The FBI status of the case

Mon 24 Jul 2017, 2:12 pm

The question of the status has become much more important as we get more and more focused on the legal issues involved in the arrest and interrogation of Oswald.

The only real clues we have on that are what Hoover said in testimony

Mr. HOOVER. Well, I can assure you so far as the FBI is concerned, the case will be continued in an open classification for all time. That is, any information coming to us or any report coming to us from any source will be thoroughly investigated, so that we will be able to either prove or disprove the allegation.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hoover.htm

That remained the case for a while, although for how much longer after the WC folded up is debatable.

Was there any investigation of Files allegations by the FBI? Not that I know of. Hunt's confession? JVB? Any other late arriving witnesses? How long ago was the last lead followed?

And what does the FBI say now?

This is all it has on its site:

After conducting some 25,000 interviews and running down tens of thousands of investigative leads, the FBI found that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

The Warren Commission, which spent nearly a year carefully studying the assassination, agreed.
https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/jfk-assassination

Without actually spelling it out, the FBI is giving the impression that the WC rubber stamping of its findings closed the case.

I truly believe the legacy left by the killing of Oswald before trial, the barging in of the FBI on a state case and the disgraceful findings of the WC have combined to leave the official status of the case in a kind of legal limbo.

I strongly believe that the FBI or justice Dept should be contacted and have Hoover's sworn testimony read to them for comment and a request made that some type of official status be put on the case so that the next legal action can be contemplated. Without that status, we don't even know what pool to dive into.

Mon 24 Jul 2017, 2:20 pm

I feel a bit like Oswald right now...

I do request someone to come forward to give [us] legal assistance.

Mon 24 Jul 2017, 2:25 pm

Hang on,

I know Ive got Abt's number here somewhere

Mon 24 Jul 2017, 2:34 pm

Greg answered as I expected, outstandingly.

I asked if the Warren Commission report was in lieu of a conviction in a court of law, and can the feds claim the case "solved" or status as closed with the issuance of the WCR?

O f note I recall a discussion on Ed forum about the change from open to suspended. This from 10 years ago.
My memory was the Fbi was no longer actively investigating.

This along with the Barbour movies mention that the defense tried to introduce the WCR into evidence and the court rejectedit as hearsay, lends to it not being a sustainable document.

Please post anything that pertains to the Federal Status of The JFK case.

Cheers, Ed

Mon 24 Jul 2017, 2:48 pm

Ed. Ledoux wrote:Hang on,

I know Ive got Abt's number here somewhere

Mon 24 Jul 2017, 8:40 pm

The last official US Government investigation of the JFK assassination, that of the HSCA, supersedes the Warren Commission. The HSCA found in 1979 that there was a conspiracy. The failure of the US Government to further investigate who the conspirators were makes it an accessory after the fact to the assassination.

That seems the most potent political and legal argument for reopening the case.

Tue 25 Jul 2017, 1:38 am

It was up to the Justice Dept. to do this and they have reneged on doing so ever since.
If I am not mistaken they came up w a investigation that countered the 4th shot and the tapes and stopped it all dead in its tracks.

Tue 25 Jul 2017, 2:20 am

I wasn't aware that the HSCA conclusion was ever officially overturned.

Tue 25 Jul 2017, 8:19 am

The JD ordered another company to test the recording. That company overturned the work on it done by the HSCA. Since the recording was the whole reason for the HSCA findings and recommendations, and was now useless as evidence of a 4th shot, the JD had no reason to investigate a conspiracy as requested.

Don't like the diagnosis - get a second opinion!

But I think there is another reason for the FBI pretending the HSCA never existed. Pettiness. The FBI was the official investigative body in 1963-4. It had no such responsibility under the HSCA, and IIRC actually came under some criticism by that body. The FBI does not taking a snubbing or criticism well.

Tue 25 Jul 2017, 9:19 am

Justice Department which umbrellas the FBI has control over the status of the case.
As Greg pointed out the Fbi.gov site shows the case is solved.

