Even if you liked the evidence that was gathered, I would find it surprising that you didn't lift your eyebrows a time or two when it came to the final conclusion.
How many times did you lift your eyebrows at your own conclusions? My conclusions were my conclusions, and as I said, I reached them independent of anything the Warren Commission (WC) concluded after studying the evidence and testimony. Your argument makes no sense.
If you're arguing I should have raised my eyebrows at some of the Warren Commission's conclusions, I did. For example, they concluded the person at the auto showroom about two weeks before the assassination was not Oswald and the salesman was mistaken. I concluded the person was Oswald.
Saying you like the evidence but not take a stance on the conclusion is like telling the cook you like the ingredients but I am holding back my decision on your entree.
I thought it could use less salt.
As I noted twice previously (at least), I disagree with some of the WC's conclusions, but I find they were generally correct, especially when they concluded there was no evidence of conspiracy that they could uncover, after the largest investigation in the history of the country to that time.
Evidence is what it is; it is what is done with the evidence that shows the true colors of the Prosecution.
Or the true colors of the defense.
Mark Lane took a witness (Nolan Potter) who was quoted as saying he saw smoke above the trees in front of the Depository and, after judiciously selecting from the record, changed him into a witness who, Lane claimed, could be talking about smoke on the knoll. You want details? I can provide. Just ask.
You took an outlier witness who thought she saw a portion of a man wearing a brown jacket behind the shooter in the Depository and tried to sell a conspiracy story from that. You ignored the fact that no one else saw this second individual when bringing up the account, and also ignored the fact that the "man" this witness saw had no discernable differences between the brown boxes we know were behind the shooter and the second man the witness saw.
In this case, there was no adversarial conditions, which allowed the Commission to do anything they wanted to do and rules of the Court were not engaged as there was no court.
There were no adversarial conditions as this was not a trial (the chief suspect was dead) but a fact-finding mission.
This is why key witnesses were not called
With "key witnesses" defined after the fact as anyone not called, right?
Please tell us how Carolyn Walthers claim she saw two men in the depository makes her a "key witness", especially since what she thought she saw behind the shooter and what was actually there in the window behind the shooter is evident in photos.
the Commission did not want testimony that was counter to their stance
Stated but unproven. They in fact took the direct testimony or statements (via the FBI or other law enforcement agencies) of plenty of people who testified contrary to their conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin. In fact, you quoted one such witness yourself -- Carolyn Walther. Why would they publish her statement in their 26 volumes of evidence if they were trying to conceal anything and didn't want testimony counter to their supposed stance?
By the way, "their stance" is the logical fallacy of you begging the question -- you're asserting the Warren Commissioners came into the investigation with their minds essentially made up, and that this was " their stance" -- that Oswald was guilty and no evidence to the contrary would be acceptable. But this is your assertion only, and imbedding it into your argument doesn't make it true. It's an excellent example of Begging the Question.
this is why the Commission altered some testimony (it was behind closed doors and there was no challenge opportunity provided)
Stated but unproven, and in fact, the Commission gave all witnesses the opportunity to review their testimony and correct it.
For example, Lee Bowers' testimony concluded with this:
Mr. BALL - Is there anything that you told me that I haven't asked you about that you think of?
Mr. BOWERS - Nothing that I can recall.
Mr. BALL - You have told me all that you know about this, haven't you?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I believe that I have related everything which I have told the city police, and also told to the FBI.
Mr. BALL - And everything you told me before we started taking the deposition?
Mr. BOWERS - To my knowledge I can remember nothing else.
Mr. BALL - Now, this will be reduced to writing, and you can sign it, look it over and sign it, or waive your signature if you wish. What do you wish?
Mr. BOWERS - I have no reason to sign it unless you want me to.
Mr. BALL - Would you just as leave waive the signature?
Mr. BOWERS - Fine.
Mr. BALL - Then we thank you very much.
Here's Sam Holland's testimony (both Holland and Bowers are quoted by some conspiracy authors as conspiracy witnesses). Holland was accompanied by his attorney, Balford Morrison.
Mr. STERN - Anything else occur to you?
Mr. HOLLAND - No; that is about all of it. If I have been of any help, I am tickled.
Mr. STERN - You certainly have. I appreciate very much your coming here today. Our reporter, Mr. Holland, will transcribe your testimony, and you then have the opportunity of reviewing it and signing it, or if you prefer you can waive your signature and she will send it directly to the Commission. Either one, it is entirely up to you, whichever you prefer.
Mr. MORRISON - I prefer that he read it and sign it.
Mr. STERN - Fine. Then the reporter will get in touch with you as soon as his transcript is ready to read.
Your claim there was no opportunity to challenge is absolutely false. Note as well Commission Counsel Ball & Stern gave the witnesses the opportunity to expand on their answers or bring up anything else that was on their mind. Does that sound like the Commission had anything to hide? It sounds to me like the Commission was interested in getting the witnesses on the record with not only what they saw, but any other concerns or issues they might wish to raise.
this is why the FBI announced within the first week, after JFK was killed, that it was LHO and no one else.
Why don't you link to their announcement made the first week (11/22/63 - 11/29/63? You won't because you can't.
The results had to fit the narrative.
More accurately, the narrative fits the evidence. Which is why you discard most or all of the evidence. You don't like the narrative, so you find excuses to eliminate everything pointing to Oswald as the sole shooter, like conspiracy theorists everywhere.
...Discussing the virtues or quality of the evidence is a sham because all of the evidence came from the people who wrote the Report.
Wrongo.
The evidence came from the eyewitnesses and the expert witnesses and the character witnesses. The conclusions came from the Warren Commission, but for the most part, those conclusions are almost self-evident. It was Oswald's rifle on the sixth floor, and the two large fragments found in the limo were fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. To any person willing to assess the evidence dispassionately, those three pieces of evidence (one rifle & two fragments) puts the weapon in Oswald's hands, firing at JFK. Unless you have a more reasonable conclusion that fits the evidence.
But conspiracy theorists must discard all the evidence, because it points to a conclusion they don't want to accept. Note how you're already questioning the testimony itself, alleging it was altered.
The Commission was conducted like a Grand Jury and Grand Juries are to determine if the charge is worthy enough to go to court, in this case, the Commission was the Judge, the jury, and the Prosecution.
That's an improper analogy as it wasn't a trial. The Commission was a fact-finding endeavor.
Why don't you take the evidence, and instead of discarding it all, try to tell a coherent story from the evidence as it exists that points to anyone besides Oswald? You can't because the evidence all points to Oswald.
For example, I raised one simple point when you were questioning whether the bag was long enough to contain the rifle (you wound up tying yourself in knots there, arguing that the bag Frazier saw was definitely no more than 27 inches, but then turning around and arguing that maybe Oswald had no bag whatsoever and maybe Frazier was mistaken or thinking of another time). Remember that silliness on your part? You jumped from one extreme (estimates must be taken as gospel) to the other (Oswald had no bag), avoiding the most reasonable conclusion entirely -- Oswald had a bag, but the two witnesses simply underestimated the length of the bag by about a third. That was my conclusion. And also, as it turns out, the conclusion of the Warren Commission.
My point was simple:
Name one person besides Oswald who the evidence indicates had access to both the Paine garage where Oswald's rifle was stored and the Depository where Oswald worked. Name one person besides Oswald who could have taken the rifle from the Paine garage and transported that rifle to the Depository. You ignored the point entirely. Why was that?
Hank
