55 years later...

[Steve M. Galbraith]

In the meantime, if you have evidence revealing that anybody but the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means do post it.

He cites the (rather) large number of people in the autopsy room as evidence of a conspiracy. Imagine what he would think if the room had been cleared?

It seems obvious (to me) that if you're faking the autopsy then you wouldn't want people like the SS and the local morgue and other unknowns watching you conduct the fraudulent procedure.

This is a classic example of how if you want to believe in a conspiracy then no matter what the situation is - lots of people, few people and anything in between - is evidence of the act.

[Allan Fritzke]

Bill, that is a circular argument of sorts!  A dog chasing it's tail never catches it!

In the meantime, if you have evidence revealing that anybody but the shooter knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means do post it.

Don't sidetrack.  Answer my question!!  How can you conduct a proper investigation of any event if you are in charge of it,  part of it and are investigating yourself even though you were part of the crime scene?    Think about it.  If you are in charge of the entire investigation (of yourself nonetheless),  how is the process not biased?

A proper investigation would have involved an independent inquiry into his death, something which was circumvented by those SS players involved.  By removing the body, vehicle etc. out of the hands of the Texas jurisdiction, you are bypassing protocol and the rule of law!   That is what happened in this case!  Why not let a standard lawful investigation run its course.   If you are innocent, you have nothing to fear by the process.  However, if you are guilty, I guess you don't want that investigation to take place!

The conspiracy comes in from the fact that you allow Greer and Kellerman to be part of the investigation team.  These are possible suspects.  These were people at the very crime scene!  Post independent agents instead.   How did the "Navy Corpsman" get in there with a camera and then have his rolls of film destroyed?  Who was controlling this scene?  We know who was controlling the crime scene and it certainly wasn't the President!

[Paul May]

Allan, simply ridiculous reasoning.  How can you not see that?  Regardless of who investigated, the conspiracy mentality doesn?t change.  As an example, a group of independent photo experts, the best America had at the time authenticated the autopsy photos as Real. REAL.  Yet, 55 years later your side is STILL arguing against that FACT.  This demonstrates the absurdity of conspiracy theory. I don?t recall who made the following statement yet it rings so true.  I apologize up front if it?s not verbatim but it?s close:

The most amusing part of the Kennedy event for me is the sheer number of people who attempt to speak authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about. The ballistics is just one example.

[Jon Banks]

Allan, simply ridiculous reasoning.  How can you not see that?  Regardless of who investigated, the conspiracy mentality doesn?t change.  As an example, a group of independent photo experts, the best America had at the time authenticated the autopsy photos as Real. REAL.  Yet, 55 years later your side is STILL arguing against that FACT.  This demonstrates the absurdity of conspiracy theory. I don?t recall who made the following statement yet it rings so true.  I apologize up front if it?s not verbatim but it?s close:

The most amusing part of the Kennedy event for me is the sheer number of people who attempt to speak authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about. The ballistics is just one example.

It doesn?t help that until recently at least, experts and Prosecutors have been dishonest about the reliability of Forensic Science. It?s highly subjective (junk science in some cases) and only in the past decade or so have many of the problems with Forensic Science been brought to light.

https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/the-flaws-in-forensic-science/

[Paul May]

Nothing in your comment was specific. Might you clear that up?

[Jon Banks]

Nothing in your comment was specific. Might you clear that up?

My point is that experts have been proven wrong or not credible. Even in JFK assassination investigations.

[Mitch Todd]

It doesn?t help that until recently at least, experts and Prosecutors have been dishonest about the reliability of Forensic Science. It?s highly subjective (junk science in some cases) and only in the past decade or so have many of the problems with Forensic Science been brought to light.

https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/the-flaws-in-forensic-science/

From the "about the author" blurb for that article:

"Lauren J. Young is Science Friday?s digital producer. When she?s not shelving books as a library assistant, she?s adding to her impressive Pez dispenser collection."

That resume' doesn't exactly inspire a great deal of confidence in her expertise on the subject matter.

A number of previously-accepted forensic techniques have been discarded as being poorly- or un-supported science-- bite mark and blood spatter analyses come to mind. Other techniques have been oversold and/or misused as unique indicators (eg, fiber analysis and CBLA) though they still likely maintain some usefulness. All of that put together still doesn't invalidate the other methods in use. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Mitch Todd]

My point is that experts have been proven wrong or not credible. Even in JFK assassination investigations.

First and foremost among them is probably Robert Groden, whose assertions didn't survive first contact with the HSCA photography panel. His self-immolation on the stand at the OJ trial was a simply icing on the cake.