textfiles/magazines/JAUC/juac12.txt

From dfox@fc.net Sat Jan 21 07:14:46 1995
Received: from freeside.fc.net (freeside.fc.net [198.6.198.2]) by bigboote.WPI.EDU (8.6.9/8.6) with ESMTP id HAA18195 for <mikecap@wpi.edu>; Sat, 21 Jan 1995 07:14:45 -0500
Received: (from dfox@localhost) by freeside.fc.net (8.6.8.1/8.6.6) id GAA10048 for mikecap@wpi.edu; Sat, 21 Jan 1995 06:11:48 -0600
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 06:11:48 -0600
From: Malik Al-Rashim <dfox@fc.net>
Message-Id: <199501211211.GAA10048@freeside.fc.net>
To: mikecap@wpi.edu
Subject: JAUC-File12
Status: O


 
                 LEE HARVEY OSWALD DIED FOR YOUR SINS

 By Gordon Fagan, Conspiracy Editor (flyer@io.com)
 
 
 With all the hubbub over the OJ Simpson trial currently getting
 under way, I thought it would be a good idea to get people to rethink
 their conception of what justice is about in another matter.  Where there
 was no trial, not even real charges - just accusations, a bullet and 30+
 years of government approved postmortem derision as an insane killer. 
 We've all seen the movie JFK which is probably more than most of you want
 to hear on the subject in the first place, so I'll just leave each of you
 - in particular, those who have no interest in the JFK assassination
 conspiracy but can't get enough of that OJ, with the following...
 
 

 It has been said that the American people are the only jury that
 Lee Harvey Oswald will ever have.  It is our responsibility, then, to
 examine with utmost care and objectivity the evidence for and against him,
 and to reach an independent verdict - Sylvia Meagher
 
 
           
        Jim Garrison's closing statement to the jury
 
          State of Louisiana vs. Clay Shaw, 1969

    May it please the court.  Gentlemen of the jury:
  
 I know you're very tired.  You've been very patient.  This final
 day has been a long one, so I'll speak only a few minutes. 
 
 In his argument, Mr. Dymond posed one final issue which raises the
 question of what we do when the need for justice is confronted by power. 
 
 So, let me talk to you about a question of whether or not there
 was government fraud in this case.  A question Mr. Dymond seems to want us
 to answer. 
 
 A government is a great deal like a human being.  It's not
 necessarily all good, and it's not necessarily all bad.  We live in a good
 country.  I love it and you do, too.  Nevertheless, the fact remains that
 we have a government which is not perfect. 
 
 There have been since November the 22nd of 1963, and that was not
 the last, indications that there is an excessive power in some parts of
 our government.  It is plain that the people have not received all of the
 truth about some of the things which have happened, about some of the
 assassinations which have occurred, and more particularly about the
 assassination of John Kennedy. 
 
 Going back to when we were children, I think most of us, probably
 all of us in this courtroom, once thought that justice came into being of
 its own accord, that that virtue was its own regard, that good would
 triumph over evil.  In short, that justice occurred automatically.  Later,
 when we found that this wasn't quite so, most of us still felt hopeful
 that at least occurred frequently of its own accord. 
 
 Today, I think that almost all of us would have to agree that
 there is really no machinery, not on this earth at least, which causes
 justice to occur automatically.  Men still have to make it occur. 
 Individual human beings have to make it occur.  Otherwise, it doesn't come
 into existence.  This is not always easy.  As a matter of fact, it's
 always hard, because justice presents a threat to power.  In order to make
 justice come into being, you often have to fight power. 
 
 Mr. Dymond raised the question; "Why don't we say it's all a fraud
 and charge the government with fraud, if that is the case?" 
 
 Let me be explicit, then, and make myself very clar on this point. 
 The goverment's handling of the investigation of John Kennedy's murder was
 a fraud.  It was the greatest fraud in the history of our country.  It
 probably was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the history of
 humankind. 
 
 That doesn't mean that we have to accept the continued existence
 of the kind of government which allows this to happen.  We can do
 something about it.  We're not forced either to leave this country or
 accept the authoritarianism that has developed.  The authoritarianism that
 tells us that in the year 2039 we can see the evidence about what happened
 to John Kennedy. 
 
 Government does not consist only of secret police and domestic
 espionage operations and generals and admirals.  Government consists of
 people.  It also consists of juries.  And in the cases of murder, whether
 the poorest individual or the most distinguished citizen in the land,
 should be looked at openly in a court of law, where juries can pass on
 them and not be hidden, not be buried like the body of the victim beneath
 concrete for countless years. 
 
 You men in recent weeks have heard witnesses that no one else in
 the world has heard.  You've seen the Zapruder film.  You've seen what
 happened to your President.  I suggest to you that you know right now
 that, in that area at least, a fraud has been perpetrated. 
 
 That does not mean that our government is entirely bad - and I
 want to emphasize that.  It does mean, however that in recent years,
 through the development of excessive power because of the Cold War, forces
 have developed in our government over which there is no control and these
 forces have an authoritarian approach to justice; meaning, they will let
 you know what justice is. 
 
