You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #17: The ''accused'' killer. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. The ''accused'' killer.
Here's what Gaeton Fonzi, an investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, said:



On Receiving the Mary Ferrell-JFKLancer Pioneer Award
for Lifetime Achievement in the Investigation of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Dallas, November 21, 1998


Gaeton Fonzi

EXCERPT...

The Warren Commission wrong? The United States Government wrong?

Impossible. Vince Salandria must be some kind of nut. Or maybe just a publicity-seeking shyster. Either way, he'd make an interesting little story. I vividly remember my first visit with Salandria in the paneled basement office of his row home on Delancey Street in Center City. He was 38 years old then, a Penn Law graduate, a man of modest stature and demeanor, with olive skin, dark eyes and a thin, serious face. His voice was a soft velvet but he spoke with a deep intellectual intensity. Funny, he didn't look or sound like a nut.

Salandria told me his interest in the Warren Commission had begun shortly after it was formed because he didn't like the fact that it was holding secret hearings. He began to monitor its activities as best he could from news clips and unofficial reports. He spent his vacation in Dallas to familiarize himself with the murder scene. He ordered the Commission's Report and its 26 volumes of evidence as soon as they were issued and plunged into a page-by-page study.

"My initial feeling," Salandria told me, "was that if this were a simple assassination, as the Commission claimed, the facts would come together very neatly. If there were more than one assassin the details would not fit." Salandria claimed the details did not fit. He told me there were blatant contradictions between the Commission's conclusions and the evidence in the 26 volumes.

Blatant contradictions? That was hard to believe. These were smart, brilliant men on the Warren Commission, they wouldn't permit such flagrant inaccuracy. But Salandria gave me his extra copy of the Report and its 26 volumes of evidence and suggested that I take the time to study them carefully.

I did. And Salandria was right. It was unequivocally clear that the details did not fit. There were blatant contradictions between the Report's conclusions and the Commission's own evidence in its 26 volumes.

The truth had hit me upside the head and still I refused to embrace it. There had to be some valid explanation for the contradictions and I knew the man who would give me that explanation was Arlen Specter. I had known Arlen before he went off to the Warren Commission, considered him not only smart but tough and courageous. I had written about the guts he had to successfully prosecute the politically powerful but corrupt boss of the local Teamsters Union. I was sure that once I sat down with Specter he would explain and clear up all those apparent contradictions in the Warren Report.

Local reporters had, of course, asked Specter about the Warren Report when it was released. He was vigorous in defense of its conclusions. He called the Commission's investigation the most exhaustive and complete in history. The single bullet theory, he insisted, was the only possible way to explain how Lee Harvey Oswald had shot President Kennedy. The reporters dutifully reported what he said.

Amazingly enough, even after all those months had gone by since the release of the Warren Report, I was the first journalist to ask Specter about specific details and about the Report's inconsistencies. I apparently caught Specter off guard.

CONTINUED...

http://www.jfklancer.com/gfonzi.html



As an investigator for Congress, Fonzi found that the physical evidence of the case -- the President's clothing alone -- indicated conspiracy. Throw in what the eyewitnesses saw and it is a very different picture than what J Edgar Hoover painted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC