RSS

JFK Assassination Paradigm Shift: Deaths of Witnesses Called to Testify

17 Jul

JFK Assassination Paradigm Shift: Deaths of Witnesses Called to Testify

Richard Charnin
July 18, 2013

This post will describe the methodology used to prove a conspiracy to kill JFK. It will clarify the essential points which need to be repeated.

Warren Commission (WC) apologists have offered tortured explanations to refute the relevance of “convenient deaths” by challenging the witness connection or cause of death. But it is an exercise in futility; individual witnesses are not the issue. The apologists are missing the forest for the trees.

The paradigm shift represents a new approach in analyzing witness deaths and is mathematical proof of a conspiracy – beyond any doubt. It closes the book on the academics, media and entertainment shills who, after 50 years of overwhelming evidence, continue to perpetuate the fairy tale presented by the Warren Commission.

The few remaining WC defenders call the analysis of “convenient deaths” the ravings of conspiracy “buffs”. But the “coincidence” theorists (CTs) are easily debunked by two basic facts: First, witnesses called to testify at the Warren Commission, the Garrison/Shaw trial, Church Senate Intelligence hearings and HSCA were obviously relevant and connected to the assassination or they would never have been called in the first pace.

Second, at least 55 of the approximately 800 called to testify in the four investigations from 1964-1977 died under suspicious circumstances. Thirty-six died unnaturally (homicide, accident or suicide), nineteen from heart attacks and other suspiciously timed illnesses. Given these facts, to agonize over any individual witness death is a distraction and totally unnecessary. For one thing, the witnesses had something in common: they were called to testify.

The only relevant factors are the number of witnesses (N) called to testify, the number (n) who died, the time period (T) and the appropriate mortality rate (R). Given these factors, we have all the information we need to calculate E, the expected number of deaths: E = N * T * R.

Having E and n, we can easily calculate the probability P of n or more deaths in T years. Typically, the probability P is 1 in trillions, depending on the witness group under consideration.

Note that this analysis is concerned only with witnesses called to testify in the four investigations. In the two years following the assassination, at least 29 witnesses who were never called died unnaturally and 5 others from heart attacks.

The JFK Calc spreadsheet includes a database of 114 material JFK-related individuals who died under suspicious circumstances. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination is a reference summary of more than 1,400 JFK-related suspects, witnesses, law enforcement officials and investigators. The JFK Calc spreadsheet database currently contains 114 witnesses who died unnaturally (81) or suspiciously (33). Of the 114, JFK Calc includes 94 of the 1400 listed in “Who’s Who”. Only 11 unnatural deaths would normally be expected assuming the 0.000542 U.S. unnatural mortality rate.

Sixteen material witnesses died in 1964 during the Warren Commission. Another 22 died in 1977-1978 during the HSCA. Timing is everything.

The HSCA claimed that a known universe of witnesses was impossible to determine. And that was the excuse they needed in order to dismiss the London Sunday Times actuary’s calculation of 100,000 trillion to 1 odds that 18 material witnesses would die in the three years following the assassination.

The Warren Commission
But the number of witnesses who testified at the Warren Commission (N=552) is a matter of record. We also know how many died unnaturally in the T=14 years from 1964-1977 (at least n=18). The weighted average unnatural mortality rate for the 18 deaths is 0.000164. Based on the rate, we would expect 1 or 2 unnatural deaths: E = 1.26 = 552*14*0.000164

The Poisson spreadsheet function calculates the probability of at least n=18 unnatural witness deaths in the 14 year period.
P = Poisson (n-1, E, true)
P = Poisson (17, 1.26, true) = 3.0E-15
P = 1 in 333 trillion

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=22

In 1963, the national homicide rate was 6 per 100,000 (0.000062), a 1 in 16,000 chance of death by homicide in one year. There were 10 homicides among 552 Warren Commission witnesses from 1964-1977. Based on the homicide rate, we would expect 0.48 (none or one).
E = 0.48 = 552*14*0.000062

The probability of at least 10 homicides is:
P = 1 – Poisson (n-1, E, true)
P = 1 – Poisson (9, 0.48, true)= 1.14E-10
P = 1 in 9 billion

Unweighted and Weighted Unnatural Mortality Rates
The U.S. unnatural mortality rate (0.000542) is the sum of the individual unnatural rates. The accident rate comprised 2/3 of all unnatural deaths and nearly 6 times the homicide rate. But 46 of 81 (56.8%) unnatural JFK witness deaths were homicides. Therefore the U.S.rate is not appropriate for calculating probabilities of JFK witness deaths. We need to calculate the weighted unnatural rate. It is the product sum of the individual unnatural rates and the number of corresponding deaths:
R = 0.000148 = (46*0.000062 + 8*0.000107 + 23*0.000359 + 4* 0.000014)/81

Unnatural Mortality Rate Components
Cause....Rate..... Deaths (JFK witness vs. U.S. share of unnatural deaths)
Homicide 0.000062 46 (56.8% vs. 11.4%)
Suicide. 0.000107 8 (9.9% vs. 19.7%)
Accident 0.000359 23 (28.4% vs. 66.2%)
Unknown. 0.000014 4 (4.9% vs. 2.6%)
Total... 0.000542 81 U.S. unweighted (10.6 expected, Prob= ZERO
JFK Witness 0.000148 81 weighted rate
“Who's Who” 0.000151 66 weighted rate

We also calculate the probability of 114 total deaths, including heart attacks, illness, other. The natural rates are calculated based on the actual number of deaths. Of course, some of the “natural” deaths may have been homicides disguised as heart attacks. The weighted total rate is 0.000315.


Natural Mortality
Cause...........Rate....Deaths
illness........ 0.000300 6
heart attack... 0.001000 20
other.......... 0.000300 7
Total Mortality (Natural+ Unnatural)
JFK Witness.... 0.000315 114
"Who's Who".... 0.000290 94

Four Investigations
We have already discussed the Warren Commission group of 552 witnesses. There is no question that the witnesses were relevant. They are connected by definition: they were called to testify. But again, that is immaterial. We can consider the 552 Warren Commission witnesses as a subset of an estimated 800 who were called to testify at the Garrison/Shaw Trial, the Church Senate committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=25

There is a fundamental difference between the Warren Commission (WC) witnesses who all testified and the investigations which followed. In the Garrison trial, Church and HSCA investigations, nearly 35 witnesses died just prior to their scheduled testimony.

For example, George de Morenshildt supposedly shot himself the day he was notified of his interview by the HSCA. Seven (7) top FBI officials who were due to testify at the HSCA died within a six month period in 1977. And there were many more.

The probabilities of witness deaths were calculated for each investigation. Over the 14 year period, approximately 8 deaths would normally have been expected among the 800 witnesses who were called to testify, given the 0.000674 weighted rate. The probabilities are 1 in trillions, whether based on total deaths, unnatural deaths or homicides.

The probability of exactly 55 deaths among 800 witnesses is
P = Poisson(55,7.55,false) = 8.07E-29

E-12 = 1 in a trillion; E-24= 1 in a trillion^2; E-36 = 1 in a trillion^3


Rate....Investigation.......T..N...n...E..P
0.000677 Warren Commission.14 552 28 5.23 2.79E-12
0.000476 Garrison/Church....2 145 17 0.14 5.94E-30
0.000886 House Select.......2 103 21 0.18 5.01E-36

0.000674 Total.............14 800 55 7.55 8.07E-29

0.000145 36 unnatural......14 800 36 1.63 2.09E-35
0.000062 22 Homicides......14 800 22 0.69 1.46E-25

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 17, 2013 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Debunking John McAdams’ “Debunking” of Jim Marrs’ JFK Witness List

08 Jul

Debunking John McAdams’ “Debunking” of Jim Marrs’ JFK Witness List

Richard Charnin
July 8, 2013
Updated: July 17

John McAdams is the foremost Warren Commission apologist and Lone Nutter. He has spawned a number of wannabees who parrot his writings on internet forums dedicated to the JFK Assassination. To McAdams, JFK researchers seeking the truth are “conspiracy buffs” who are wrong to believe scores of eyewitnesses, Parkland doctors, photographic and acoustic evidence.

McAdams astounding propensity to obfuscate is best illustrated in his attempt to debunk Jim Marrs’ list in “Strange” and “Convenient” Deaths Surrounding the Assassination: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm. But this is just one example of McAdams’ disinformation and obfuscations.

After reading this post, check out Michael T. Griffith’s extremely thorough debunking of McAdams’ Kennedy Assassination home page. The devastating article was written in 2001, yet McAdams is still “lone-nutting” for the Warren Commission. http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/vsmcadams.htm

We will quickly prove that McAdams’ valiant effort to refute the relevance of the witnesses is an exercise in futility. He is apparently unaware that 55 of the approximate 800 witnesses called to testify by the Warren Commission, Garrison/Shaw Trial, Senate Select Committee and the HSCA met “convenient” deaths in 1964-77. The probability is ZERO.

The following logical analysis represents a profound PARADIGM SHIFT in analyzing the significance of the “convenient” witness deaths. To prove a conspiracy, it does not matter one iota if individual witnesses were related or material to the assassination (even though they obviously were). Witness relevance and connection to JFK becomes obvious after the fact. The salient point is that the number of witnesses called to testify in four investigations and died unnaturally by homicide, accident or suicide (or suspiciously timed heart-attacks) far exceeded the mathematical expectation. The probability is essentially ZERO that the number of unnatural deaths would occur in each investigation (as well as collectively in four). Therefore, if the deaths were not coincidental, there had to be a connection which means there was a conspiracy. It is no longer debatable.

