10-03-2013, 09:27 AM
More on the Amnesty Initiative from John Kelin, writing of the 1997 Lancer conference in the 20th issue of Fair Play
Up next was William Xanttopoulos (referred to here as William X), a former prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida who is now in private practice. He discussed some of the legal issues surrounding the JFK case, but his most interesting comments addressed the notion of justice, and some of the practical avenues still open.
He began by discussing the fact-finding process, which in a formal sense consists of a body such as a grand jury investigating a crime under the guidance of a prosecutor, and leading, perhaps, to an indictment and trial. Results are made public, and most important, William X said, "there is going to be with [a] verdict, a belief by the public that justice has been rendered."
There is also a presumption that the fact-finding process is final. "It is very rarely revisited," William X said. "It is very rarely overturned. And it is accepted generally by the public to be valid.
"That is the traditional case, and that is how it ought to work. Unfortunately, the reason we're all here is, that is not the case in the death of John F. Kennedy. Because, due to the death of Lee Harvey Oswald, the public was deprived of a trial. There was no jury verdict, there was no finality. And there was, basically, a lack of respect --- it took over time to accumulate --- for the, quote, 'verdict' of the Warren Commission."
So what do we do now? he asked. "Can we have justice 34 years later?" To answer his own question, he cited the example of 87-year-old Maurice Papon, the accused Nazi collaborator now standing trial in France for alleged war crimes committed in the early 1940s.
In view of that, William X declared, "It's possible. Is it possible in America? There was the case of Byron de la Beckwith. Does everyone know who Byron de la Beckwith is?" Most everyone did. De la Beckwith shot and killed NAACP Field Secretary Medgar Evans in 1963, and twice stood trial in the 1960s but was never convicted. Not until the 1990s was he finally brought to justice.
So it is possible.
"The way I have thought that this could be done is by some sort of creative solution," William X said. "At the present time in South Africa, they are grappling with a similar type of issue. They are grappling with issues --- crimes against humanity, crimes against blacks that were committed under the prior government. And because they had that problem, they had to try to grapple with how that should be solved. And what they did was come up with a solution that was a bit controversial. But it has been working there to some extent. It's called the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation." This Commission has, among its objectives, promoting national unity and reconciliation in South Africa; establishing as complete a picture as possible the causes and extent of Apartheid; granting amnesty to those who come forward with all the relevant facts; and compiling a report on the findings of the Commission.
An American commission modeled on South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission could work in the quest for justice for JFK, William X said. As the Lancer Conference neared its end, this idea --- which in all likelihood had been percolating for some time, somewhere behind the scenes --- was debated and discussed, and resulted in some concrete ideas, which are discussed in the article The Truth Commission.
Under such a Commission, William X said, there is a tradeoff between truth and justice. He noted Charles Drago's remark that he preferred truth over jail time for anyone revealed to have participated in the conspiracy to kill JFK.
"The fact that we could bring out the truth --- if we could do [everything] possible to encourage formal authority to finally take those steps to bring out the truth, which is really the compelling of witnesses to give the final testimony --- I think we will have accomplished and done a great thing."
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.bac...view3.html
Up next was William Xanttopoulos (referred to here as William X), a former prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida who is now in private practice. He discussed some of the legal issues surrounding the JFK case, but his most interesting comments addressed the notion of justice, and some of the practical avenues still open.
He began by discussing the fact-finding process, which in a formal sense consists of a body such as a grand jury investigating a crime under the guidance of a prosecutor, and leading, perhaps, to an indictment and trial. Results are made public, and most important, William X said, "there is going to be with [a] verdict, a belief by the public that justice has been rendered."
There is also a presumption that the fact-finding process is final. "It is very rarely revisited," William X said. "It is very rarely overturned. And it is accepted generally by the public to be valid.
"That is the traditional case, and that is how it ought to work. Unfortunately, the reason we're all here is, that is not the case in the death of John F. Kennedy. Because, due to the death of Lee Harvey Oswald, the public was deprived of a trial. There was no jury verdict, there was no finality. And there was, basically, a lack of respect --- it took over time to accumulate --- for the, quote, 'verdict' of the Warren Commission."
So what do we do now? he asked. "Can we have justice 34 years later?" To answer his own question, he cited the example of 87-year-old Maurice Papon, the accused Nazi collaborator now standing trial in France for alleged war crimes committed in the early 1940s.
In view of that, William X declared, "It's possible. Is it possible in America? There was the case of Byron de la Beckwith. Does everyone know who Byron de la Beckwith is?" Most everyone did. De la Beckwith shot and killed NAACP Field Secretary Medgar Evans in 1963, and twice stood trial in the 1960s but was never convicted. Not until the 1990s was he finally brought to justice.
So it is possible.
"The way I have thought that this could be done is by some sort of creative solution," William X said. "At the present time in South Africa, they are grappling with a similar type of issue. They are grappling with issues --- crimes against humanity, crimes against blacks that were committed under the prior government. And because they had that problem, they had to try to grapple with how that should be solved. And what they did was come up with a solution that was a bit controversial. But it has been working there to some extent. It's called the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation." This Commission has, among its objectives, promoting national unity and reconciliation in South Africa; establishing as complete a picture as possible the causes and extent of Apartheid; granting amnesty to those who come forward with all the relevant facts; and compiling a report on the findings of the Commission.
An American commission modeled on South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission could work in the quest for justice for JFK, William X said. As the Lancer Conference neared its end, this idea --- which in all likelihood had been percolating for some time, somewhere behind the scenes --- was debated and discussed, and resulted in some concrete ideas, which are discussed in the article The Truth Commission.
Under such a Commission, William X said, there is a tradeoff between truth and justice. He noted Charles Drago's remark that he preferred truth over jail time for anyone revealed to have participated in the conspiracy to kill JFK.
"The fact that we could bring out the truth --- if we could do [everything] possible to encourage formal authority to finally take those steps to bring out the truth, which is really the compelling of witnesses to give the final testimony --- I think we will have accomplished and done a great thing."
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.bac...view3.html