Please, be my guest and do a search on the FBI website or Justice Departments, and then share all the hits you get for JOHN F. KENNEDY

what does it mean... that zero matches are returned.
Only Kennedy cases are Ted, Robert, Joseph... nothing for an Jfk case either open or closed.
I can see if it was an active investigation then perhaps it would not be included, but then why does their site say Lee Oswald case was investigated and he is the lone assassin of JFK?
.
Did the HSCA use any FBI investigators, or Justice Department investigators? I am not talking subpoenas, but actually FBI agents 201 files the whole ball of wax... were they used then if not why not. No legal responsibility. thats why.

Again any conclusions by any panel, body, committees, do not change the Judical Branch of Governments position.
Proof being the Justice Department website showing Lee as guilty and solely responsible.

Did any legislation get passed while I napped that allowed the legislature to declare guilt or innocence, because I was under the assumption its the Judicial branch that handles those ...

Now this should tell you something.
You can not legislate Lee innocent.

Executive Branch or the
President can exonerate Lee posthumously.

But its the Cops, Federal level cops, who have the case as solved.

I say that means case is closed.

prove me wrong

please

Ed

Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. -FBI

Tue 25 Jul 2017, 9:51 am

Ed. Ledoux wrote:Justice Department which umbrellas the FBI has control over the status of the case.
As Greg pointed out the Fbi.gov site shows the case is solved.

Please, be my guest and do a search on the FBI website or Justice Departments, and then share all the hits you get for JOHN F. KENNEDY

what does it mean... that zero matches are returned.
Only Kennedy cases are Ted, Robert, Joseph... nothing for an Jfk case either open or closed.
I can see if it was an active investigation then perhaps it would not be included, but then why does their site say Lee Oswald case was investigated and he is the lone assassin of JFK?
.
Did the HSCA use any FBI investigators, or Justice Department investigators? I am not talking subpoenas, but actually FBI agents 201 files the whole ball of wax... were they used then if not why not. No legal responsibility. thats why.

Again any conclusions by any panel, body, committees, do not change the Judical Branch of Governments position.
Proof being the Justice Department website showing Lee as guilty and solely responsible.

Did any legislation get passed while I napped that allowed the legislature to declare guilt or innocence, because I was under the assumption its the Judicial branch that handles those ...

Now this should tell you something.
You can not legislate Lee innocent.

Executive Branch or the
President can exonerate Lee posthumously.

But its the Cops, Federal level cops, who have the case as solved.

I say that means case is closed.

prove me wrong

please

Ed

Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. -FBI

ed, I think you're right.. and (maybe?) wrong all at the same time...

They are TREATING it as closed. But is that really the legal status? Or is there simply no legal status into which the case squarely fits with the accused dead before trial and an official but not legally binding government inquiry taking its place?

It comes back to one simple thing. The dead have no rights, so they can do whatever they want to Lee posthumously.

Lee was arrested and charged with murder.

He himself was murdered before a trial could decide his guilt or innocence.

The case was hijacked from local authorities by the FBI whose investigation found him guilty.

That finding was supported by a President's Commission which is not a replacement for the Judiciary, but a political tool. And that's not just me describing it that way in regard to this case - it is what wikidedia says about them in general terms - and wikidedia supports the LN scenario put out by the commission.

LIMBO:

In theological usage the name is applied to (a) the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven (the "limbus patrum"); or (b) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the "limbus infantium" or "puerorum").

Replace "soul" with JFK case legal status and replace the "beatific vision" with the judiciary and you have the state of play in a nutshell. Limbo.

I am starting to agree that a civil case may be "Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven".

Tue 25 Jul 2017, 8:59 pm

Since – other than the Clay Shaw trial – no legal case has been concluded in relation to the JFK assassination, it’s probably still unfinished business from a legal point of view.

That would seem to imply that the most authoritative official position on the assassination is that of the HSCA Report, notwithstanding its flaws.

In its Summary of Findings, the HSCA criticised the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA and the Warren Commission for their failures in relation to the investigation:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html#kennedy

Regrading the HSCA acoustic analysis controversy, there’s a lengthy Wikipaedia article here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_Dictabelt_recording

The acoustic analysis controversy is a mess of conflicting expert opinions and there seems no definitive conclusion.

However, the HSCA’s conclusion that there probably was a conspiracy was based on more than the acoustic evidence, as is clear from page 97 of its Report:

The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established, it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy. The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy was premised on four factors:

(1)               Since the Warren Commission's and FBI’s investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent weight.