This straightforward probability analysis closes the book on McAdams’ decades-old barrage of disinformation and utter disregard for the truth. As a professor of political science, one would expect McAdams to seek the truth with an honest scientific evaluation of the facts. His avoidance – or inability – of engaging in an honest analysis cannot be attributed totally to pure ignorance. His agenda is obvious to anyone paying attention. He has been exposed time and again as an illogical coincidence theorist (CT). The “tell” is his inability to refute the basic mathematical analysis which proves that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. He reveals his ignorance of logic and probability theory here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic.htm

Apparently, McAdams had a limited math background, otherwise he would have done the analysis. His total ignorance of probability theory is diplayed in this feeble, pathetic attempt to refute the testimony of eyewitnesses and medical doctors at Parkland Hospital. The man has no shame. And this is a university professor? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic2.htm

As a quantitative analyst/software developer working in defense/aerospace and Wall Street investment banking, I had the pleasure of programming mathematical models that were more complex than calculating probabilities of JFK witness unnatural deaths. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/jfk-mysterious-witness-deaths-london-sunday-times-and-hsca-cover-up/

We will teach you, “professor”.

Facts, logic and mathematical proof are the bane of the disinformationist. Knowing the unnatural mortality rate (R) for (n) witness unnatural deaths in a group of (N) individuals over a given time period (T) is all that is required in order to calculate the probability of (n) deaths. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=0

552 Warren Commission witnesses
To illustrate, consider the N=552 witnesses who testified at the Warren Commission (in person or affidavit). In the 14 year period from 1964 to 1977, 27 died (18 unnaturally, 9 suspiciously). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=22

As a group, their weighted average unnatural mortality rate defied the norm. Let’s calculate the probability that at least n= 18 would die unnaturally in T=14 years. Of the 18 unnatural deaths, there were 11 homicides, 6 accidents and 1 suicide.

The first step is to calculate R, the weighted average unnatural mortality rate:
R = (homicide rate* homicides + accidental death rate* accidents + Suicide rate*suicides+unknown rate* unknowns)/unnatural deaths
R = 0.000164 = (0.000062*11 +0.000359*6 + 0.000107*1)/18

The expected number E of unnatural deaths is
E = N*T*R = 1.26 = 552 *14 *0.000164

The probability is calculated in a spreadsheet using the Poisson distribution function:
P = 1-Poisson (n-1, E, true)
P = 1-Poisson(17, 1.26, true)
P = 3.0E-15 = 1 in 333,599,972,397,814 (1 in 333 trillion)

But were the 6 accidents and one suicide really homicides?
The probability of 18 homicides is 1 in 5 billion trillion!

I should stop right here. Consider it a PARADIGM SHIFT in analyzing the problem. There is no question about the relevance of witnesses by definition; they were important enough to be called to testify. But even more important, the conspiracy is proved by a simple calculation strictly based on expected and actual unnatural mortality for a given universe of 552 Warren Commission witnesses. This puts the lie to the canard that the universe of witnesses is unknowable.

The Poisson function does not include a motive or connection variable. The connection is proven by the 1 in 333 trillion probability that at least 18 would die unnaturally. And that is conservative; it assumes just 18 of the 27 suspicious deaths were unnatural. Coincidence? Hardly.

800 witnesses (Warren, Garrison, Church, HSCA)
Of the 800 called to testify, there were 55 suspicious deaths (36 were unnatural). Let’s calculate the probability of 36 unnatural deaths. Given the weighted average unnatural mortality rate R=0.000164, the expected number E of unnatural deaths is
E = N*T*R = 1.83 = 800 *14 *0.000164.

The probability P of 36 unnatural deaths is:
P = Poisson(n, E, false)
P = Poisson(36, 1.83, false)
P = 1.24E-33 = 1 in 800 million trillion trillion (ZERO)

And that is conservative. How many of the other 19 suspicious deaths were homicides?
The homicide rate in 1963 was 6 per 100,000 (0.000062).
The expected number of homicides in the four investigations is
E = 0.69 = 800*14*0.000062.

At least 22 of the 36 unnatural deaths were homicides. The probability of 22 homicides is:
P = Poisson(22, 0.69, false)
P = 1.46E-25 = 1 in 6 trillion trillion (ZERO)
Again, that is conservative. How many of the 14 accidents and suicides were really homicides?

1400 material witnesses (Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination)
Of 81 unnatural deaths in the JFK Calc spreadsheet, 46 are homicides). Given the weighted average unnatural mortality rate R=0.000148, the expected number of unnatural deaths is
E = N*T*R = 2.91 = 1400 *14 *0.000148.

Then the probability P of 81 unnatural deaths is:
P = Poisson(81, 2.91, false)
P = 3.42E-85 (ZERO)
But that is conservative. How many of the 31 accidents and suicides were really homicides?

25,000 FBI Interviews?
Warren Commission apologists claimed that 25,000 were interviewed in the FBI “investigation”. But how many were material? Only about 1400 according to the reference “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”. Let’s assume 25,000 for the sake of argument. Given the 0.000062 homicide rate, only 22 homicides would be expected over 14 years.
E = 21.7 = 25,000*14* 0.000062.

But there were 46 homicides.The probability of at least 46 homicides is:
P = 1 – Poisson(45, 21.7, true)
P = 3.76E-06 = 1 in 265,000

The graph: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=37

Assume 26 of the 32 accidental deaths and suicides were homicides. Then the probability of at least 72 homicides is:
P = 1 – Poisson(71, 21.7, false)
P = 6.66E-16 = 1 in 1500 trillion (ZERO)

My comments (in bold font) follow McAdams.

JM
If there really was the vast conspiracy that the buffs claim, then a lot of people have to know about it. Indeed, a lot of people have to have been part of it — not to speak of the people who must have been intimidated, bribed, or otherwise forced to cooperate by giving false testimony, covering up key evidence, or keeping quiet about some sinister thing they knew.”

RC
Yes, that is true. It was a really big conspiracy.

JM
So why have no credible witnesses come forward with the evidence necessary to blow open the coverup? For the hard-core conspiracy believers, it’s because a “clean-up squad” is going around the country killing off people who might “blow the whistle!”

RC
Many have come forward or were about to and have been eliminated.

JM
This theme was first taken up by Penn Jones, Jr., publisher of the Midlothian Mirror, a small-town Texas paper. The most widely cited current list of “mystery deaths” was published by author Jim Marrs (who also released the book Alien Agenda about UFOs). His book Crossfire contains a list of 103 people who have supposedly died “strange” or “convenient” or “mysterious” deaths. As Marrs puts it: “This section has been entitled “Convenient Deaths” because these deaths certainly would have been convenient for anyone not wishing the truth of the JFK assassination to become public”. Unfortunately for Marrs and other conspiracy authors, the logical problems with this whole argument are many and massive.

RC
I have posted probability analysis of witness deaths extensively on my website, blog and various JFK forums which prove that the “convenient” deaths were not just coincidental occurrences. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/jfk/

JM
If the purpose of the “clean-up squad” is to eliminate people who have knowledge of a conspiracy, recruiting people into a “clean-up squad” is a counter-productive activity. Each person recruited becomes yet another person who has knowledge of a conspiracy and might “spill the beans.”

1. Marrs’ list is drawn from a pool of literally thousands of people — a few of whom had a clear connection with the assassination, many of whom had some tangential connection with the assassination, and some of whom had no connection with the assassination at all.

For example, Marrs’ list includes one woman who was one of Kennedy’s mistresses, but had no known connection with the assassination. It includes a man who was mayor of New Orleans (but who had no known connection with the assassination), and it includes the Chief Steward on Air Force One!

RC
Wrong. Not thousands. Hundreds. Approximately 50 witnesses on Marrs’ list were among an estimated 800 called to testify in four investigations. If McAdams is referring to Mary Pinchot Meyer, he should have mentioned that she was divorced from Cord Meyer. According to E. Howard Hunt in his deathbed confession, Cord Meyer was approached by LBJ to come up with a plan for the assassination.

JM
2. The list includes people who were merely connected to the Mafia, the CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, or Time-Life, Incorporated. Marrs is assuming that all these groups were connected with the assassination. In other words, he assumes a conspiracy involving all these groups, tabulates deaths, and then announces that the large number of deaths supports the idea of a conspiracy! Circular logic.

RC
But elements from each group – and others- were involved. Many died unnaturally. The timing of many deaths was suspicious, occurring shortly before they were due to testify. In 1977, seven FBI officials died within a six month period just prior to their scheduled testimony at HSCA. Coincidence? And 14 others never got the chance, either.

JM
3. Most well-known conspiracy witnesses and authors are still alive. For example, of the best-known conspiracy authors who wrote books in the 1960s, Mark Lane, Edward J. Epstein, and Josiah Thompson are still alive. Sylvia Meagher is dead, but not even Marrs lists her death as “suspicious.” Penn Jones died in January 1998 in a nursing home at the age of 83 after a long struggle with Alzheimer’s disease. Harold Weisberg likewise died in February of 2002 after a long period of failing health. The most prominent conspiracy authors from the 70s and early 80s like David Lifton, Robert Groden, Henry Hurt, Anthony Summers, and Harrison Edward Livingstone are all still alive.

RC
But a number of reporters died unnaturally, including Bill Hunter and Jim Koethe, who just happened to meet in Ruby’s apartment on Nov. 24, 1963. And there were others- like Dorothy Kilgallen, Lisa Howard, Leonard Pullin, C.D. Jackson…

JM
4. The star conspiracy witnesses who are seen in all the videos had long lives. Beverly Oliver is still alive. Malcolm Summers died on October 8, 2004, Ed Hoffman passed away in 2010. Jean Hill passed away on November 7, 2000. All three witnesses died after having decades to give their testimony to anybody who would listen, and not even their conspiracist supporters claim their deaths were sinister.