 Well, my reply to them is that we already know what justice is. 
 It is the decision of the people passing on the evidence.  It is the jury
 system.  In the issue which is posed by the government's conduct in
 concealing the evidence in this case, in the issue of humanity as opposed
 to power, I have chosen humanity, and I will do it again without
 hesitation.  I hope every one of you will do the same.  I do this because
 I love my country and because I want to communicate to the government that
 we will not accept unexplained assassinations with the casual information
 that if we live seventy-five years longer, we might be given more
 evidence. 
 
 In this particular case, massive power was brought to bear to
 prevent justice from ever coming into the courtroom.  The power to make
 authoritarian pronouncements, the power to manipulate the news media by
 the release of false information, the power to interfere with an honest
 inquiry and the power to provide an endless variety of experts to testify
 in behalf of that power, repeatedly was demonstrated in this case. 
 
 The American people have yet to see the Zapruder film.  Why?  The
 American people have yet to see and hear from real witnesses to the
 assassination.  Why?  Because, today in America too much emphasis is given
 to secrecy, with regard to the assassination of our President, and not
 enough emphasis is given to the question of justice and to the question of
 humanity. 
 
 These dignified deceptions will not suffice.  We have had enough
 of power without truth.  We don't have to accept power without truth or
 else leave the country.  I don't accept power without truth or else leave
 the country.  I don't accept either of these two alternatives.  I don't
 intend to leave the country and I don't intend to accept power without
 truth. 
 
 I intend to fight for the truth.  I suggest that not only is this
 not un-American, but it is the most American thing we can do, because if
 truth does not endure, then our country will not endure. 
 
 In our country the worst of all crimes occurs when the government
 murders truth.  If it can murder truth, it can murder freedom.  If it can
 murder freedom it can murder your own sons, if they should dare to fight
 for freedom, and then it can announce that they were killed in an
 industrial accident, or shot by the "enemy" or God knows what. 
 
 In this case, finally, it has been possible to bring the truth
 about the assassination into a court of law, not before a commission
 composed of important and politically astute men, but before a jury of
 citizens. 
 
 Now, I suggest to you that yours is a hard duty, because in a
 sense what you're passing on is the equivalent to a murder case.  The
 difficult thing about passing on a murder case is that the victim is out
 of your sight and buried a long distance away, and all you can see is the
 defendant.  It's very difficult to identify with someone you can't see,
 and sometimes it's hard not to identify to some extent with the defendant
 and his problems. 
 
 In that regard, every prosecutor who is at all humane is concious
 of feeling sorry for the defendant in every case he prosecutes.  But he is
 not free to forget the victim who lies buried out of sight.  I suggest to
 you that, if you do your duty, you also are not free to forget the victim
 who is buried out of sight. 
 
 Tennyson once said that "authority forgets a dying king."  This
 was never more true than in the murder of John Kennedy.  The strange and
 deceptive conduct of the government after his murder began while his body
 was still warm, and has continued for five years.  You have even seen in
 this courtroom indications of interest of part of the government power
 structure in keeping truth down, in keeping the grave closed. 
 
 We presented a number of eyewitnesses as well as an expert witness
 as well as the Zapruder film, to show that the fatal wound of the
 President came from the front.  A plane landed from Washington and out
 stepped Dr. Finck for the defense, to counter the clear and apparent
 evidence of a shot from the front.  I don't have to go into Dr. Finck's
 testimony in detail for you to show that it simply does not correspond to
 the facts.  He admitted that he did not complete the autopsy because a
 general told him to not complete the autopsy. 
 
 In this conflict between power and justice, to put it that way,
 just where do you think Dr. Finck stands?  A general who is not a
 pathologist, told him not to complete the autopsy, so he didn't complete
 it.  This is not the way I want my country to be.  When our president is
 killed he deserves the kind of autopsy that the ordinary citizens get
 every day in the state of Louisana.  And the people deserve the facts
 about it.  We can't have the government power suddenly interjecting itself
 and preventing the truth from coming to the people. 
 
 Yet, in this case, before the sun rose the next morning, power had
 moved into the situation and the truth was being concealed.  And now, five
 years later in this courtroom the power of the government in concealing
 the truth is continuing in the same way. 
 
 We presented eyewitnesses who told you of the shots coming from
 the grassy knoll.  A plane landed from Washington, and out came ballistics
 expert Frazier for the defense.  Mr. Frazier explanation of the sound of
 the shots coming frm the front, which was heard by eyewitness after
 eyewitness, was that Lee Oswald created a sonic boom in his firing.  Not
 only did Oswald break all of the world's records for marksmanship, but he
 broke the sound barrier as well. 
 