(2)               The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.

(3)               it cannot be inferred from the significant associations of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.

(4)               There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact, fired at the President.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0064a.htm

For these reasons I still think that the HSCA Report provides the strongest argument for reactivating the JFK case.

Wed 26 Jul 2017, 4:55 am

I wish that were the case Goban.

This is political kryptonite.

HSCA did not overturn anything.
HSCA had limited powers of which guilt or innocence of Lee Oswald was not among them.

A select or special committee of the United States Congress is a congressional committee appointed to perform a special function that is beyond the authority or capacity of a standing committee. ...
A select committee generally expires on completion of its designated duties, though they can be renewed.

This isn't even a Senate/House joint committee, its one half of the necessary approval process.
It is meaningless.
Church Committee was Senate committee, which was also useless unless the information was forwarded to Justice for investigation and prosecution of crimes it uncovered, and the information actually resulted in prosecutions.
IDK of anything of the sort.

WHAT DID THE HSCA RECOMMEND?

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION

A. The Department of Justice should contract for the examination taken by Charles L. Bronson to determine its significance, if any, to the assassination of President Kennedy.

Toward the end of the committee's investigation, the existence of film taken by Charles L. Bronson in Dealey Plaza approximately

Page 481

5 minutes prior to the assassination was brought to the attention of the committee. It was suggested that the movie, an 8-millimeter color film that focused on the area around the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository, showed a figure walking behind the window. The film was forwarded to the committee's photography panel. The panel was unable to discern a figure, and it was unable to say conclusively whether apparent motion behind windows on the fifth and sixth floors was due to film artifacts or real motion. (117) Nevertheless, because the Bronson film was of a quality superior to that of another motion picture film that the panel had subjected to computer processing, the panel recommended that similar work be done on the Bronson film. (118) In light of the recommendations of the panel, the committee recommends to the Department of Justice that it contract for appropriate research to be done to determine what, if any significance, the Bronson film may have to the assassination of the president.

B. The National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the Department of Justice and the National Science Foundation should make a study of the theory and application of the principles of acoustics to forensic questions, using the materials available in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as a case study.

It would be difficult to understate the significance of the acoustical analysis done by the committee in its investigation of the death of President Kennedy. As the committee noted, it can be expected that the opportunity and necessity to do similar work will arise in the future. Consequently, it would seem judicious to study the theory and application of the principles of acoustics to forensic issues. The best case study available for such testing is the assassination of President Kennedy, not only for what additional light it might east on that investigation, but also for the benefit of future investigations. Consequently, the committee recommends that the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the Department of Justice undertake appropriate studies and publish the results, so that they may be widely known and used. The committee notes that it would be appropriate for NSF and LEAA to take advantage of the considerable expertise in the private sector and in Federal law enforcement, particularly the FBI, in making the study.

C. The Department of Justice should review the committees findings and report in the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and after completion of the recommended investigation enumerated in sections A and B, analyze whether further official investigation is warranted in either case. The Department of Justice should report its analysis to the Judiciary Committee.

All the obstacles this committee faced in its investigation of the death of President Kennedy and Dr. King stand in the way of any institution that would continue its work. As even more time has passed since this committee was formed, the trail is colder, and it has been trod upon one more time. The difficulties are formidable, and it may be that little more can be profitably done.

In 1964, it was indicated that the file in the assassination of President Kennedy would remain open, and the same is true in the case

Page 482

of Dr. King's murder. But in light of this committee's investigation, more is required than keeping open files. It would seem only appropriate for the Department of Justice to perform the scientific studies recommended herewith and to analyze the committee's record. Then the Department could assess the wisdom of taking additional steps that might move one or both of these cases toward final resolution.

This is a FBI/Justice Department case.
HSCA did nothing to change the status of Oswald case.
The HSCA forwarded its information to the FBI and asked them to investigate.
As far as I'm aware, if they did then the FBI did nothing with that information other than a study and then used it as its reason for final resolution (OSWALD IS GUILTY).

A. The Barbour film points out the FBI said Bronson is of NO VALUE.
B. The FBI acoustics study slammed that door.
C. further official investigation is not warranted.