RC
But they tried to give testimony – and no one would listen. Or they were told that they were “mistaken”. They were told that they did not hear more than three shots or they did not see gunman behind the grassy knoll.

JM
5. If a conspiracy was going around killing people who knew things that were dangerous to it, it would make sense that all the key witnesses would be killed quickly. But Marrs’ list includes people who died as late as 1984. Given that many people associated with the assassination were at the peak of their professional careers at the time of the shooting, it’s not surprising that many of them would have died within twenty years.

RC
No, professor. What is surprising is that at least 81 died unnaturally (homicide, accident, suicide, unknown) in the 14 year period following the assassination and that the deaths spiked at convenient times.

The JFK Calc spreadsheet contains 114 convenient material witness deaths and includes 94 from Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

Sixteen material witnesses died in 1964 during the Warren Commission. Another 22 died in 1977-1978 during the HSCA. Timing is everything.

JM
6. Marrs’ list is laced with people who have a larger than average chance of a violent death: law officers, people on the edges of the underworld (strippers), people very much part of the underworld (Mafia figures), and people with a clear history of alcohol or drug abuse, or of mental illness (Rose Cheramie, Lou Staples, George de Mohrenschildt).

RC
Strippers? Mental illness? Come on, John McAdams. You are really reaching now.

JM
7. About half the people on Marrs’ list died of natural causes. Marrs assures his readers that of course the CIA can kill people and make the death look “natural” (Crossfire, p. 556-557). This raises the question of why the conspirators allowed any of the deaths to seem violent or suspicious.

RC
Not true. Approximately 70% died of unnatural causes (homicide, suicide, accident,unknown). The rest were mostly heart attacks. John asks: why not induce them all with heart attacks? Hmm…

JM
8. In virtually every case, there is no evidence that the person had any information on the assassination not already given in Warren Commission testimony, statements to police and the media, and interviews with private researchers. The logic seems to be that they must have known something, since, after all, they were killed.

RC
But they did know something, that’s why they were called to testify – and that’s why they had to be eliminated.

JM
9. People who supported the Warren Commission version of events, or whose testimony was used by the Warren Commission to help convict Oswald, are well-represented on the list. Why would a conspiracy want to kill off those people?

RC
Testimony which exonerated Oswald and exposed the Single Bullet Theory was misrepresented or ignored by the WC. They wanted to insure the silence of these witnesses while at the same time intimidate others from talking.

JM
10. Many of these objections can be answered by positing on ongoing surveillance of witnesses. Maybe a witness, after many years of concealing the truth, has finally decided to go public and “blow the whistle.” Conspirators, learning of this, then proceed to kill the person. What’s wrong with this is obvious: it vastly complicates the problem discussed in 1. (above). For every witness who might potentially “spill the beans,” a team of conspiracy operatives must keep a close surveillance in order to catch the moment when the person decides to talk, and then promptly kill the witness. This would require an entire army of assassins!

RC
An entire army? Surely, you jest. A pro can do one hit a month.

JM
Marrs tries to argue for the sinister nature of his list by saying:” Of course, it is impossible to state with any certainty which of these deaths resulted from natural causes and which did not. . . The area of convenient deaths leads one into a well of paranoia, yet the long list of deaths cannot be summarily dismissed”.

Given the immensely large pool from which the hundred or so people on Marrs’ list are drawn, one of two things must be true. Either: (1) many hundreds or thousands of deaths have escaped Marrs’ notice, or (2) being associated with the Kennedy assassination is a guarantee of a very long life!

RC
Large pool? Read the “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”. There were approximately 1400 material witnesses, of whom at least 81 (5.7%) died unnaturally fom 1964-1977. Go ahead John, figure the odds -if you can.

JM
Let’s Look at Specifics
The death of Lee Bowers seemed “strange” to Oliver Stone, Geraldo Rivera, and Jim Marrs. David Perry is an insurance investigator by profession, and an assassination buff by avocation. See what he concluded when he investigated this issue.

RC
Come on, John. Bowers was a witness to activity on the Grassy Knoll from his vantage point. Yes, a one-car crash is very strange.

JM
Another “mysterious” death was that of David Ferrie. Did he commit suicide to avoid being prosecuted for Kennedy’s murder by DA Garrison? Was he killed by minions of The Conspiracy? In this essay, Dr. Robert Artwohl discusses Jim Garrison’s contention that Ferrie died of an overdose of Proloid, a thyroid medication, and Garrison’s apparent mishandling of evidence. Ferrie left two supposed “suicide notes,” however on close inspection it’s not at all clear they are in fact suicide notes. The official autopsy produced a clear finding of natural death.

RC
Natural death? He was struck on the head causing a brain aneurysm. David Ferrie was murdered the day after he was released from protective custody. Just a coincidence?

JM
Eladio del Valle, a Cuban who died on the same night as David Ferrie, is another of those “mystery deaths.” Conspiracy books imply that he had all sorts of “links” to the assassination, but there are some other things about him that make his death seem not so mysterious. Click here for documents on del Valle. Conspiracy books never tell you, but the Dade County authorities indicted a man for del Valle’s murder. More information can be found on Gordon Winslow’s web site.

RC
Del Valle, an associate of Ferrie, was a prospective witness in the Clay Shaw trial. He just happened to die the same day as Ferrie by an axe to the skull. Coincidence?

JM
Dorothy Kilgallen, a reporter and quiz show personality, is always among those on the “mysterious deaths” lists. Supposedly, she was about to “blow the lid” off the conspiracy. In this essay, historian Eric Paddon does not discuss the circumstances of her death (which the medical examiner didn’t consider sinister), but rather the question of whether she actually knew anything that might threaten a supposed conspiracy. Had she learned something new about the assassination, or was she just repeating standard conspiracy buff stuff? How might Kilgallen have gotten critical information that would have allowed her to “blow” the conspiracy? According to Gary Wills and Ovid Demaris, (Jack Ruby, page 72):

Conspiratorialists of the wilder variety believe that Dorothy Kilgallen had a private interview [with Jack Ruby], one that caused her death. This tete-a-tete never took place: she leaned over the rail and talked to Jack in the open courtroom during a break in the proceedings. Lawyer Joe Tonahill, who hoped to collaborate with Miss Kilgallen on a book, arranged the brief exchange, and was present at it.

But the important thing, as John Leyden has pointed out, is that Kilgallen didn’t die “mysteriously” until 20 months after the interview. Darn patient reporter who can sit on a big story that long.

RC
In the book “Hit List”, there is a detailed chapter on Kilgallen. She was the only reporter who was granted an exclusive interview with Ruby in jail. She openly attacked the coverup in her New York Journal American columns on 2/2/64 and 9/3/65. She reported a meeting between Ruby, Tippit and a Texas oilman, revealed that Oswald was in too many places at one time, had links to U.S. intelligence and that Oswald’s true story was known to just a few government agents. She told her friends that in five days, she would “bust this case wide open”, but died on 11/8/65 shortly after returning from Dallas where she met with Ruby and had secret transcripts of his testimony. She was gathering information for a book “Murder One” and gave her notes and manuscripts to her friend Florence Pritchett Smith for safekeeping. Smith died within few days of Kilgallen. None of the manuscripts were recovered. How do you explain that? Just a coincidence?

JM
Colonel Daniel Marvin told an explosive story in the most recent installment of The Men Who Killed Kennedy. He claimed to have been asked by a CIA operative to kill a supposed autopsy witness named William B. Pitzer. If true, it’s hard evidence of a conspiracy “clean-up squad” killing witnesses. Researchers Robin Palmer and Allan Eaglesham have worked closely with Marvin, and have come to doubt his story. Their “Letter to Dr. J.D. Rose” lays out the details. Eaglesham, who initially believed the death was “suspicious,” has now concluded that it wasn’t. A diligent and honest researcher, he continued investigating even after reaching that conclusion, and that research solidified his view that the death was indeed a suicide.

RC
Not suspicious? A suicide? So we are to believe Pitzer decided to take his own life just before retiring with a good pension and lucrative job opportunities? Give us all a break, John. Have you no shame? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpitzerW.htm

JM
Umpteen Trillion to One Odds?
The conspiracy literature occasionally still quotes a supposed study done by the London Sunday Times which found that “the odds against these [assassination] witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one.” The House Select Committee on Assassinations asked the newspaper where they got that number. The paper replied with the following letter.
“The Editor has passed me your letter of 25th April. Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times’ editorial staff after the first edition — the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have — had gone out, and later editions were amended.

There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong. It was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied — correctly — that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter — hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize.

None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material”.
Yours sincerely,
Antony Whitaker,
Legal Manager.
(4 HSCA 464-65)

RC
The actuary’s name is hardly material? In the film Executive Action we learned that the actuary determined that “In the three-year period which followed the murder of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, 18 material witnesses died – six by gunfire, three in motor accidents, two by suicide, one from a cut throat, one from a karate chop to the neck, three from heart attacks and two from natural causes”.

Well, the actuary was correct in calculating the 1 in 100,000 trillion probability, derived from the 0.000544 weighted mortality rate (8 homicides, 3 accidents, 2 suicides, 3 heart attacks, 2 natural) and 552 witnesses (same as the Warren Commission). Only one unnatural death would normally be expected, but there were at least 13.
P = Poisson (18,0.90, false)
P = 9.60E-18 (1 in 100,000 trillion)
Note: The actuary had a partial list. There were at least 46 deaths: 39 were unnatural (21 homicides) in the three years. Therefore, the actuary’s odds were conservative. The probability is E-50 (assuming 1400 material witnesses). But even that is too high. How many of the 25 accidents, suicides and heart attacks were really homicides?

