From dfox@fc.net Sat Jan 21 07:14:46 1995
Received: from freeside.fc.net (freeside.fc.net [198.6.198.2]) by bigboote.WPI.EDU (8.6.9/8.6) with ESMTP id HAA18195 for <mikecap@wpi.edu>; Sat, 21 Jan 1995 07:14:45 -0500
Received: (from dfox@localhost) by freeside.fc.net (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) id GAA10048 for mikecap@wpi.edu; Sat, 21 Jan 1995 06:11:48 -0600
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 06:11:48 -0600
From: Malik Al-Rashim <dfox@fc.net>
Message-Id: <199501211211.GAA10048@freeside.fc.net>
To: mikecap@wpi.edu
Subject: JAUC-File12
Status: O
LEE HARVEY OSWALD DIED FOR YOUR SINS
By Gordon Fagan, Conspiracy Editor (flyer@io.com)
With all the hubbub over the OJ Simpson trial currently getting
under way, I thought it would be a good idea to get people to rethink
their conception of what justice is about in another matter. Where there
was no trial, not even real charges - just accusations, a bullet and 30+
years of government approved postmortem derision as an insane killer.
We've all seen the movie JFK which is probably more than most of you want
to hear on the subject in the first place, so I'll just leave each of you
- in particular, those who have no interest in the JFK assassination
conspiracy but can't get enough of that OJ, with the following...
It has been said that the American people are the only jury that
Lee Harvey Oswald will ever have. It is our responsibility, then, to
examine with utmost care and objectivity the evidence for and against him,
and to reach an independent verdict - Sylvia Meagher
Jim Garrison's closing statement to the jury
State of Louisiana vs. Clay Shaw, 1969
May it please the court. Gentlemen of the jury:
I know you're very tired. You've been very patient. This final
day has been a long one, so I'll speak only a few minutes.
In his argument, Mr. Dymond posed one final issue which raises the
question of what we do when the need for justice is confronted by power.
So, let me talk to you about a question of whether or not there
was government fraud in this case. A question Mr. Dymond seems to want us
to answer.
A government is a great deal like a human being. It's not
necessarily all good, and it's not necessarily all bad. We live in a good
country. I love it and you do, too. Nevertheless, the fact remains that
we have a government which is not perfect.
There have been since November the 22nd of 1963, and that was not
the last, indications that there is an excessive power in some parts of
our government. It is plain that the people have not received all of the
truth about some of the things which have happened, about some of the
assassinations which have occurred, and more particularly about the
assassination of John Kennedy.
Going back to when we were children, I think most of us, probably
all of us in this courtroom, once thought that justice came into being of
its own accord, that that virtue was its own regard, that good would
triumph over evil. In short, that justice occurred automatically. Later,
when we found that this wasn't quite so, most of us still felt hopeful
that at least occurred frequently of its own accord.
Today, I think that almost all of us would have to agree that
there is really no machinery, not on this earth at least, which causes
justice to occur automatically. Men still have to make it occur.
Individual human beings have to make it occur. Otherwise, it doesn't come
into existence. This is not always easy. As a matter of fact, it's
always hard, because justice presents a threat to power. In order to make
justice come into being, you often have to fight power.
Mr. Dymond raised the question; "Why don't we say it's all a fraud
and charge the government with fraud, if that is the case?"
Let me be explicit, then, and make myself very clar on this point.
The goverment's handling of the investigation of John Kennedy's murder was
a fraud. It was the greatest fraud in the history of our country. It
probably was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of
humankind.
That doesn't mean that we have to accept the continued existence
of the kind of government which allows this to happen. We can do
something about it. We're not forced either to leave this country or
accept the authoritarianism that has developed. The authoritarianism that
tells us that in the year 2039 we can see the evidence about what happened
to John Kennedy.
Government does not consist only of secret police and domestic
espionage operations and generals and admirals. Government consists of
people. It also consists of juries. And in the cases of murder, whether
the poorest individual or the most distinguished citizen in the land,
should be looked at openly in a court of law, where juries can pass on
them and not be hidden, not be buried like the body of the victim beneath
concrete for countless years.
You men in recent weeks have heard witnesses that no one else in
the world has heard. You've seen the Zapruder film. You've seen what
happened to your President. I suggest to you that you know right now
that, in that area at least, a fraud has been perpetrated.
That does not mean that our government is entirely bad - and I
want to emphasize that. It does mean, however that in recent years,
through the development of excessive power because of the Cold War, forces
have developed in our government over which there is no control and these
forces have an authoritarian approach to justice; meaning, they will let
you know what justice is.