Again that does not bode well for anyone's claim that the status is open. In fact the HSCA moved them towards this FINAL RESOLUTION! aka case closed.

Goban if you can prove the HSCA did change anything, and I do not accept opinion as proof, then post any document which supports this. They claim you are incorrect. They claim it would take Justice Dept. to do that and that did not happen.

Greg I guess we should not confuse Kennedy with Lee Oswald, as the murder of JFK most certainly was not by Oswald.
Estate of JFK can still go after others they want to prosecute, even other dead men. (of course they let it go...)
Posthumous trial, or in abstentia is rare as rare can get, but this is a rare case. I would be happy to see a prosecution against a dead man involved in the murder of JFK or JD Tippit. A criminal trial of a dead man maybe the only recourse. I know unprecedented, some one has to be first,
Even the Cadaver Synod:

Kennedy was murdered by someone, yes???
Why no claims to the Oswald estate by the Kennedy Clan.
Marina got enriched beyond her wildest dreams, boy isn't America the land of opportunity...
So being that Kennedy is the case in question I found it odd the FBI site shows no mention of the case and at the same time says Lee Oswald is guilty.

I am right and wrong at the same time, and it doesn't matter in the slightest.
For Justice says "Lee is solely responsible" part takes precedence, the latter must defer to the former.

If there is a case "OPEN" in the halls of Justice then I ask again to show me door to it.

All else is words on sand, and the consequence is political kryptonite.

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2010-11-05/criminally-innocent/

Cheers, Ed

Wed 26 Jul 2017, 8:20 am

Thank you for that informative response, Ed.

I accept that I was wrong in saying the HSCA Report overturned the Warren Commission Report. I did use the term “supersede” at one point and I think that would be a more accurate term.

No doubt you are correct in identifying the legal and institutional inconsequence of the HSCA Report. My argument was about its political, logical and moral consequence. At a minimum the Report gainsays the prevailing lone nut factoid, since its official finding of probable conspiracy supersedes the lone nut conclusion of the Warren Report.

This is not a matter of my opinion but a matter of fact – the fact of the HSCA Report itself.

Of course, one of the many flaws in the Report was its failure to include among its recommendations the recommendation that the Department of Justice investigate who the conspirators were.

That gave Justice an out which it was probably only too glad to accept.

You say: ‘For Justice says "Lee is solely responsible" part takes precedence, the latter must defer to the former.’ I don’t understand what you mean by this.

Can the Justice Department declare someone guilty of a crime without due process? I can’t see how it can. Therefore, I can’t see how the case could be closed. On that point, there would seem to be a greater burden of proof on you than on me.

But I could be wrong about that too.

Wed 26 Jul 2017, 8:41 am

Maybe we are just getting lost in terminologies. Maybe the best way to describe the status is "inactive"?

Wed 26 Jul 2017, 8:49 am

My understanding which may be flawed:

The process for determining whether someone is guilty or not guilty rests solely with the Judicial Branch of the government. The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch, and thus, the Justice Department is political. (Henry Wade, as Dallas Country District Attorney, was a political creature.)

Justice may say Oswald is guilty, but that is simply an opinion that has not been confirmed by the Judicial Branch of the government. It's easy for Justice to say whatever they want to declare when it never goes to court for resolution. Real lone nutter easy.

Whatever Justice Department says, Oswald still has the presumption of innocence in the strict, legal sense of the term. Not that that matters a hill of beans anymore in this crazy world we live in.

Wed 26 Jul 2017, 11:59 pm

Maybe Oswald's wife or daughters should file a suit against the authorities for wrongful arrest and false accusations against Oswald. In order to prove that he was falsely accused they could use the PM images which show him on the steps during the shooting.Maybe the court could be asked to subpoena the original films.

Evidence that Oswald was actually on the steps and not on the sixth floor during the shooting would make a powerful impact.Public interest in the case would grow. It would lead to a momentum even greater than then when the Zapruder film was first shown on public television or the movie JFK.

Thu 27 Jul 2017, 1:40 am

Vinny wrote:Maybe Oswald's wife or daughters should file a suit against the authorities for wrongful arrest and false accusations against Oswald. In order to prove that he was falsely accused they could use the PM images which show him on the steps during the shooting.Maybe the court could be asked to subpoena the original films.