JM
George deMohrenschildt was one of Lee Oswald’s most interesting friends. His testimony before the Warren Commission said nothing that suggested a conspiracy, but in later years he started to give a much more “interesting” account. DeMohrenschildt’s suicide in 1977 has seemed quite “suspicious” to conspiracy buffs. The Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office Death Investigation on deMohrenschildt’s passing is extremely detailed. See whether there is any evidence of murder.

RC
Sure John, De Morenschildt just happened to shoot himself the day he was to be interviewed by Gaeton Fonzi of HSCA. Just a coincidence? He had GW Bush’s phone number in his wallet. He was scared and wrote to Bush asking for help. How come you don’t mention that little factoid?

JM
John M. Crawford is yet another of those people on the “mystery deaths” lists. Did he really have the “connections” to Wes Frazier and Jack Ruby that conspiracy authors claim? See David Perry’s assessment of this case.

Roger Craig told a variety of “interesting” stories about the assassination, most of which clearly indicated a conspiracy. So it might seem quite logical that a conspiracy would want to silence him. And indeed Craig’s death at age 39 in 1975 by suicide (conspiracy books usually put quotes around “suicide”) might seem suspicious. But do the details of his death actually seem suspicious?

RC
They tried to kill Craig at least three times, so yes, John McAdams, I would say his “suicide” is very suspicious. But even if it was a suicide, why would he do it? For you to suggest that his death was not suspicious is quite disingenuous. But it does not diminish your credibility because you have none left. Roger Craig was a hero (RIP). He is interviewed by Mark Lane in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE

JM
What happens when a real investigator (Jacqueline Hess of the House Select Committee) tackles the issue of “mysterious deaths” and enlists the services of people who specialize in working out the probability that any particular person will die in a year, or two, or ten? In other words, enlists the service of actuaries? Hess’ testimony before the House Select Committee outlines the results of her investigation.

RC
Hess is debunked using facts, logic and math. Her analysis was incomplete, misleading and incorrect. She never mentioned unnatural mortality rates which are fundamental in an analysis of homicides, suicides and accidental deaths – by definition.

I won’t dwell on McAdams lame explanations to try and refute the convenient deaths; his pattern of obfuscation is established. Why beat a dead horse? I will just note that he makes no attempt to even discuss the number of witnesses who died conveniently that were called to testify in four investigations. If McAdams (or the HSCA) had done the analysis and calculated the probabilities, obfuscation and disinformation would be impossible. After all, he has a reputation to protect.

JM
Let’s Just Think About This, OK?
Excerpted from “The Case of the Grassy Knoll: The Romance of Conspiracy” by John Kaplan; printed in The Historian As Detective, Winks, editor; originally published as “The Assassins” in Stanford Law Review (May 1967).
[Regarding the "mysterious" deaths of "witnesses" to the assassination], even the most cursory examination of the stories shows how essentially foolish they are. A good many of the deaths hardly seem mysterious in that they were caused by auto accidents, heart attacks, and other phenomena that afflict our entire population. Moreover, before we could tell whether the number of these deaths is in any way unusual, we would have to know the number of equally “mysterious” deaths that occurred to people completely unconnected with the WR. But even apart from any statistical refutation, the theory that a set of conspirators is now devoted to wiping out a host of unimportant witnesses is almost too silly to be put forth. There is not the slightest indication that any of the “victims” have had anything to tell that they had not already told, and indeed the deaths seem concentrated among those who bore only the most peripheral relation to the assassination. When one stops to consider that almost each one of the “mysterious” deaths requires the recruitment of at least one and often several new conspirators, it would seem that, like the pyramid club, the conspiracy would be getting bigger and bigger rather than smaller. One would think that in light of what had happened to those who knew too much it would get very difficult to recruit new members into the conspiracy. Most important, however, it is hard to say why the supposed killers are taking whatever chances these murders entail when it is so obvious that, whoever the conspirators are, they have already gotten off scot-free.

RC
McAdams cribs from a load of asinine talking points. As shown above, the relevance of the witnesses is a moot point. But that they were absolutely relevant is indisputable because a) they were important enough to be called to testify in the four investigations, b) 55 out of 800 witnesses would die> Seven (7) FBI officials died in a 6 month period at HSCA just prior to their testimony -and their were at least 13 others, c) with a 1 in 4 TRILLION TRILLION probability. Now THAT is very relevant…and proves a conspiracy beyond any doubt. Of course, McAdams will disregard facts, logic and math, claiming it was all just a coincidence. John, consider yourself debunked.

Now let’s consider this, ok?

The reference text Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination includes 1400+ material witnesses.

Fifty material witness deaths are described in depth in the book Hit List: an In-Depth Investigation Into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnessess to the JFK Assassination. It includes my probability calculation for 15 unnatural deaths in the year following the assassination (see inside).

Note: I posted this on McAdams’ JFK assassination forum. His comments (and those of his acolytes) are typically evasive and as usual show an utter disregard and/or ignorance of the facts, logic and mathematics.THEY DON’T GET THE PARADIGM SHIFT AND FOCUS ON QUESTIONING THE RELEVANCE (“WHY”) OF WITNESSES CALLED TO TESTIFY. I HAVE SHOWN THAT THE “WHY” IS IMMATERIAL; ONLY THE NUMBER WHO WERE CALLED AND “HOW” AND “WHEN” THEY DIED MATTERS.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/nq28ajkNGXw

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 8, 2013 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JFK Mysterious Witness Deaths: London Sunday Times and HSCA Cover-up

01 Jul

JFK Mysterious Witness Deaths and the HSCA

Richard Charnin
July 1, 2013

In 1964, the Warren Commission ignored the testimony of 51 eyewitnesses who claimed that the shots came from the Grassy Knoll area. Just 32 said they came from the Texas School Book Depository. In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was forced to conclude that there was a “probable” conspiracy based on acoustic evidence – a 96% probability of at least four shots (including at least one from the Grassy Knoll). The physical evidence indicates more than four shots. Some shooters probably used silencers.

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, the HSCA was not about to refute the Warren Commission’s outrageous Single Bullet Theory. It still maintained that Oswald fired from the TSBD – and the other shooter(s) must have missed. Incredibly, the HSCA floated the canard that the shooters may have acted independently – and therefore there was no conspiracy.

So it is not surprising that prior to the presentation of the acoustic evidence, the HSCA would use obfuscation and factual omission in an attempt to refute an actuary’s calculation of 100,000 trillion to 1 odds of 18 material witness deaths in the three years following the assassination. If the odds were essentially correct, it would force the HSCA to conclude a conspiracy.

There were at least 110 unnatural and suspicious deaths in the 14 year period from 1964-1977. Notice the spikes in 1964 (Warren Commission) and 1977 (HSCA).

My comments and links (in red) are in bold font.

Ms. HESS (HSCA statistician)
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. The issue of mysterious deaths, that is, that a statistically improbable number of individuals with some direct or peripheral association with the Kennedy assassination died as a result of that assassination, thereby raising the specter of conspiracy, was first brought to national attention as the result of a promotional campaign for the movie “Executive Action” which was based on Mark Lane’s novel, “Rush to Judgment.” Mr. Chairman, I would direct your attention to JFK exhibit F-544 and ask that it be admitted into the record at this time.

Chairman STOKES – Without objection.

JFK EXHIBIT F-544
Ms. HESS
It is a blowup of an advertisement for the movie Executive Action. As you can see, it states that an actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times concluded that on November 22, the odds against 18 material witnesses being dead within a three year period were 100,000 trillion to 1. Since the publication of that figure, it has turned up in articles, letters, books, and conversation as anywhere from 1,000-to-1 to 1 billion-to-1. Very few people seem to know what it is that they are quoting, but they do have a sense of some enormous odds existing with respect to the deaths of a group of Kennedy-assassination-related witnesses.

Illustrative of the widespread concern over this issue is the query President Fidel Castro made during the interview of him by this committee in Cuba on April 3, 1978: “If I may ask you, is there anything true, or how much could be true about those publications which state that many people who could have had a part in Kennedy’s death have died in accidents and things like that?”

On April 27, 1978, the committee obtained a copy of an article printed in the London Sunday Times on February 26, 1967. Mr. Chairman, at this time I ask that the article be admitted into the record as JFK exhibit F-54], and I direct your attention to the enlargement of the article which is on the easel. The chart in the article lists 19 individuals as being the victims of mysterious deaths, including Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby states that the London Sunday Times asked an actuary to compute the life expectancy of 15 of these individuals. It further states that the actuary concluded that on November 22, 1963, the odds against all 15 being dead by February 1967 were about 1 in 10 to the 29th power, or 100,000 trillion to 1.


RC
The calculation has been confirmed assuming 552 Warren Commission witnesses – and 2479 named in the Warren Commission Index (which includes presidents Washington, Lincoln and hundreds of others with no connection to the case). The actuary understood the problem; it’s what he did for a living. The probability is 1E-17 or 0.000 000 000 000 000 01.

In the 14 years from 1964-77, 18 Warren Commission witnesses died unnaturally (an additional 7 deaths were highly suspicious) The probability is 1 in 333 trillion.

The probabilities are calculated in the JFK Witness spreadsheet database.

Ms. HESS
On April 28, 1978, the committee sent a letter to the London Sunday Times requesting a copy of the actuarial study and of all documents used in the preparation of the study. I would now ask that that letter, JFK exhibit F–542, be admitted into the record.

