements allegedly made by the accused.
They called witnesses who had no evidence to offer and ignored others who did.
They disavowed testimony from their own experts.
This was not a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect. And they did not present the evidence in such a way that Oswald, "would have been convicted at trial".In your opinion.
Sixty years of stomping your tiny feet and waving your tiny fists to the heavens, crying over the unfairness of it all. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Puzzle me this, Sherlock Jesus: Why didn't Team Oswald, in the subsequent years, run their own tests, put together their own recreations of the event, etc. and come up with their own conclusion? Why just bitch for the past 21,900 days or so?
Of course Gil ignores the parts of the memo that carry heavier weight and are not controversial:I'm glad to see Katzenbach acknowledged that one key sentence was badly worded. The memoOtherwise, we wouldn't be here 60 years later debating this issue.
reflects that Katzenbach had already seen enough evidence to be convinced that Oswald was
the assassin. The way he worded the memo made it sound as if he didn't want to even consider
the possibility of a conspiracy. He didn't believe there was and the way he worded it indicated
that. I think if he knew that the memo would become public, he would have been more judicious
in his choice of words.
"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the Untied States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now."
Gil is taking things out of context to fit his narrative.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:00:16 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:the people or the person who killed John F. Kennedy. Could you comment on this?
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:37:07 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:17:40 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 4:51:57 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.pngStill bringing up the Katzenbach memo? He's been interviewed about it many times. Here's an excerpt from one interview:
https://www.emkinstitute.org/resources/nicholas-katzenbach
Knott
Can I take you a little bit far afield here? There’s a new book out on the Warren Commission. Paul, do you recall it?
Martin
I don’t recall the title but it’s a reputable book, written by a historian, University of Kansas Press. But go ahead. [Ed. Note: Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, by Gerald D. McKnight.]
Knott
I believe he’s somewhat critical of your whole role in creating the Warren Commission, arguing that you were attempting to just immediately discredit the conspiracy theories without wanting a thorough investigation of all possible sources of
think that an investigation by the State of Texas would be believed. I did not think that the FBI investigation would be believed, and I thought there ought to be a very thorough investigation, which is why I suggested the Warren Commission. Not WarrenKatzenbach
Conspiracy is a popular American pastime. I don’t know. What really went through my head more than anything was the [Abraham] Lincoln assassination. To this day, you have conspiracy theories that pop up all the time about it. I did not really
know who killed the President.Martin
This is the memo to Bill Moyers?
Katzenbach
Yes, there’s a bad sentence in it. But that’s all I was trying to do. Why I would have any interest in trying to destroy a conspiracy theory I don’t know. It was just hard for me to see why I would care. I thought it was important that you
he thought it might lead to war or something like that, and that the country would be safer with this explanation. Not that there was any malicious intent, but that—and Oswald—Martin
Some of the sense is more along the lines that the country just needed to move on and that Johnson may have had reasons to want to end the conspiracy questions, especially with respect to whether Cuba was involved or Russia was involved, because
else in this country could do it? And boy, did they have a bunch of good lawyers. Young lawyers and older lawyers come in and volunteer for that job.Katzenbach
If Johnson felt that way, he sure didn’t think a commission was the way to do it, did he? Because he was opposed to it. He wanted Texas to do it. I thought it was just nuts.
Martin
Did you keep track or keep in touch with people on the commission?
Katzenbach
Indirectly, not very much. I put Howard Willens in the Justice Department as the number-two guy in the criminal division, and I made him the liaison. A lot of people objected; they say, why did you have the Bureau do all their work? Well, who
Connally didn’t want to be hit by the same bullet that had hit Kennedy. I think he was afraid his blood would be poisoned or something if that happened. The real problem was that shot, because that shot hit both of them. Connally insisted on having hisKnott
For the Commission?
Katzenbach
Yes, you could put those people together in a law firm and you’d make zillions of dollars, I’ll tell you. They were really good people. They did the best investigation they could. They had some difficulties with things. Governor [John]
them and they handled them and said what they thought about them, and I think did as well as they could. Bobby never cared about it very much. I don’t know whether he was worried about it.Martin
In what part do you think he wasn’t fair and square?
Katzenbach
He knew things that he did not tell the commission.
Knott
The attempts to kill—
Katzenbach
That were clearly relevant. What?
Knott
The efforts to kill [Fidel] Castro?
Katzenbach
Yes, they were all clearly relevant to their investigation and he didn’t tell them about it.
Martin
So when the commission produced its final report, did you think at that time that they had done a good job?
Katzenbach
Yes, I do today. I think they did as good a job—I don’t think anybody has knocked any holes in it. I mean, the problems that they had when they wrote it are the same problems that exist today. You can talk about those problems. They faced
a very devastated young man.Martin
Was Ted involved in any way?
Katzenbach
He may have been worried that his organized crime activities were part of this in some way. I don’t really know whether he was or not. My feeling is that he just felt the President was dead and what difference did it make who killed him. He was
and recommended making the assassination the POTUS and VP a federal crime, which it wasn't prior to JFK's murder.In order to do that, you had to allow and disallow evidence according to judicial rules and protocol.Yes, in a CRIMINAL TRIAL, stupid. OSWALD WASN'T ON TRIAL.
But the Commission didn't do that.We don't try dead people, stupid. This has been explained countless times to you. The commission was a fact finding group to ascertain who killed JFK and Tippit and the resulting report also highlighted deficiencies in the protection of the POTUS
They allowed the wife to testify against her husband.
They allowed witness identifications from lineups that were obviously unfair.
They allowed evidence that was never identified by the person who found it.
They allowed hearsay statements allegedly made by the accused.
They called witnesses who had no evidence to offer and ignored others who did.
They disavowed testimony from their own experts.
This was not a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect. And they did not present the evidence in such a way that Oswald, "would have been convicted at trial".In your opinion.
Sixty years of stomping your tiny feet and waving your tiny fists to the heavens, crying over the unfairness of it all. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Puzzle me this, Sherlock Jesus: Why didn't Team Oswald, in the subsequent years, run their own tests, put together their own recreations of the event, etc. and come up with their own conclusion? Why just bitch for the past 21,900 days or so?
Of course Gil ignores the parts of the memo that carry heavier weight and are not controversial:I'm glad to see Katzenbach acknowledged that one key sentence was badly worded. The memoOtherwise, we wouldn't be here 60 years later debating this issue.
reflects that Katzenbach had already seen enough evidence to be convinced that Oswald was
the assassin. The way he worded the memo made it sound as if he didn't want to even consider
the possibility of a conspiracy. He didn't believe there was and the way he worded it indicated
that. I think if he knew that the memo would become public, he would have been more judicious
in his choice of words.
"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the Untied States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now."
Gil is taking things out of context to fit his narrative.Pointed out to Gil a few decades ago by Ted Gittinger. Gil is no smarter now than he was then.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/1vTqk95uwi0/m/01WkCZGbSTsJ
You can`t have a cover-up by making all facts public. You...Just....Can`t.
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 6:50:35 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:the people or the person who killed John F. Kennedy. Could you comment on this?
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 7:00:16 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:37:07 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 3:17:40 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 4:51:57 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.pngStill bringing up the Katzenbach memo? He's been interviewed about it many times. Here's an excerpt from one interview:
https://www.emkinstitute.org/resources/nicholas-katzenbach
Knott
Can I take you a little bit far afield here? There’s a new book out on the Warren Commission. Paul, do you recall it?
Martin
I don’t recall the title but it’s a reputable book, written by a historian, University of Kansas Press. But go ahead. [Ed. Note: Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, by Gerald D. McKnight.]
Knott
I believe he’s somewhat critical of your whole role in creating the Warren Commission, arguing that you were attempting to just immediately discredit the conspiracy theories without wanting a thorough investigation of all possible sources of
think that an investigation by the State of Texas would be believed. I did not think that the FBI investigation would be believed, and I thought there ought to be a very thorough investigation, which is why I suggested the Warren Commission. Not WarrenKatzenbach
Conspiracy is a popular American pastime. I don’t know. What really went through my head more than anything was the [Abraham] Lincoln assassination. To this day, you have conspiracy theories that pop up all the time about it. I did not really
you know who killed the President.Martin
This is the memo to Bill Moyers?
Katzenbach
Yes, there’s a bad sentence in it. But that’s all I was trying to do. Why I would have any interest in trying to destroy a conspiracy theory I don’t know. It was just hard for me to see why I would care. I thought it was important that
because he thought it might lead to war or something like that, and that the country would be safer with this explanation. Not that there was any malicious intent, but that—and Oswald—Martin
Some of the sense is more along the lines that the country just needed to move on and that Johnson may have had reasons to want to end the conspiracy questions, especially with respect to whether Cuba was involved or Russia was involved,
else in this country could do it? And boy, did they have a bunch of good lawyers. Young lawyers and older lawyers come in and volunteer for that job.Katzenbach
If Johnson felt that way, he sure didn’t think a commission was the way to do it, did he? Because he was opposed to it. He wanted Texas to do it. I thought it was just nuts.
Martin
Did you keep track or keep in touch with people on the commission?
Katzenbach
Indirectly, not very much. I put Howard Willens in the Justice Department as the number-two guy in the criminal division, and I made him the liaison. A lot of people objected; they say, why did you have the Bureau do all their work? Well, who
Connally didn’t want to be hit by the same bullet that had hit Kennedy. I think he was afraid his blood would be poisoned or something if that happened. The real problem was that shot, because that shot hit both of them. Connally insisted on having hisKnott
For the Commission?
Katzenbach
Yes, you could put those people together in a law firm and you’d make zillions of dollars, I’ll tell you. They were really good people. They did the best investigation they could. They had some difficulties with things. Governor [John]
them and they handled them and said what they thought about them, and I think did as well as they could. Bobby never cared about it very much. I don’t know whether he was worried about it.Martin
In what part do you think he wasn’t fair and square?
Katzenbach
He knew things that he did not tell the commission.
Knott
The attempts to kill—
Katzenbach
That were clearly relevant. What?
Knott
The efforts to kill [Fidel] Castro?
Katzenbach
Yes, they were all clearly relevant to their investigation and he didn’t tell them about it.
Martin
So when the commission produced its final report, did you think at that time that they had done a good job?
Katzenbach
Yes, I do today. I think they did as good a job—I don’t think anybody has knocked any holes in it. I mean, the problems that they had when they wrote it are the same problems that exist today. You can talk about those problems. They faced
was a very devastated young man.Martin
Was Ted involved in any way?
Katzenbach
He may have been worried that his organized crime activities were part of this in some way. I don’t really know whether he was or not. My feeling is that he just felt the President was dead and what difference did it make who killed him. He
POTUS and recommended making the assassination the POTUS and VP a federal crime, which it wasn't prior to JFK's murder.In order to do that, you had to allow and disallow evidence according to judicial rules and protocol.Yes, in a CRIMINAL TRIAL, stupid. OSWALD WASN'T ON TRIAL.
But the Commission didn't do that.We don't try dead people, stupid. This has been explained countless times to you. The commission was a fact finding group to ascertain who killed JFK and Tippit and the resulting report also highlighted deficiencies in the protection of the
"They allowed the wife to testify against her husband.
They allowed witness identifications from lineups that were obviously unfair.
They allowed evidence that was never identified by the person who found it.
They allowed hearsay statements allegedly made by the accused. They called witnesses who had no evidence to offer and ignored others who did.
They disavowed testimony from their own experts.
This was not a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect. And they did not present the evidence in such a way that Oswald, "would have been convicted at trial".In your opinion.
Sixty years of stomping your tiny feet and waving your tiny fists to the heavens, crying over the unfairness of it all. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Puzzle me this, Sherlock Jesus: Why didn't Team Oswald, in the subsequent years, run their own tests, put together their own recreations of the event, etc. and come up with their own conclusion? Why just bitch for the past 21,900 days or so?