Evidence that Oswald was actually on the steps and not on the sixth floor during the shooting would make a powerful impact.Public interest in the case would grow. It would lead to a momentum even greater than then when the Zapruder film was first shown on public television or the movie JFK.

I agree with the "powerful impact" part of what you are saying, Vinny. The problem is getting the public's attention. When the public focuses its attention on something, it animates the object of the attention, in this case the strong evidence that Oswald was down in front. That starts a buzz which can go viral. This drives action.

How do we get the attention of the public? So far we have the Prayer Man book, this website, my First to Second video series, and all of Bart's great work, among other things. We have laid out the objective facts, but now we need to make the emotional connection that brings it to life.

We need a champion, a professional, an Oliver Stone type, an Errol Morris, somebody with a large circle of influence who has vision, energy, tenacity, and charisma. Somebody who is a master persuader. Somebody who can lead and get things done.

Thu 27 Jul 2017, 4:53 am

Branches go in order of flow;
Legislative = Committees (Church, HSCA, Warren) whom can investigate, subpoena, take sworn testimony, and then advise Judicial Committee.
They may writ, but the next branch can acquit.

Judicial = FBI, guys with guns and badges. Gavels and rope.
Interpretation is their stead. Need I say more.

Executive = The current President, whom can exonerate, and has the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States,

But it flows down to the Exec.
As far as I know a capital murder case can not be closed if there is not conviction for murder.
No conviction, case open. But here we are being told the conclusion is that Lee is guilty. Acted Alone.
Murder has no statute of limitations, and without a case US vs. Lee H. Oswald or State of Texas vs. Oswald and a guilty or no-contest or plea bargain or some legal hopscotch like guilty of manslaughter for dropping 1st degree charge, it should not be closed.
No verdict has been rendered.

First degree murder defendants also may simply argue that the prosecution has not proved all elements of a first degree murder charge typically that the defendant killed willfully, deliberately and with premeditation. Though the defendant may support such an argument with evidence, he or she is not required to do so, as proof of all elements of the crime falls on the shoulders of the prosecution.
As with statutes defining crimes, the defenses recognized for a specific crime can vary by state. Furthermore, which defenses a criminal defendant may have depends on the particular facts of the case in question. For guidance, defendants should consult an attorney well versed in his or her state's criminal laws.

Mistaken Identity

In first degree murder cases, as well as other homicide crimes, defendants often argue mistaken identity i.e., that the prosecution has charged the wrong person with the killing. A defendant arguing mistaken identity often asserts an alibi if possible, which he or she tries to support with evidence of being somewhere else at the time of the killing. Other arguments in a mistaken identity defense include challenges to evidence placing the defendant at the scene of the crime. This can include challenges to witness identification as well as challenges to forensic evidence. A mistaken identity defense may also point to evidence implicating another possible suspect, but courts do not require defendants to do so.

And the DA may or may not charge anyone else even if Lee was found not guilty, or was exonerated, etc.

In this case how could Wade charge anyone but Lee, but if the return is not guilty then they are stuck.
Alas who could of set Lee up to look so guilty, from Mexico to Manlicher... yeah its gonna be a bad day for the DA.

We do need to put a word into the Justice as to what their explanation of the whole mess is baring a conviction and their claim no conspirators/Lee acted alone.

Cheers, Ed

Thu 27 Jul 2017, 5:23 am

Here it is in the FBI's own words:

Clearances
In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, law enforcement agencies can clear, or “close,” offenses in one of two ways: by arrest or by exceptional means. Although an agency may administratively close a case, that does not necessarily mean that the agency can clear the offense for UCR purposes. To clear an offense within the UCR Program’s guidelines, the reporting agency must adhere to certain criteria, which are outlined in the following text. (Note: The UCR Program does not distinguish between offenses cleared by arrest and those cleared by exceptional means in collecting or publishing data via the traditional Summary Reporting System.)

Cleared by arrest

In the UCR Program, a law enforcement agency reports that an offense is cleared by arrest, or solved for crime reporting purposes, when three specific conditions have been met. The three conditions are that at least one person has been:

Arrested.
Charged with the commission of the offense.
Turned over to the court for prosecution (whether following arrest, court summons, or police notice).