Chairman STOKES – Without objection JFK exhibits F-541 and F-542 may be entered into the record.
JFK EXHIBIT F–541
Select Committee on Assassinations
U.S. House of Representatives 3331 House Office Building, Annex 2
Washington, D.C. 20515
April 25, 1978
Librarian
London Sunday Times
P. O. Box 7
200 Gray’s Inn Road
London, England WCIX 8E2

Dear Sir:
In connection with its investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of President Kennedy, the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives requests a copy Of the actuarial study referenced in the attached February 26, 1967 London Sunday Times article and of all documents relating to the preparation of the study.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request. We appreciate the cooperation of your Washington and New York offices, particularly that of Ms. Katherine Grayson of the Washington Office.

Sincerely,
G. Robert Blakey
Chief Counsel and Director
G RB: jhd
Enclosure
cc: Katherine Grayson
JFK EXHIBIT F-542

Ms. HESS
On May 19, 1978, the committee received a response from the London Sunday Times. I direct your attention again to the easel, to JFK exhibit F-543, an enlargement of that letter. I would now like to read that letter into the record. It is directed to Mr. G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and director, Select Committee on Assassinations, and it is entitled, Kennedy deaths statistics–

The Sunday Times, February 26, 1967.
The Editor has passed me your letter of 25th April. Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times’ editorial staff after the first edition–the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have–had gone out, and later editions were amended.

There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong: It was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied–correctly–that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter–hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize.

None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material.

Yours sincerely,
Antony Whitaker, Legal Manager.


RC
There is no record of the actuary’s name? It’s “hardly material”?

Ms. HESS
Even though the London Sunday Times had not structured its actuarial inquiry properly and, therefore, the 100,000 trillion to 1 odds were invalid, the committee staff looked into the possibility of conducting a valid study, contracting with our own actuarial firms here in the District of Columbia: Edward H. Friend & Co., Towers Perrin, Forster & Co., and the Wyatt Co.

RC
Invalid?How could Hess make that statement? The actuary’s calculation methodology was never revealed. Ten of the 552 witnesses who testified at the Warren Commission died unnaturally in the three years after the assassination. The probability is 1 in 3.5 trillion. The actuary’s 100,000 trillion to 1 odds were confirmed for 18 material witness deaths over a three year period. So where are the HSCA calculations?

Ms. HESS
We then had meetings with representatives of each company and each subsequently submitted a proposal, addressing both the general issue of which actuarial principles did or did not apply, and the specific issue of the practical problems which would be encountered in attempting to apply those principles to this particular case. As a result of these conversations and of a review of the proposals, we determined the following facts concerning the validity and feasibility of attempting to apply actuarial odds to the group of deaths.

RC
Why didn’t Hess, a statistician, confirm the calculation herself? Perhaps it was because spreadsheets or personal computers did not exist in 1977. But minicomputers were available. The problem is actually quite simple. It requires use of the Poisson distribution formula for calculating the probability of rare events.

Ms. HESS
One, to compute valid actuarial statistics, one must be able to determine to a reasonable degree of specificity, the universe of individuals to which the specific group is being compared. In other words, we would have to determine the total number of individuals who exist in each of the categories into which those individuals who have mysteriously died, fall. This means that we would need to establish the number of individuals who in any manner could be considered witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, the number of individuals who had any contact with Oswald or Ruby or with Ruby’s nightclubs, the number of individuals who professed to have material knowledge of the case or of the major figures in the case, all news reporters who had expressed interest, taken interviews or investigated the case, and all Members of Congress who sought to introduce legislation concerning the investigation of the case. This, as you can imagine, would have been an impossible task.

RC
An impossible task? On the contrary, we have a defined universe of approximately 800 witnesses who were called to testify at the Warren Commission, Garrison/Shaw trial, Church Senate hearings and the HSCA. Fifty-two (52) died mysteriously (36 unnaturally), most before their scheduled testimony.

Ms. HESS
Two, in addition, for each of the individuals identified in the groups I have just listed, we would have to establish age, sex, race, occupation, geographical location, and any other extraordinary factors which have to be taken into consideration in order to compute mortality rates. Again, this was judged to be an impossible job.

RC
An impossible job? The statement is a cop-out. There was a fixed universe of approximately 800 witnesses who were called to testify in four investigations. The only relevant factor is that at least 52 (7%) died. Just 7 would normally be expected. At least 23 were homicides (one would be expected). The Poisson probability calculation is based on two factors: expected and actual deaths.

The national homicide rate was 6 per 100,000 in 1963. The average unweighted unnatural mortality rate was 0.000542. The average weighted unnatural mortality rate (based on JFK witness homicides, accidents and suicides) is used to calculate the expected number vs. the actual number of unnatural deaths in each group.

Ms. HESS
Three, we would need to determine the number of individuals in these categories who have, in fact, died and the number of individuals who, according to actuarial mortality rates, should have died.

RC
That’s easy. Just count the unnatural deaths in the defined groups as I did and apply the corresponding mortality rates.

Ms. HESS
We had thus established the impossibility of attempting establish through the application of actuarial principles, any meaningful implications about the existence or absence of a conspiracy. Despite the fact that an inference of conspiracy, as here postulated by the critics, did not exist, we nevertheless decided not to dismiss the cited deaths out of hand, but rather, to look more closely at the nature of certain specific deaths to determine whether or not they could individually be considered mysterious or in some other manner a reflection of some sort of conspiracy.

RC
The mathematical odds prove a conspiracy and are independent of witness connections to the case. Only the number and cause of the unnatural deaths are material, since we know the number of witnesses who were called to testify. The Poisson probability function is strictly based on the expected number and actual number of deaths. Why the witnesses died is irrelevant. It is a math problem: P= Poisson (expected, actual).

Ms. HESS
In an attempt to investigate the circumstances of the deaths individually, we did several things. First, we compiled a more comprehensive list of those individuals whose deaths were considered by the critics to be mysterious. In some cases, it proved difficult to determine which deaths the critics considered mysterious. In many cases, instead of statements of fact, we found unsubstantiated inference and innuendo, with little concrete information provided.

For example, David Goldstein and FNU Levens are both included in Sylvia Meagher’s book, “Accessories After the fact,” as mysterious deaths. Goldstein is described as having helped the FBI trace the revolver used in the murder of Officer Tippit. Levens is described as a Fort Worth burlesque theater operator who employed some of the same entertainers as Jack Ruby. Meagher notes that both of their deaths have been officially ascribed to natural causes and lists the places of death as unknown. No conspiracy theory which would include Goldstein and Levens is put forth; it is unclear why their deaths are to be considered mysterious.

RC
Hess cherry-picked Goldstein and Levens, both questionable. But there were at least 40 unnatural deaths in the three years – and 77 in the 14 year period from 1964 (Warren Commission) to 1977 (HSCA).That is cherry-picking a few questionable deaths. What about the others?

Ms. HESS
And while Ms. Meagher may have had no way of knowing it, the FBI’s file on the Kennedy case includes dozens of reports and letters from citizens offering clues in the identification of the revolver in question, as, of course, there are undoubtedly a number of persons who would have employed some of the same entertainers as Ruby.

Penn Jones in his book, “Forgive My Grief,” volume I, states that Earlene Robert’s, the manager of the rooming house in which Lee Harvey Oswald lived at the time of the assassination, died. He then states that she had important evidence to contribute. The implication is that Mrs. Roberts’ death is mysterious. While it is clear that Mrs. Roberts did indeed have important evidence to contribute, there is no indication in the records relating to her death, or in Mr. Jones’ book, as to what exactly was mysterious about a 61-year-old woman with large calcium deposits and a case of pneumonia, dying of acute heart failure.

The same is the case with other deaths cited in the same book. For example Dr. Nicholas Chetta, the coroner who served at David Ferrie’s death, and Thomas Howard. Jack Ruby’s attorney, both of whom died of heart attacks.

RC
But heart attacks can be induced. Why was Earlene Roberts threatened by the FBI into keeping silent? Howard was in Ruby’s apartment with two reporters (who were murdered) on Nov. 24. All died within one year. David Ferrie was named as a witness in 1967. He died from a cerebral hemorrhage (according to Chetta) the day after he was released from protective custody by Garrison. Ferrie’s associate Eladio del Valle was also due to testify; he was murdered within a few hours of Ferrie. Just a coincidence?

Ms. HESS
Despite this problem, we compiled a list of individuals from the books and articles of Meagher, Jones, Bernard Fensterwald, David Martindale, and David Welsh. We added to the list Sam Giancana and John Roselli, both of whom had died too recently to be included in most of the critical literature.

We then asked the Library of Congress to compile all newspaper articles which had appeared concerning any and all of the individuals. We further asked them to give us their evaluation of the critical literature and the press accounts on each individual and to make recommendations with respect to further investigation in each case. Independently, we sent requests to the Bureau of Vital Statistics, the medical examiners’ offices and the police departments in the jurisdiction in which each death was believed to have occurred, for the death certificates, medical records, police reports, and any other documents which might exist concerning the death. Because there were many cases in which there was no information indicating the appropriate jurisdiction, we sent letters to the pertinent offices in Dallas and Fort Worth, Tex., in New Orleans, La., and in Miami, Fla., listing all the names on which we desired information. In the case of some of the individuals, information was requested from Federal investigative agencies. In the cases of Roselli and Giancana, we requested and received a briefing on the Justice Department investigations of those deaths. In the cases in which further investigation was deemed necessary, it was initiated.