Well, my reply to them is that we already know what justice is.
It is the decision of the people passing on the evidence. It is the jury
system. In the issue which is posed by the government's conduct in
concealing the evidence in this case, in the issue of humanity as opposed
to power, I have chosen humanity, and I will do it again without
hesitation. I hope every one of you will do the same. I do this because
I love my country and because I want to communicate to the government that
we will not accept unexplained assassinations with the casual information
that if we live seventy-five years longer, we might be given more
evidence.
In this particular case, massive power was brought to bear to
prevent justice from ever coming into the courtroom. The power to make
authoritarian pronouncements, the power to manipulate the news media by
the release of false information, the power to interfere with an honest
inquiry and the power to provide an endless variety of experts to testify
in behalf of that power, repeatedly was demonstrated in this case.
The American people have yet to see the Zapruder film. Why? The
American people have yet to see and hear from real witnesses to the
assassination. Why? Because, today in America too much emphasis is given
to secrecy, with regard to the assassination of our President, and not
enough emphasis is given to the question of justice and to the question of
humanity.
These dignified deceptions will not suffice. We have had enough
of power without truth. We don't have to accept power without truth or
else leave the country. I don't accept power without truth or else leave
the country. I don't accept either of these two alternatives. I don't
intend to leave the country and I don't intend to accept power without
truth.
I intend to fight for the truth. I suggest that not only is this
not un-American, but it is the most American thing we can do, because if
truth does not endure, then our country will not endure.
In our country the worst of all crimes occurs when the government
murders truth. If it can murder truth, it can murder freedom. If it can
murder freedom it can murder your own sons, if they should dare to fight
for freedom, and then it can announce that they were killed in an
industrial accident, or shot by the "enemy" or God knows what.
In this case, finally, it has been possible to bring the truth
about the assassination into a court of law, not before a commission
composed of important and politically astute men, but before a jury of
citizens.
Now, I suggest to you that yours is a hard duty, because in a
sense what you're passing on is the equivalent to a murder case. The
difficult thing about passing on a murder case is that the victim is out
of your sight and buried a long distance away, and all you can see is the
defendant. It's very difficult to identify with someone you can't see,
and sometimes it's hard not to identify to some extent with the defendant
and his problems.
In that regard, every prosecutor who is at all humane is concious
of feeling sorry for the defendant in every case he prosecutes. But he is
not free to forget the victim who lies buried out of sight. I suggest to
you that, if you do your duty, you also are not free to forget the victim
who is buried out of sight.
Tennyson once said that "authority forgets a dying king." This
was never more true than in the murder of John Kennedy. The strange and
deceptive conduct of the government after his murder began while his body
was still warm, and has continued for five years. You have even seen in
this courtroom indications of interest of part of the government power
structure in keeping truth down, in keeping the grave closed.
We presented a number of eyewitnesses as well as an expert witness
as well as the Zapruder film, to show that the fatal wound of the
President came from the front. A plane landed from Washington and out
stepped Dr. Finck for the defense, to counter the clear and apparent
evidence of a shot from the front. I don't have to go into Dr. Finck's
testimony in detail for you to show that it simply does not correspond to
the facts. He admitted that he did not complete the autopsy because a
general told him to not complete the autopsy.
In this conflict between power and justice, to put it that way,
just where do you think Dr. Finck stands? A general who is not a
pathologist, told him not to complete the autopsy, so he didn't complete
it. This is not the way I want my country to be. When our president is
killed he deserves the kind of autopsy that the ordinary citizens get
every day in the state of Louisana. And the people deserve the facts
about it. We can't have the government power suddenly interjecting itself
and preventing the truth from coming to the people.
Yet, in this case, before the sun rose the next morning, power had
moved into the situation and the truth was being concealed. And now, five
years later in this courtroom the power of the government in concealing
the truth is continuing in the same way.
We presented eyewitnesses who told you of the shots coming from
the grassy knoll. A plane landed from Washington, and out came ballistics
expert Frazier for the defense. Mr. Frazier explanation of the sound of
the shots coming frm the front, which was heard by eyewitness after
eyewitness, was that Lee Oswald created a sonic boom in his firing. Not
only did Oswald break all of the world's records for marksmanship, but he
broke the sound barrier as well.
I suggest to you, that if any of you have shot on a firing range,
and most of you probably in the service, you were shooting rifles in which
the bullet travelled faster than the speed of sound. I ask you to recall
if you ever heard a sonic boom. If you remember when you were on the
firing line, and they would say, "ready on the left - ready on the right -
ready on the firing line - commence firing," you heard the shots coming
from the firing line, to the left of you and to the right of you. If you
had heard as a result of Mr. Frazier's fictional sonic boom, firing coming
at you from the pits, you would have had a reaction which you would still
remember.