 I suggest to you, that if any of you have shot on a firing range,
 and most of you probably in the service, you were shooting rifles in which
 the bullet travelled faster than the speed of sound.  I ask you to recall
 if you ever heard a sonic boom.  If you remember when you were on the
 firing line, and they would say, "ready on the left - ready on the right -
 ready on the firing line - commence firing," you heard the shots coming
 from the firing line, to the left of you and to the right of you.  If you
 had heard as a result of Mr. Frazier's fictional sonic boom, firing coming
 at you from the pits, you would have had a reaction which you would still
 remember. 
 
 Mr. Frazier's sonic boom simply doesn't exist.  It's a part of the
 fraud, a part of the continuing government fraud. 
 
 The best way to make this country the kind of country it's
 supposed to be is to communicate to the government that no matter how
 powerful it may be, we do not accept these frauds.  We do not accept these
 false announcements.  We do not accept the concealment of evidence with
 regard to the murder of President Kennedy. 
 
 Who is the most believable?  A Richard Randolph Carr, seated here
 in a wheelchair and telling you what he saw and what he heard and how he
 was told to shut his mouth, or Mr. Frazier and his sonic booms? 
 
 Do we really have to actually reject Mr. Newman and Mrs. Newman
 and Mr. Carr and Roger Craig and the testimony of all those honest
 witnesses, reject all this and accept the fraudulent Warren Commission, or
 else leave the country? 
 
 I suggest to you that there are other alternatives.  Once of them
 has been put in practice in the last month in the State of Louisiana, and
 that is to bring out the truth in a proceeding where attorneys can
 cross-examine, where the defendant can be confronted by testimony against
 him, where the rules of evidence are applied and where a jury of citizens
 can pass on it, and where there is no government secrecy.  Above all,
 where you do not have evidence concealed for seventy-five years in the
 name of "national security." 
 
 All we have in this case are the facts.  Facts which show that the
 defendant participated in the conspiracy to kill the President and that
 the President was subsequently killed in an ambush. 
 
 The reply of the defense has been the same as the early reply of
 the government in the Warren Commission.  It has been authority,
 authority, authority.  The President's seal outside of each volume of the
 Warren Commission Report, made necessary because there is nothing inside
 these volumes.  Men of high position and prestige sitting on a board, and
 announcing the results to you, but not telling you what the evidence is,
 because the evidence has to be hidden for seventy-five years. 
 
 You heard in this courtroom in recent weeks, eyewitness after
 eyewitness after eyewitness and, above all, you saw one eyewitness which
 was indifferent to power, the Zapruder film.  The lens of the camera is
 totally indifferent to power and it tells what happened as it saw it
 happen, and that is one of the reasons 200 million Americans have not seen
 the Zapruder film.  They should have seen it many times.  They should know
 exactly what happened.  They all should know what you know now. 
 
 Why hasn't all of this come into being if there hasn't been
 government fraud?  Of course there has been fraud by the government. 
 
 But I'm telling you now that I think we can do something about it. 
 I think that there are still enough Americans left in this country to make
 it continue to be America.  I think that we can still fight
 authoritarianism, the government's insistence on secrecy, government force
 used in counterattacks against an honest inquiry, and when we do that,
 we're not being un-American, we're being American.  It isn't easy.  You're
 sticking your neck out in a rather permanent way, but it has to be done
 because truth does not come into being automatically.  Justice does not
 happen automatically.  Individual men, like the members of my staff here,
 have to work and fight to make it happen, and individual men like you have
 to make justice come into being because otherwise it doesn't happen. 
 
 What I'm trying to tell you is that there are forces in America
 today, unfortunately, which are not in favor of the truth coming out about
 John Kennedy's assassination.  As long as our government continues to be
 like this, as long as such forces can get away with such actions, then
 this is no longer the country in which we were born. 
 
 The murder of John Kennedy was probably the most terrible moment
 in the history of our country.  Yet, circumstances have placed you in the
 position where not only have you seen the hidden evidence but you are
 actually going to have the opportunity to bring justice into the picture
 for the first time. 
 
 Now, you are here sitting in judgement on Clay Shaw.  Yet you, as
 men, represent more than jurors in an ordinary case because the victims in
 this case.  You represent, in a sense, the hope of humanity against
 government power.  You represent humanity, which yet may triumph over
 excessive government power.  If you will cause it to be so, in the course
 of doing your duty in this case. 
 
 I suggest that you ask not what your country can do for you but
 what you can do for your country. 
 
 What can you do for your country?  You can cause justice to happen
 for the first time in this matter.  You can help make our country better
 by showing that this is still a government of the people.  And if you do
 that, as long as you live, nothing will ever be more important. 
 
 ---------------------------
 
  Since you read all the way through, you might be interested in
 more information.  You can check out alt.conspiracy.jfk at your favourite
 USENET site and see the still active coverup covering up.  Now including a
 phoney "Oswald did it alone" FAQ posting from a .mil address.  The
 internet equivalent to Gerald Posner's "Case Closed."  Though less well
 written, it includes about the same amount of real research.  There are
 some good people on the newsgroup as well and they have a large and
 growing body of info on display regularly.  Another excellent source is
 the web site for Fair Play magazine: http://www.kaiwan.com/~ljg/fp.html
 
 -31 and counting-