JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The Warren Commission Sham
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: Charles Collins on March 26, 2025, 11:31:21 AM ---
I feel it's important to have a thread highlighting how deceitful and untrustworthy the Warren Commission was in it's approach “to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination”. Feel free to add your own examples. As the examples mount up a pattern of omission, manipulation and outright lying will emerge as the evidence is shaped to reflect a predetermined conclusion - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
So, let’s get this straight, you believe that although the WC published all the testimonies and supporting evidence (including the inconsistencies) that they are guilty of omission, manipulation and outright lying?
The only time he brought it up was weeks later, when questioning Studebaker.
Yet, it appears that the WC requested the FBI to interview BRW and Shelly in May of 1964 to specify where the lunch remains were left and later found. Why would the WC choose to do this if they were in fact ignoring the inconsistencies as you claim?
https://tangodown63.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/brw-fbi-052664.pdf
It is ridiculous to claim the WC was any of the things you suggest. You can believe whatever you wish to believe regarding what the various witnesses said. I really don’t care. But trying to place some sort of dishonesty on the WC for supposedly ignoring the inconsistencies that are normal and expected when relying on witness accounts is simply not what the records (that, by the way, the WC chose to publish) show.
--- End quote ---
The collective testimonies/statements I posted of six of the first officers on the scene describe a partially eaten piece of chicken and a small lunch sack on top of one of the stacks of boxes that formed the 'back wall' of the SN - that is a fact.
Brewer and Haygood also mention bottle of Dr. Pepper - that is a fact.
Four of the officers testified before the WC about the lunch remains - that is a fact.
The testimonies/statements of all six men regarding this issue were completely ignored by the WC - that is a fact.
I don't accept your suggestion that the discovery of the lunch remains on the SN and that this fact was completely ignored by the WC are "inconsistencies that are normal".
The fact that the lunch remains were found on top of the SN has a domino effect of ramifications that destroys the WC's narrative. The testimonies/statements of these six officers is proof that Bonnie Ray was less than truthful about where he had his lunch (just as he was less than truthful in his DPD affidavit about even being on the 6th floor).
The only lunch remains discovered on the 6th floor were those attributed to Bonnie Ray and they were initially discovered on the SN.
You may think this is trivial but it's not.
That's why the WC completely omitted any mention of the testimonies of these men.
This omission is a fact you cannot deny.
Lance Payette:
--- Quote from: Michael Capasse on March 26, 2025, 05:31:26 PM --- :D Is there a deli nearby, I can get one of them "chicken-bone" sandwiches?
--- End quote ---
You do realize, of course, that Bonnie Ray Williams specifically described a chicken-bone sandwich?
Mr. BALL. What did you have in your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I had a chicken sandwich.
Mr. BALL. Describe the sandwich. What did it have in it besides chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, it just had chicken in it. Chicken on the bone.
Mr. BALL. Chicken on the bone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. The chicken was not boned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. It was just chicken on the bone. Just plain old chicken.
Mr. BALL. Did it have bread around it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, it did.
Wow, the WC didn't pursue the critical chicken-bone issue to the full satisfaction of CTers. Yep, it was a sham.
Charles Collins:
--- Quote from: Dan O'meara on March 26, 2025, 05:45:16 PM ---The collective testimonies/statements I posted of six of the first officers on the scene describe a partially eaten piece of chicken and a small lunch sack on top of one of the stacks of boxes that formed the 'back wall' of the SN - that is a fact.
Brewer and Haygood also mention bottle of Dr. Pepper - that is a fact.
Four of the officers testified before the WC about the lunch remains - that is a fact.
The testimonies/statements of all six men regarding this issue were completely ignored by the WC - that is a fact.
I don't accept your suggestion that the discovery of the lunch remains on the SN and that this fact was completely ignored by the WC are "inconsistencies that are normal".
The fact that the lunch remains were found on top of the SN has a domino effect of ramifications that destroys the WC's narrative. The testimonies/statements of these six officers is proof that Bonnie Ray was less than truthful about where he had his lunch (just as he was less than truthful in his DPD affidavit about even being on the 6th floor).
The only lunch remains discovered on the 6th floor were those attributed to Bonnie Ray and they were initially discovered on the SN.
You may think this is trivial but it's not.
That's why the WC completely omitted any mention of the testimonies of these men.
This omission is a fact you cannot deny.
--- End quote ---
You are confusing your interpretation and opinion with fact. The WC didn’t omit the testimonies of those men. They actually included them in their published documents for all of the world to see.
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on March 26, 2025, 05:47:27 PM ---You do realize, of course, that Bonnie Ray Williams specifically described a chicken-bone sandwich?
Mr. BALL. What did you have in your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I had a chicken sandwich.
Mr. BALL. Describe the sandwich. What did it have in it besides chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, it just had chicken in it. Chicken on the bone.
Mr. BALL. Chicken on the bone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. The chicken was not boned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. It was just chicken on the bone. Just plain old chicken.
Mr. BALL. Did it have bread around it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, it did.
Wow, the WC didn't pursue the critical chicken-bone issue to the full satisfaction of CTers. Yep, it was a sham.
--- End quote ---
Wow, the WC didn't pursue the critical chicken-bone issue to the full satisfaction of CTers. Yep, it was a sham.
Why do you think the testimonies/statements of these six officers regarding the discovery of the lunch remains was omitted?
The lunch remains were found on top of the SN. How did they get there?
Why weren't they considered evidence of an accomplice?
What was Bonnie Ray doing having his lunch in the SN?
Where was Oswald during this time?
Nothing to see here folks ::)
Dan O'meara:
--- Quote from: Charles Collins on March 26, 2025, 05:51:31 PM ---
You are confusing your interpretation and opinion with fact. The WC didn’t omit the testimonies of those men. They actually included them in their published documents for all of the world to see.
--- End quote ---
;D
Very clever Charles.
Very slippery.
The testimonies/statements of these men are omitted from the Warren Commission Report.
The fact that the lunch remains were discovered on the SN was omitted from the conclusions of the Warren Commission.
The fact that the lunch remains were discovered on the SN was never even dealt with, as though it had never happened.
That is the omission I am clearly talking about and you should have a long hard think about your need to be so tricky.
Do you really think it was a trivial thing to omit this fact?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version