Mr. Frazier's sonic boom simply doesn't exist. It's a part of the
fraud, a part of the continuing government fraud.
The best way to make this country the kind of country it's
supposed to be is to communicate to the government that no matter how
powerful it may be, we do not accept these frauds. We do not accept these
false announcements. We do not accept the concealment of evidence with
regard to the murder of President Kennedy.
Who is the most believable? A Richard Randolph Carr, seated here
in a wheelchair and telling you what he saw and what he heard and how he
was told to shut his mouth, or Mr. Frazier and his sonic booms?
Do we really have to actually reject Mr. Newman and Mrs. Newman
and Mr. Carr and Roger Craig and the testimony of all those honest
witnesses, reject all this and accept the fraudulent Warren Commission, or
else leave the country?
I suggest to you that there are other alternatives. Once of them
has been put in practice in the last month in the State of Louisiana, and
that is to bring out the truth in a proceeding where attorneys can
cross-examine, where the defendant can be confronted by testimony against
him, where the rules of evidence are applied and where a jury of citizens
can pass on it, and where there is no government secrecy. Above all,
where you do not have evidence concealed for seventy-five years in the
name of "national security."
All we have in this case are the facts. Facts which show that the
defendant participated in the conspiracy to kill the President and that
the President was subsequently killed in an ambush.
The reply of the defense has been the same as the early reply of
the government in the Warren Commission. It has been authority,
authority, authority. The President's seal outside of each volume of the
Warren Commission Report, made necessary because there is nothing inside
these volumes. Men of high position and prestige sitting on a board, and
announcing the results to you, but not telling you what the evidence is,
because the evidence has to be hidden for seventy-five years.
You heard in this courtroom in recent weeks, eyewitness after
eyewitness after eyewitness and, above all, you saw one eyewitness which
was indifferent to power, the Zapruder film. The lens of the camera is
totally indifferent to power and it tells what happened as it saw it
happen, and that is one of the reasons 200 million Americans have not seen
the Zapruder film. They should have seen it many times. They should know
exactly what happened. They all should know what you know now.
Why hasn't all of this come into being if there hasn't been
government fraud? Of course there has been fraud by the government.
But I'm telling you now that I think we can do something about it.
I think that there are still enough Americans left in this country to make
it continue to be America. I think that we can still fight
authoritarianism, the government's insistence on secrecy, government force
used in counterattacks against an honest inquiry, and when we do that,
we're not being un-American, we're being American. It isn't easy. You're
sticking your neck out in a rather permanent way, but it has to be done
because truth does not come into being automatically. Justice does not
happen automatically. Individual men, like the members of my staff here,
have to work and fight to make it happen, and individual men like you have
to make justice come into being because otherwise it doesn't happen.
What I'm trying to tell you is that there are forces in America
today, unfortunately, which are not in favor of the truth coming out about
John Kennedy's assassination. As long as our government continues to be
like this, as long as such forces can get away with such actions, then
this is no longer the country in which we were born.
The murder of John Kennedy was probably the most terrible moment
in the history of our country. Yet, circumstances have placed you in the
position where not only have you seen the hidden evidence but you are
actually going to have the opportunity to bring justice into the picture
for the first time.
Now, you are here sitting in judgement on Clay Shaw. Yet you, as
men, represent more than jurors in an ordinary case because the victims in
this case. You represent, in a sense, the hope of humanity against
government power. You represent humanity, which yet may triumph over
excessive government power. If you will cause it to be so, in the course
of doing your duty in this case.
I suggest that you ask not what your country can do for you but
what you can do for your country.
What can you do for your country? You can cause justice to happen
for the first time in this matter. You can help make our country better
by showing that this is still a government of the people. And if you do
that, as long as you live, nothing will ever be more important.
---------------------------
Since you read all the way through, you might be interested in
more information. You can check out alt.conspiracy.jfk at your favourite
USENET site and see the still active coverup covering up. Now including a
phoney "Oswald did it alone" FAQ posting from a .mil address. The
internet equivalent to Gerald Posner's "Case Closed." Though less well
written, it includes about the same amount of real research. There are
some good people on the newsgroup as well and they have a large and
growing body of info on display regularly. Another excellent source is
the web site for Fair Play magazine: http://www.kaiwan.com/~ljg/fp.html
-31 and counting-