(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
wrote in message . com...
The job of the court is to:
1) Establish the facts.
2) Check what "story" fits the facts best. The court can even
decide that two stories make sense and it can't decide which
one is true. (Something like a dead-lock jury.) Such a case
is very rare because the court, unlike a jury, can subpoena
more data.

Capt Boston on his and Adm Kidd's impression of the evidence heard by
the NCOI:

"... Each evening, after hearing testimony all
day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen
and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli
forces responsible for the attack as "murderous *******s."

So?
A good judge may form an opinion after hearing half of the evidence
and yet have the integrity to change his opinion after hearing
all the evidence.

It was our
shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we
received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and
deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident. ..."

So why did not they write just that in the report?
Why did not Capt Boston refuse to sign the report?
(Yes, a judge is allowed to do that.)
Did Capt Boston lied by signing a false report 37 years ago,
or does he lie now?
How can we check if his claims about Johnson and Kidd are true?
(Dead people usually refuse to answer questions.)

Admiral Kidd could submit his report with no "final conclusion" and
a comment "I can't submit final conclusions because the following
data, that can be accessed, is hidden." If Kidd suspected that
somebody hid data from his court then it was his right, and *duty*,
to write such a comment.

and officers of the IDF, are they obligated to report criminal acts
like the intentional crushing of young American protestors in Gaza?

The IDF officers obligation is to Israel, Kidd & Boston obligation
was to the US. If they signed a false report, knowing
that it was false, then they *FAILED* in their duty.

"...Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to
interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd
telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making arrangements. Admiral Kidd
later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to
travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter. ..."

Admiral Kidd could write just that in his report. If he felt, rightly
or wrongly, that information was surpressed then he should have
reported that.

"...I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that
President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of "mistaken
identity" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. ..."

What was the interest of Johnson & McNamara to cover up for Israel?
Do you realize that if they did what you say (a big if) then they
were guilty of Obstruction of Justice?

"...Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that
he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the
White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the
court's findings. ..."

....and he just rolled over and played dead...
And you believe that an admiral would do just that without reporting
to the military justice system about such Obstruction of Justice.

"... Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate
machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews,
which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and
included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been
excised. ..."

Testimony by whom?
Can the person who gave the original testimony verify that?

OK, I am getting tired of your bull****. Your "evidence" is about
as good as the description of the Dreyfus trial in
Anatole France' "Penguin Island." It is too stupid to be even funny.