--- In LetJusticeBeDone@y..., morganhoo <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I wouldn't dispute the fact that those you mention had a *motive*
> for the crime. But, as someone else has already pointed-out, no one
> can possibly be a suspect who did *not* have access to the evidence
> in the case, the purpose being ability to control it and to alter
> as the need arose. The "Mafia", Castro, Nixon, etc.--none of these
> had this control or access.
I disagree with your premise on this one. Sometimes, those without
access to the evidence let others with an agenda--for example, those
who wanted a neat little "lone-nut gunman" package (like LBJ, the
FBI, and the Warren Commission, among others) let others do
their "dirty work" FOR them. In fact, that's what happens when ANY
innocent party is convicted of a crime; the guilty party often
doesn't have access to the evidence or any way to alter or control
it, yet those pursuing and prosecuting the case are SO convinced of
the guilt of the accused that NOTHING--including the FACTS--can
It happens relatively often.
> I have long wondered about whether or not the Secret Service was
> any way involved in the assassination. Not necessarily *actively*,
> but *passively*, and, here's my logic:
> Major premise:
> The White House detail of the Secret Service has the specific
> of protecting the life of the president and his family.
> Minor premise:
> The president was assassinated.
> Therefore, the (White House detail of the) Secret Service did not
> its *job*.
> Yet, to my knowledge, not one single Secret Service agent lost his
> job as a result of this apparently egregious incompetence.
> So, let's indulge some more logic, using these facts:
> Major premise:
> Anyone who does his or her specific job, will not get fired for
> Minor premise:
> No Secret Service agent (of the White House detail) was fired as
> result of the assassination of President Kennedy.
> Therefore, the (White House detail of) Secret Service *did* its
> And, just what might *that* be?
> Well, how about: *Allowed it to happen*?
> We *do* know that the Secret Service *forcibly* removed the
> president's body from Parkland Hospital and flew it back to
> Washington, D.C., and then, to Bathesda, MD, in violation of Texas
> law. The assassination (i.e. murder) was *not* a Federal crime;
> murder is a *State* crime. The autopsy *should* have been performed
> in Texas.
> There is also an interesting aside here: When the plane carrying
> new president, Mrs. Kennedy, et al, arrived in Washington, an aide
> suggested to her that perhaps she ought to go out the door which
> forward and on the other side of the plane's fuselage, instead of
> cargo hatch, where all the activity and, of course, the press and
> other interested parties were waiting.
> She *emphatically* refused and insisted upon going out the cargo
> hatch, explaining, "I want them to see what they have done." (See:
> William Manchester's book, The Death of a President.) One wonders
> just who the "they" are who Jackie was referring to.
Of course, there is STILL a contingent who would have us believe
that "they" is Oswald...so why, then, did Jackie, an educated person,
use the plural?
OOPS...I guess I'm just another conspiracy fanatic grasping at straws
again, aren't I, Icebabe?