Our final conclusion on the issue is that the available evidence does not establish anything about the nature of these deaths which would indicate that the deaths were in same manner, either direct or peripheral, caused by the assassination of President Kennedy or by any aspect of the subsequent investigation.

RC
No indication? That’s it? The HSCA failed to
1) consider 800 witnesses called to testify in four investigations; at least 52 died, 36 unnaturally (23 homicides)
2) categorize the full list based on cause of death
3) consider unnatural mortality rates (homicides, suicides and accidents)
4) calculate the expected number of unnatural deaths over 1, 3 and 14 year periods.

Chairman STOKES – Is your report completed?
Ms. HESS – Yes; it is.
Chairman STOKES – The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Ford.
Mr. FORD – I have no questions. I will yield back my time to the Chair.
Chairman STOKES – The gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. FITHIAN – Just one question, Miss Hess, is it your feeling, having gone through this, there is no statistical significance to this? Is that what I am to understand?
Ms. HESS – That is correct.
Mr. FITHIAN – Is it possible, then that any death which is remotely related to this gets reported more than others therefore there is an appearance of a kind of unusual gathering of deaths?
Ms. HESS
It is possible. That is one of the bases for the development of the issue; yes. You understand the problem in establishing the statistical inference is that you cannot establish any type of universe. While it may seem like these people come from a very small group of people, they come from a very, very large universe of people.

RC
But we have several finite witnesses groups: Warren Commission, Garrison/Clay Shaw trial, Church senate – and the HSCA. There were 52 deaths among 800 witnesses in the four investigations. The probability is 2.1E-26 (1 in a trillion trillion). At least 36 were unnatural (23 were homicides). The investigation homicide rate (0.002680) was at least 43 times the national rate (0.000062).

Mr. FITHIAN – I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman STOKES – The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Devine.
Mr. DEVINE – No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman STOKES – The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Edgar.
Mr. EDGAR – Will you provide for the record a detailed listing of the 21 names and the evidence you have found relating to their deaths?
Ms. HESS – Yes. Do you want me to read them for the record?
Mr. EDGAR – It might be helpful.
Ms. HESS
- Edward Benavides, Albert Guy Bogard, Hale Boggs, Lee Bowers, Jr., Bill Chesher, Nicholas J. Chetta, David Goldstein, Thomas Hale Howard, William Hunter, Clyde Johnson, Dorothy Kilgallen, Thomas Henry Killam, Jim Koethe, FNU Levens, Nancy Jane Mooney, Teresa Norton, Earlene Roberts, Harold Russell, Marilyn April Walle, a.k.a. Betty McDonald, William W. Whaley, James R. Worrell, Sam Giancana, John Roselli.

RC
Ah, the (abbreviated) list. But where is Oswald, Tippit, Ruby? They were very significant witnesses –along with at least 80 others. How come there was no mention of the seven top FBI officials who died in a 6 month period just before their scheduled testimony at HSCA. What are the odds of THAT?

Mr. EDGAR – Thank you. I think it very helpful for the record that those names be included. Can you indicate why Mr. DeMohrenschildt’s name was not included?
Ms. HESS
His was one of those which deemed further investigation and became part of a great investigative effort.

RC
Great investigative effort? So what about De Morenschildt? Why was there no mention of his ties to Oswald and George Bush Sr? Why did he shoot himself the day he was to be interviewed by HSCA?

Mr. EDGAR – That was not part of the exact study?
Ms. HESS
It was in terms of the compilation of data. I compiled the data on his death and any police reports, et cetera, as part of this project. But then in terms of subsequent investigation that was done by the investigators.

RC
So where are the investigators? No excuse.

Mr. EDGAR – I think it would be helpful in terms of our final analysis to have a chance to review the material you compiled. I thank you for your report.

RC
It must have been a very cursory review. No mention of approximately 20 witnesses who were called to testify at HSCA but never did because they met untimely deaths.

Chairman STOKES – The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Sawyer.
Mr. SAWYER – No Questions.
Chairman STOKES – There being nothing further, Miss Hess, thank you very much for your testimony. You are excused. The Chair will suspend for just a moment. Because of a heavy schedule tomorrow of witnesses, along with the fact the committee must vacate the room at an early hour for an affair to be held in this room later tomorrow evening, the committee today will adjourn until 8:30 tomorrow morning.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 1, 2013 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Exposing the Media and Coincidence Theorists (CTs) in the JFK Cover-up: Facts, Logic, Mathematics

27 Jun

Reblogged from Richard Charnin's Blog:

Exposing the Media and Coincidence Theorists (CTs) in the JFK Cover-up: Facts, Logic, Mathematics

Richard Charnin
June 24, 2013

There are actually two JFK conspiracies. The first was the assassination itself. The second is ongoing: the corporate media and academia persist in their relentless cover-up of the facts. But Warren Commission apologists and Lone Nutter claims are easily debunked - and make the corporate shills who appear on cable every night look ridiculous.

Read more… 672 more words

Important updated information.
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 27, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

Exposing the Media and Coincidence Theorists (CTs) in the JFK Cover-up: Facts, Logic, Mathematics

25 Jun

Exposing the Media and Coincidence Theorists (CTs) in the JFK Cover-up: Facts, Logic, Mathematics

Richard Charnin
June 24, 2013

There are actually two JFK conspiracies. The first was the assassination itself. The second is ongoing: the corporate media and academia persist in their relentless cover-up of the facts. But Warren Commission apologists and Lone Nutter claims are easily debunked – and make the corporate shills who appear on cable every night look ridiculous.

Suppose that on Nov. 22, 1963, 1400 individuals were selected from the entire U.S. population. Further suppose that within one year, at least 15 would die unnaturally (homicide, accident, suicide) under mysterious circumstances. Based on unnatural mortality rates, only one such death would be expected.

There are two possibilities. The 15 unnatural deaths were…
1) unrelated. It was just a 1 in 167 trillion coincidence.
2) related. There was a common factor -a connection- between them.
We can confidently rule out 1). But if the 15 unnatural deaths were related, what was the connection?

Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth.
– Arthur Conan Doyle

The probabilities are mathematical proof connecting the witnesses to the assassination. The witnesses had to be related or there would not have been a conspiracy to keep them silent and deter others from coming forward. If Oswald was indeed a lone nut, there would not have been even one related unnatural witness death.

Here is the table of probabilities in the JFKCalc spreadsheet database.

Myth 1- In 1977, a statistician testified at the HSCA that it was impossible to determine a defined universe of JFK-related witnesses. Therefore the London Sunday Times actuary’s 100,000 TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 material witness deaths in the three years following the assassination was invalid.

This was obviously a false statement; the Warren Commission had a defined universe of 552 total witnesses. At least 10 died unnaturally in the three years following the assassination; the probability is 1 in 3.5 TRILLION. At least 18 died unnaturally in the 14 years following the assassination; the probability is 1 in 330 TRILLION.

A CIA memo claimed there were just 418 live Warren Commission witnesses. The probability of 10 unnatural deaths in three years is 1 in 50 TRILLION; the probability of 18 unnatural deaths in 14 years is 1 in 36,000 TRILLION.

In addition, there was a defined universe of 800 witnesses in four JFK investigations (Warren, Garrison, Church, HSCA). At least 52 died unnaturally. The probability is 1 in 6 TRILLION TRILLION. At least 20 deaths were homicides; the probability is 1 in 7 BILLION TRILLION.

Myth 2- There was no clear connection of the witnesses to the assassination.
This one is laughable on its face; the relationships are obvious: Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, Kilgallen, Craig, de Morenschildt, Sullivan, etc. But it’s a moot point; whether or not there was a relationship is immaterial.

Proof of a connection is a logical result of the ZERO probability for the given number of unnatural deaths in the known population groups. There is no self-selection; the witness groups are not random. There is obviously a connection by definition – after all, they were called to testify. A conspiracy was the reason why they died unnaturally.

The math is the proof. The Poisson probability function does not include a “relationship” parameter, only the actual and expected number of unnatural deaths in a given time interval.

Myth 3- There were many more than 1400 material witnesses.
In his 1600 page defense of the Warren Commission, famous lawyer Vincent Bugliosi cites 2,479 names in the Warren Commission Index. But the Index includes individuals who had no relationship to the assassination (like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, etc.). He also cites invalid actuarial calculations that did not take unnatural deaths into account.
Even assuming the 2479 names in the Index, the probability of
1- 10 unnatural deaths in 3 years is 1 in 2.4 MILLION.
2- 18 homicides (assuming 8 “accidents” were actually homicides) in 14 years is 1 in 50 BILLION.

Apologists claim that 25,000 were interviewed by the FBI. Where is the list? It’s a canard. Not material.
The probability of 46 homicides (conservative) among 25,000 from 1964-77 is 1 in 265,000.

Myth 4- The probability analysis does not take witness age into account.
This canard is one for the ages. The age of a witness who dies unnaturally is irrelevant. Duh.

Myth 5- 100 dead witnesses are not proof of a conspiracy.
But if just one homicide is executed to prevent a witness from providing incriminating information, it would prove a conspiracy. And that’s why Ruby shot Oswald.

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/6636/

Graphics

Witness Death Timeline
Probability of Unnatural Deaths among 1400 Material Witnesses from 1964-1977
Warren Commission Probabilities
Probabiilities of Unnatural Deaths over Various Time Periods

 
2 Comments

Posted by on June 25, 2013 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , ,

Warren Commission Apologists and Trolls: Feeble Attempts to Debunk JFK Probability Analysis

29 May

Warren Commission Apologists and Trolls: Feeble Attempts to Debunk JFK Probability Analysis

Richard Charnin
May 29,2013
Updated July 7, 2013

I posted a JFK Witness death analysis on the JFK Forum: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/9nU_KiM-2E0

John McAdams, the most prolific Warren Commission apologist and lone nutter replied:
“Look . . . you are wasting our time here unless you do the following: Purge your list of people who were *not* any sort of witnesses. Just the fact that buffs *think* somebody might have something to do with the assassination does not make them a witness. Indeed, the majority of people on your list are *not* witnesses”.