In its clearance calculations, the UCR Program counts the number of offenses that are cleared, not the number of persons arrested. The arrest of one person may clear several crimes, and the arrest of many persons may clear only one offense. In addition, some clearances that an agency records in a particular calendar year, such as 2011, may pertain to offenses that occurred in previous years.

Cleared by exceptional means

In certain situations, elements beyond law enforcement’s control prevent the agency from arresting and formally charging the offender. When this occurs, the agency can clear the offense exceptionally. Law enforcement agencies must meet the following four conditions in order to clear an offense by exceptional means. The agency must have:

Identified the offender.
Gathered enough evidence to support an arrest, make a charge, and turn over the offender to the court for prosecution.
Identified the offender’s exact location so that the suspect could be taken into custody immediately.
Encountered a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that prohibits the agency from arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender.

Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not limited to, the death of the offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen); the victim’s refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been identified; or the denial of extradition because the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is being prosecuted for that offense. In the UCR Program, the recovery of property alone does not clear an offense.

They administratively CLOSED the case....plus were granted an exceptional clearance.
I guarantee this to be self evident.

Cheers, Ed

Thu 27 Jul 2017, 8:50 am

Ed, terrific work. I think that nails it.

Fri 28 Jul 2017, 5:38 am

Quote from Ed’s latest post above:

Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not limited to, the death of the offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen); the victim’s refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been identified; or the denial of extradition because the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is being prosecuted for that offense.

As you seem to be relying on the underlined part, Ed, there may be a problem. The FBI cannot claim that LH Oswald was justifiably killed.

I know that it says exceptional clearances are not limited to the examples given, but the protocol would hardly have specified “justifiably” as distinct from “unjustifiably” if it was meant to also include the latter.

The murder of LH Oswald is a good example of why the unjustified killing of a suspect might not be a good reason for closing a case.

Maybe there’s a need to obtain from the FBI or the Justice Department information as to what precisely the status of the JFK assassination case is and the reason(s) for that status.

Fri 28 Jul 2017, 8:30 am

Goban Saor wrote:Quote from Ed’s latest post above:

Examples of exceptional clearances include, but are not limited to, the death of the offender (e.g., suicide or justifiably killed by police or citizen); the victim’s refusal to cooperate with the prosecution after the offender has been identified; or the denial of extradition because the offender committed a crime in another jurisdiction and is being prosecuted for that offense.

As you seem to be relying on the underlined part, Ed, there may be a problem. The FBI cannot claim that LH Oswald was justifiably killed.

I know that it says exceptional clearances are not limited to the examples given, but the protocol would hardly have specified “justifiably” as distinct from “unjustifiably” if it was meant to also include the latter.

The murder of LH Oswald is a good example of why the unjustified killing of a suspect might not be a good reason for closing a case.

Maybe there’s a need to obtain from the FBI or the Justice Department information as to what precisely the status of the JFK assassination case is and the reason(s) for that status.

You may well be right, Goban. The real problem is, we are looking at it from the POV of wanting to get this thing reopened and wanting to comprehend where it stands right now. From the FBI POV, they are just looking for anything that justifies not touching it.

So I think again that a direct approach is best: someone needs to contact the FBI and quote Hoover's testimony to them and get them to either acknowledge what Hoover said is still the case, or to explain how and why the "open" status changed and what would be needed for them to reopen it.

To my mind, they should not be allowed to walk away from what Hoover said under oath without being held to explain why they did. Ed has spelled out the likely excuse, but THEY need to spell it out.

If I have it right, the FBI building is still named after Hoover? If so, they have not walked away from his legacy and actions and what he stood for. They should be asked to clarify why they are not standing by his promise under oath.

Fri 28 Jul 2017, 5:36 pm

That seems the best way to go alright, Greg.

Fri 28 Jul 2017, 9:19 pm

Goban you failed to see the underlined part was an E.G.

it was their example

the preceding bit is what mattered, the justifiable part would be if he was shot at the theater by cops.

He was still murdered Goban, and that too fits.

please study the matterial and you will understand the Fbi has closed it.

The FBI status of the case