Jim Hargrove Wrote:

Tom Scully Wrote:You are an attorney, Dawn. Is it not considered, in your line of work, that a claim that an FBI report is fake or otherwise unreliable, is an extraordinary claim? What are the obligations (burden of proof) of the party who makes such a claim?

This is a surprising statement coming from someone who is interested in the Kennedy assassination, because evidence of FBI malfeasance runs throughout its so-called investigation of JFK's murder. A statement like that is doubly surprising because FBI malpractice has been in the news this very year, as well as in earlier decades. Consider these stories from 2015:


Pseudoscience in the Witness Box: The FBI faked an entire field of forensic science [Slate.com April 22, 2015]:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/04/fbi_s_flawed_forensics_expert_testimony_hair_analysis_bite_marks_fingerprints.html

The Washington Post's 4/18/2015 story begins with these chilling words: "The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

Remember the famous Frederick Whitehurst scandal from the late 1990s, when this top FBI scientist disclosed that his organization had fabricated evidence for both the first World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing? The Justice Department's inspector general, Michael Bromwich, made a scathing report about FBI evidence tampering that everyone in the media had to work really hard to forget. The FBI tried to hound Whitehurst to death, for which he eventually earned more than a million dollars from the Bureau for its harrassment.


In the Kennedy case, the ham-fisted malfeasance of the FBI is equally obvious. Consider the testimony of FBI evidence expert James Cadigan. Cadigan's testimony had to be altered because he inadvertently spilled the beans that the FBI had secretly seized "Oswald's possessions" from Dallas police the night of the assassination, and secretly returned them to Dallas three days later, only to publicly send them back to Washington later the same day. While secretly at FBI headquarters, 225 items of evidence catalogued by Dallas Police became 455 items of evidence, a Minox "spy" camera became a Minox light meter, and so on.









For a thorough examination of how the FBI cooked the books on the Kennedy assassination, see: http://harveyandlee.net/FBI/FBI.html.

Jim Hargrove Wrote:In 1975 Warren Commission co-counsel Burt W. Griffin said, "All of the records were in the hands of the two agencies (FBI and CIA) and, if they so desired, any infor*mation or files could have been destroyed or laundered prior to the time the Commission could get them." [Houston Chronicle, 9/2/75]


The FBI's own William Sullivan, talking about Hoover, told the HSCA: "If there were documents that possibly he didn't want to come to the light of the public, then those documents no longer exist, and the truth will never be known."

Albert Doyle Wrote:What the deniers are avoiding here, to their eternal loss, and the fatal destruction of their position, is that there's no doubt that even with their fraudulent FBI version of Rizzuto that even FBI admits he was doing provocateur work. I assume the photo FBI possessed was from a rally where Rizzuto was allegedly photographed attracting attention to himself by doing that provocateur work.


Where the deniers fail and where their excuse-making no longer works to get them out of the evidence is the fact that even if Rizzuto was L'eandes (which he clearly wasn't) that therefore any person he claimed was sponsoring him would definitely be a serious person of interest that normal FBI procedure would want to either confirm or discount. The mental illness excuse would not serve as reason to not investigate Rizzuto possibly being sponsored. Even after going to the wrong hotel neither FBI nor the deniers have any excuse for not pursuing Regan to find out if the proven provocateur L'eandes had any sponsorship. The deniers' constant excuse-making for everything doesn't cover this and credible people would not accept it. This is clearly viable proof that FBI was avoiding any honest investigation of the evidence.


The deniers also have no right to ignore that SR Landesberg was clearly the person associated with a southern accent. For them to blithely brush this off at their own word deserves objective evaluation. They are clearly grasping for the extreme opposite that goes against the vast majority of the evidence and need to be judged for it by credible persons other than themselves. Despite their obvious denial SR Landesberg was well-known to affect a southern accent, as L'eandes was described as doing.


Barry Gray said Rizzuto and L'eandes were two different people.