If you wanted to approach this seriously (and you clearly don’t) you would take some *defined* population (say, everybody who testified before the Warren Commission) and see how many of those died within a defined time span. You would also have to do some things that a real actuary would know about, such as taking into account the ages of the people on the list.

I glanced at your other blog posts. In spite of the fact that I specialize in voter behavior, your treatment of this issue makes me uninterested in looking at anything else on your blog. You simply don’t know how to approach these issues.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

————————————————————————————————-
This is a link to my JFK blog posts: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/jfk/

You are really reaching, John McAdams. You just proved why you are the premier, quintessential Lone Nutter and Warren Commission shill. I have approached this subject very seriously since Nov. 22, 1963. YOU are the one who is clearly not interested in the truth. You are only serious in promoting obfuscations. This pathetic “analysis” is further proof of your incompetence: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic2.htm

Point number 1: If you read my post(s) you would have seen that I calculate unnatural death probabilities for 552 Warren Commission witnesses over 1, 3 and 14 year periods – and a lot more:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=0

Point number 2: It’s 2013 and you still don’t understand that a material witness is one who had a connection to the assassination, even if he or she was not called to testify. The witnesses you want to “purge” from the database are very material. There are eyewitnesses, there are material witnesses who have inside knowledge, and there are witnesses who were called to testify at the Warren Commission, the Garrison-Shaw trial, Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Many of them were so material that they were eliminated before they had a chance to testify.

I could go on and on. McAdams, you are not paying attention. I did the Warren Commission witness calculations and gave you links in the spreadsheet. What is the point of debating when you IGNORE the evidence presented in the post which focuses on Warren Commission witness deaths?

Let’s first consider the actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times who calculated 100,000 trillion to 1 odds of 18 material witness deaths in 3 years.

Warren Commission apologists often quote the Times Legal Manager’s letter to the HSCA in dismissing the odds (see below). The vagueness of the letter was a clever ruse to distract from the actuary’s assumptions and methodology – which were never stated. Therefore the calculation was NEVER actually refuted (see below).

But that’s not all: the HSCA statistician claimed that the universe of witnesses was impossible to determine and therefore the calculation was not valid. That is absolutely untrue. There were 552 Warren Commission witnesses and approximately 250 other material witnesses who were called to testify at the Garrison/Shaw trial, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the HSCA (see below).

Warren Commission

The actuary’s calculation is confirmed by:
1- 552 Warren Commission witnesses and 0.000544 weighted overall mortality rate.
2- 2479 in the Warren Commission Index and 0.000121 JFK-weighted unnatural mortality rate.

1964-1966:
There was a 1 in 3.5 trillion probability of 10 unnatural deaths among the 552 Warren Commission witnesses who testified. If the deaths were all homicides, the probability was 1 in 4500 million.

There was a 1 in 2.4 million probability of 10 unnatural deaths among the 2479 named in the Warren Commission Index. The probability of 6 homicides was 1 in 111,000.

1964-1977:
There was a 1 in 333 trillion probability of 18 unnatural deaths among the 552 Warren Commission witnesses who testified. The probability of 18 homicides was 1 in 5 billion trillion.

There was a 1 in 35,000 probability of 18 unnatural deaths among the 2479 named in the Warren Commission Index. The probability of 18 homicides was 1 in 50 billion.

Unnatural and Suspicious Material Witness Deaths Database

At least 77 of 1400 material witnesses died unnaturally: 46 homicides, 22 accidents (homicides?), 9 suicides (homicides?). Another 33 were suspiciously timed heart attacks, sudden cancers, illnesses or unknown causes. Yet you claim there is nothing to see here; you keep spreading disinformation that Oswald was a Lone Nut and the Warren Commission conducted an honest investigation.

Given the conservative 0.000542 national unnatural mortality rate, the probability of 77 unnatural deaths occurring by chance is 1.76E-39 (less than 1 in a TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION). Given the 0.000152 JFK-witness weighted unnatural mortality rate, the probability is 1.19E-78 (less than 1 in a TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION). The probability of 46 homicides is 4.22E-55.


Four JFK Investigations: 52 convenient deaths
You ignore the fact that 52 of the 110 material witnesses listed in the database were called to testify in four investigations The probability of 52 deaths among the 800 called was 1 in 15,000 TRILLION. Twenty-five (25) testified at the 1964 Warren Commission, 12 were sought at the 1969 Garrison/Shaw Trial, 5 at the 1975 Senate Intelligence hearings, 21 at the 1977 House Select Committee on Assassinations. Ten were called in two investigations. You cannot argue that the investigation witnesses called to testify were not connected to the assassination. They were relevant enough to be called to testify. BUT RELEVANCE IS A MOOT POINT AS FAR AS THE PROBABILITIES ARE CONCERNED.

Given 800 witnesses, all that matters are the number who died unnaturally and their cause of death. The Poisson distribution function for calculating probabilities requires the expected number of deaths (based on mortality rate, number of witnesses and time period) and the actual number of unnatural deaths. It does not include a relevance variable. This is the clincher: Seven (7) top FBI officials died just before their scheduled HSCA testimony in June-November 1977. But as a dedicated naysayer, you would surely call it just another coincidence.

You have nothing left, so you are forced to deny 70 material witnesses, including Dorothy Kilgallen, Florence Smith, William Pitzer, Rose Cheramie, Lisa Howard, Nancy Tyler, Mary Pinchot Meyer, Mary Sherman, Guy Bannister, Jack Zangetty, Grant Stockdale, Gary Underhill, etc, just because they did not testify? And you call yourself an expert? The objections you guys throw up are laughable.

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/jfk-assassination-a-probability-analysis-of-warren-commission-witness-unnatural-deaths/

Graphics

Witness Death Timeline
Probability of Unnatural Deaths among 1400 Material Witnesses from 1964-1977
Warren Commission Probabilities
Probabiilities of Unnatural Deaths over Various Time Periods


The London Sunday Times Actuary

At the end of the 1973 film Executive Action it was noted that “In the three-year period which followed the murder of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, 18 material witnesses died – six by gunfire, three in motor accidents, two by suicide, one from a cut throat, one from a karate chop to the neck, three from heart attacks and two from natural causes. An actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times calculated the odds of 18 material witnesses dying within three years of the JFK assassination as 1 in 100,000 TRILLION”.

In response to a letter from the HSCA, the Sunday Times Legal Manager wrote:
“There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong: it was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied -correctly – that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission Index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter – hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize. None of the editorial staff involved in the story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened, you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material”.

No, the actuary got it right. That’s why he (or she) was a certified actuary. No one can recall the actuary’s name? And it’s hardly material? In fact, Whitaker misrepresented what is essentially a simple mathematical problem: to determine the probability of a given number of unnatural deaths over relevant time intervals within a given population group.

Whitaker claimed the actuary was asked to calculate the odds of 15 deaths in a given period. But there were actually at least 40 unnatural deaths in the three years. The Sunday Times did not specify unnatural deaths. Let’s calculate the odds of 15 Warren Commission witness unnatural deaths in three years using two unnatural mortality rates.

Lone-nutter Red-herrings, Canards and Straw men

1. Eddy Benavides not a witness?, No, but his brother Domingo, a witness to the Tippit slaying, could not identify Oswald in a lineup. But he identified him after Eddy was killed by gunshot.
2. Age of witnesses? Irrelevant, ridiculous argument. Homicides, accidents and suicides are irrespective of age. Duh.
3. Universe of material witnesses? Realistically, there were approximately 1,400. But even assuming an impossible 25,000, the probability of 77 unnatural deaths is 1 in 800. The probability of 46 homicides is 1 in 265,000.
4. Witnesses were self-selected, not random? Of course they were not a random group. They are material JFK witnesses who died unnaturally at much higher rates than the general population.
5. Relevance of witnesses? Fifty-two (52) were relevant enough to be called to testify: Twenty-five testified at the Warren Commission. Most of the others died unnaturally or suspiciously shortly before their scheduled testimony at the Garrison/Clay Shaw trial, Senate Intelligence Hearings and HSCA.
6. Use of Poisson Distribution to calculate the probabilities? It’s used to calculate the probabilities of rare events -like homicides.
7. London Times actuary? Calculation confirmed in two ways.
8. London Times Legal Manager? Debunked. No one at the Times could recall the actuary’s name?
9. HSCA statistician analysis? Debunked. Did not consider even one of 20 HSCA prospective witness deaths – and scores of others.

HSCA Obfuscation

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) claimed that the number of material witnesses was unknowable and dismissed the calculation as invalid. The HSCA made a number of misleading statements and factual omissions.
1) noted just 21 suspicious deaths, but at least 77 were unnatural: 46 homicides, 22 accidents, 9 suicides.
2) no sensitivity analysis of probabilities for various witness and mortality rate assumptions.
3) avoided using unnatural mortality rates in calculating the probability of unnatural deaths.
4) avoided the actuary’s methodology and 100,000 trillion to 1 odds calculation.
5) did not consider the POISSON distribution function to calculate probabilities.
6) avoided calculating the probability of 77 unnatural deaths for 1,400 witnesses (1964-77): ZERO
7) no mention of the Warren Commission witness 116/100,000 homicide rate vs. the 6/100,000 national rate.
8) no mention of the 52 deaths of witnesses called to testify (Warren, Garrison, Senate, HSCA).

