A CONSPIRACIST SAID:
>>> "The Warren Commission has been frequently criticized for its: Methods..." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
There was nothing wrong with the Warren Commission's methods. Did you know they compartmentalized their investigation? They broke the investigation into six basic "Areas", such as (in general terms):
"Who Shot JFK And Officer Tippit?";
"Was There A Domestic Conspiracy?";
"Was There A Foreign Conspiracy?;
"Did Ruby Act Alone?";
"Background Of JFK's Trip To Texas And Dallas Motorcade"; and
"Evaluating The Protection Provided For The President".
These different compartments (or "Areas") of the Warren Commission worked on their individual tasks (and they overlapped with some of the other sections too, as needed), and they ALL came to the mutual and undeniable conclusion that Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby acted alone.
I'm also wondering how CTers who hate the WC with a passion can get around the fact that ANOTHER, separate Government investigation (the HSCA), helmed by a completely different group of people from those who were involved with the Warren Commission 15 years earlier, reached the exact same conclusion as the WC with respect to the man who killed JFK (Oswald). And they also supported the SBT too.
Do CTers REALLY think that BOTH the WC and the HSCA were full of crooked, rotten scumbags who were bent on framing an innocent Oswald?
You DO realize how silly it sounds if you answer "Yes" to the above question, right?
And please don't retort with: Well, the HSCA said there WAS a conspiracy, you know.
The HSCA's "conspiracy" evidence has been completely smashed (in multiple ways). Anyone who still clings to the HSCA version of conspiracy should be locked up with R.P. McMurphy.
>>> "...Omissions..." <<<
What omissions? Spell 'em out. Some witnesses weren't interviewed, true. And some angles of potential conspiracy probably weren't explored as deeply as they could have been by the Warren Commission, true.
But a CTer will never, ever be fully satisfied. It can't happen, because rabid CTers WANT a "plot" of some kind. Simple as that.
So, if the WC had gone to the ends of the Earth looking for the make-believe "plot" that the CTers think occurred in Dallas, and the WC had still come up dry (which they would have), the Commission would still probably be frowned upon by conspiracists as "not good enough".
Can there be any DOUBT about that?
>>> "...Its conclusions..." <<<
The Warren Commission's conclusions are the ONLY reasonable conclusions based on the evidence in the case.
If the WC had arrived at any other "conclusions" (other than the ones they reached), such conclusions would have been based on nothing but guesswork.
Was the Warren Commission REALLY supposed to go down the crazy, kooky path that conspiracy theorists like Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison have chosen to go down since 1963?
I.E.: A path that features NO physical evidence of conspiracy. None. Only shadows and perceived-to-exist "plots" by various groups and individuals who CTers say had a motive to kill JFK are presented by the likes of Garrison, et al.
I can just see the last page of the Warren Report if they had decided to ignore all the Oswald-Did-It-Alone evidence and followed the CT-Kook course for a conclusion.....
"The Commission has determined (as the autopsy doctors determined) that only two bullets struck the victims in Dealey Plaza....and the bulk of the evidence indicates that three shots were fired....with those shots (via the preponderance of credible evidence) coming from the Sniper's Nest window on the TSBD's 6th Floor....and those three shots, based on the wealth of overall evidence, came from Lee Oswald's Carcano rifle....but....
The Commission also is forced to conclude that this raw evidence is tainted in some fashion, and we also "feel" in our hearts that the assassination of President Kennedy was probably due to a conspiracy "of some sort".
We, the Commission, have found no hard evidence to support the notion of any conspiracy in this case....but our GUT feeling is that the "plot" exists....somewhere. We don't know exactly where....but we feel it's there....somewhere.
Signed, Earl Warren; Hale Boggs; John Cooper; Gerald Ford (et al)...."
>>> "...Its complete and utter lack of comment on destruction of evidence by law enforcement and intelligence agencies." <<<
Name one thing that was "destroyed" (other than the Hosty note).
>>> "Their star witness was bogus, Howard Brennan." <<<
I'll take Howard Brennan over Jean Hill, Ed Hoffman, and Gordon Arnold any day.
BTW, you haven't even read the Warren Report, have you?
You can admit it. Most people have never read it.
David Von Pein
October 15, 2007