Of course Gil ignores the parts of the memo that carry heavier weight and are not controversial:I'm glad to see Katzenbach acknowledged that one key sentence was badly worded. The memoOtherwise, we wouldn't be here 60 years later debating this issue.
reflects that Katzenbach had already seen enough evidence to be convinced that Oswald was
the assassin. The way he worded the memo made it sound as if he didn't want to even consider
the possibility of a conspiracy. He didn't believe there was and the way he worded it indicated
that. I think if he knew that the memo would become public, he would have been more judicious
in his choice of words.
"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the Untied States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now.
Gil is taking things out of context to fit his narrative.Pointed out to Gil a few decades ago by Ted Gittinger. Gil is no smarter now than he was then.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/1vTqk95uwi0/m/01WkCZGbSTsJ
You can`t have a cover-up by making all facts public. You...Just....Can`t.Wow. Crazy that you could find that from two decades ago. Goes to show how long we've been arguing over the same stuff, over and over.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 5:51:57?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.png
In order to do that, you had to allow and disallow evidence
according to judicial rules and protocol.
But the Commission didn't do that.
They allowed the wife to testify against her husband.
They allowed witness identifications from lineups that were obviously unfair.
They allowed evidence that was never identified by the person who found it. >> They allowed hearsay statements allegedly made by the accused.
They called witnesses who had no evidence to offer and ignored others who did.
They disavowed testimony from their own experts.
This was not a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect. And they did not present the evidence in such a way that Oswald, "would have been convicted at trial".
It was not intended to be a trial. It was a fact finding body. There was no prosecution, no
defense, no judge, and no jury.
The Commission was given one task. Gather the evidence
and determine the truth of the JFK assassination.
They did their job admirably
and reached
the correct conclusion.
The fact that some people refuse to accept that is not an indictment
of the WC. It is an indictment of those who refuse to accept the plain truth.
You can lead a horse to water...
Otherwise, we wouldn't be here 60 years later debating this issue.
The reason we are still here 60 years later is because there is a small but fervent army...
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 5:51:57?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.png
In order to do that, you had to allow and disallow evidence
according to judicial rules and protocol.
But the Commission didn't do that.
They allowed the wife to testify against her husband.
They allowed witness identifications from lineups that were obviously unfair.
They allowed evidence that was never identified by the person who found it.
You haven`t shown that this was ever done, or how it was even possible.
They allowed hearsay statements allegedly made by the accused.
Like?
They called witnesses who had no evidence to offer and ignored others who did.
They disavowed testimony from their own experts.
Like?
This was not a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect.
And they did not present the evidence in such a way that Oswald, "would have been convicted at trial".
My assessment...
Otherwise, we wouldn't be here 60 years later debating this issue.
We aren`t debating anything.
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 4:51:57?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.png
Still bringing up the Katzenbach memo?
Warren: "We had evidence that Allen Dulles ordered the assassination but it was based on hearsay and the chain of possession of the documents was shaky. We'd never be able to use it in court. So, we shut that line of investigation down."
Right.
On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 04:24:37 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 5:51:57?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Logical fallacy deleted.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.png
In order to do that, you had to allow and disallow evidence
according to judicial rules and protocol.
But the Commission didn't do that.
Logical fallacy deleted.They allowed the wife to testify against her husband.
Logical fallacy deleted.They allowed witness identifications from lineups that were obviously unfair.
They allowed evidence that was never identified by the person who found it.
You haven`t shown that this was ever done, or how it was even possible.Lying won't convince anyone.
They allowed hearsay statements allegedly made by the accused.
Like?Lying won't convince anyone.
Logical fallacy deleted.They called witnesses who had no evidence to offer and ignored others who did.
They disavowed testimony from their own experts.
Like?The same evidence *YOU* don't believe...
Tell us a whopper Chickenshit, and explain how the medical testimony supported the WCR's theory.
Logical fallacy deleted.This was not a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect.
And they did not present the evidence in such a way that Oswald, "would have been convicted at trial".
My assessment...
Is worthless.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be here 60 years later debating this issue.
We aren`t debating anything.Indeed not. You keep squirming away...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 121:23:55 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,489 |