25,000 Witnesses?

Warren Commission apologists claim that 25,000 witnesses were interviewed is a gross exaggeration. How many had inside information? How were they material? Where is the list? According to the reference “Who’s Who In the JFK Assassination” approximately 1400 material witnesses were connected in any way to the assassination. The spreadsheet database includes 110 material witness deaths. Even assuming 25,000 witnesses, then given the 0.000062 homicide rate the probability is 1 in 265,000 there would be 46 homicides in the 14 years following the assassination. But this is a conservative estimate since there were 77 unnatural deaths. Assuming that 25 of the 31 “accidents” and “suicides” were really homicides. The probability of at least 71 homicides is 1 in 1,500 TRILLION. So much for the bogus 25,000 witnesses.

I began analyzing JFK witness death probabilities in 2003. This was my initial post on the Democratic Underground. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×6304
The analysis has been greatly enhanced over the last 6 months and is referenced in “Hit List” by Richard Belzer and David Wayne. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/executive-action-jfk-witness-deaths-and-the-london-times-actuary/

You want …
the witnesses?
their relevance?
the investigations they were called to testify in?
their bios?
their Warren Commission testimony?
the calculations for various assumed times, deaths, mortality rates?
the mathematical proof of a conspiracy?

It’s all in the spreadsheet database.

 
5 Comments

Posted by on May 29, 2013 in JFK, Rebuttals

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

JFK Witness Deaths: Calculating the Probabilities

15 May

JFK Witness Deaths: A Guide to the Probability Calculations

Richard Charnin
May 27, 2013
Updated: June 21, 2013

An actuary engaged by London Sunday Times calculated 100,000 TRILLION to 1 odds against 18 JFK material witness deaths from Nov. 1963 to Feb. 1967. Unfortunately, the actuary could not be identified and interviewed since no one at the Sunday Times could recall his or her name.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) claimed that the number of material witnesses was unknowable and dismissed the calculation as invalid. But exactly 552 witnesses testified at the Warren Commission, a subset of approximately 1400 material witnesses.

The actuary’s 100,000 to 1 odds for 18 deaths in three years is confirmed assuming:
1- 552 Warren Commission witnesses and 0.000542 national unnatural mortality rate.
2- 2479 in the WC index and 0.000121 JFK-weighted unnatural mortality rate.

In fact, the actuary’s odds are conservative. There were at least 39 unnatural witness deaths in the three years following the assassination. Assuming 1400 material witnesses, the probability is ZERO (4.3E-34)

Given the 0.000062 annual national homicide rate in 1963 and three year period, the probability of 6 homicides among 552 Warren Commission witness is 1 in 670 million. The probability of 9 homicides in 14 years is 1 in 420 million.

The JFK Witness Spreadsheet Database includes 110 material witnesses, of which at least 77 were unnatural deaths. The sensitivity analysis tables display unnatural death probabilities for 552 Warren Commission and 1400 material witnesses (based on unnatural, weighted and homicide mortality rates) over 1,3 and 14 year time intervals.

According to the reference Who’s Who In the JFK Assassination approximately 1400 material witnesses were connected in any way to the assassination. At least 77 died unnaturally. Given the unnatural weighted mortality rate (0.000152), the probability is ZERO (1.2E-78).

Warren Commission apologists have suggested that there were many more than 1400 material witnesses and therefore the probabilities are not valid – without providing a list. Even assuming there were 25,000 witnesses, then given the 0.000062 homicide rate, the probability is 1 in 265,000 of 46 witness homicides in the 14 years following the assassination. But this is a conservative estimate since it is based on 46 of 77 unnatural deaths. If 25 of the 31 “accidents” and “suicides” were really homicides, the probability is 6.66-16 (1 in 1500 TRILLION). Of course, some heart attacks may have been induced. So much for the bogus 25,000 witnesses argument.

There were at least 52 unnatural and suspicious deaths of approximately 800 witnesses who were called to testify at the Warren Commission, Garrison trial, Church Senate Intelligence Hearings and the HSCA. Nearly half of the 110 witnesses in the database either testified (25 at the Warren Commission) or died suspiciously shortly before they were due to testify: 12 at the 1969 Garrison/Shaw trial, 5 at the 1975 Senate Intelligence hearings and 20 at the 1977 HSCA (including 7 top FBI officials in June-November 1977). The probability is 6.6E-29 (less than 1 in a TRILLION TRILLION).

The HSCA made the following errors:
1) misstated the actuary’s method of calculation
2) noted 21 witnesses, but there were at least 46 homicides, 22 accidents, 9 suicides, 33 suspicious
3) did not consider unnatural and suspicious deaths of HSCA witnesses just prior to their scheduled testimony
4) did not run a sensitivity analysis of probabilities for various witness and mortality rate assumptions
5) ignored unnatural, weighted mortality rates in calculating the probability of unnatural deaths.
6) did not use the POISSON distribution function to calculate probabilities
7) did not calculate probability of 10 WC homicides in 3 years: 1 in 31,000 TRILLION
8) ignored the fact that the WC homicide rate was 100 times the national rate
9) did not calculate the ZERO probability of 77 unnatural deaths for 1,400 witnesses (1964-77)
10) did not calculate the probability of 77 unnatural deaths for an impossible 25,000 witnesses: 1 in 800

The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public by falsely claiming that the actuary’s calculation was invalid and therefore did not prove a conspiracy.

Graphics

Witness Death Timeline
Probability of Unnatural Deaths among 1400 Material Witnesses from 1964-1977
Warren Commission Probabilities
Probabiilities of Unnatural Deaths over Various Time Periods

The Poisson Distribution calculates the probabilities of rare events over time.

The key to calculating the probability of a given number (n) of unnatural deaths occurring in a given group (N) in a given time period (T) is to recognize that it is based on the difference between expected and actual unnatural deaths. The larger the discrepancy between the actual observed and expected number of deaths, the lower the probability.

These are the relevant probability input parameters:
N= total number of witnesses
n= number of observed unnatural deaths
T= time period in years
R= unnatural mortality rate

The published unnatural mortality rates are:
homicide 0.000062 (in 1963)
suicide 0.000107
accident 0.000359
Unknown 0.000014
Total 0.000542 (unweighted rate)

The unnatural mortality rates used in the probability calculations are:
1) 0.000542 total unweighted rate (national rate – conservative)
2) 0.000152 weighted average rate (based on 77 JFK witness unnatural deaths)
3) 0.000062 homicide rate (assumes suicides and accidents were actually homicides)

Probability of 14 Warren Commission witness homicides from 1964-77
P(n) = E^n * exp(-E)/n! : Poisson probability formula
E = 0.479 = N*T*R = 552*14*0.000062 : EXPECTED number of homicides

P(n) = POISSON (n, E, false): probability of EXACTLY n homicides
P(14) = 2.39E-16 = Poisson (14, 0.479, false): probability of EXACTLY 14 homicides

P(>= n) = 1 – POISSON (n-1, E, true): probability of AT LEAST n homicides
P(>=14) = 1 – Poisson (13, 0.479, true): probability of AT LEAST 14 homicides
P(>=14) = 4.44E-16 = 1 in 2,251,799,813,685,248
P = 1 in 2251 TRILLION

Of the 77 unnatural deaths in the JFK Witness Spreadsheet Database, there were 46 homicides, 9 suicides and 22 accidents. The weighted unnatural mortality rate is calculated as:
R = 0.000152 = (46 * 0.000062 + 9 * 0.000107 + 22 * 0.000359) / 77

The unweighted unnatural rate results in virtually ZERO probabilities. But since the JFK-related deaths were mostly homicides, the weighted average rate is a theoretically superior rate to use for the probability calculations – and results in significantly lower probabilities than the unweighted (national) rate. But even the weighted rate is too high, since many witness “suicides” and “accidental” deaths were clearly homicides. If all of the unnatural deaths were in fact homicides, the probabilities are at their lowest.

The unweighted unnatural mortality rate produces virtually zero probabilities for both the Warren Commission (552) and material witness(1400) groups, so it may appear to be overkill to use the lower weighted average and homicide rates to calculate the probabilities. But they illustrate 1) the implausible ratio of homicides in the total witness mix, and 2) the inflating effects of “suicides” and “accidental” deaths in the probability calculations.

Probability of AT LEAST 10 Warren Commission unnatural witness deaths over 3 years (0.90 expected:)
1) unweighted: 4.15E-08 (1 in 24 MILLION)
2) weighted (0.000156): 2.8E-13 (1 in 3.5 TRILLION)
3) homicide: 3.24E-17 (1 in 31,000 TRILLION)

Probability of 39 unnatural deaths of 1,400 material witnesses over 3 years (2.28 expected):
1) unweighted: 4.3E-34 (ZERO)
2) weighted (0.000137): 2.1E-56 (ZERO)
3) homicide: 3.90E-72 (ZERO)

Probability of 77 unnatural deaths of 1,400 material witnesses over 14 years (10.62 expected):
1) unweighted: 1.76E-39 (ZERO)
2) weighted (0.000152): 1.19E-78 (ZERO)
3) homicide:(0.000062) 6.73E-108 (ZERO)

Warren Commission apologists claim (without proof) that the universe of material witnesses far exceeds 1,400. For an extremely implausible 25,000 witnesses, the probability of 46 homicides over 14 years is 1 in 500,000.

That’s all there is to it.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on May 15, 2013 in JFK, Media

 

Tags: , , , ,

← Older posts
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 557 other followers