Article Image
News Link • Conspiracies

The Ongoing Kennedy Casket Mystery - by Jacob G. Hornberger

• Future of Freedom Foundation
On the 49th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, among the glaring issues that cry out for explanation is the multiple delivery of Kennedy’s body to the Bethesda morgue on the evening of the assassination. After almost half-a-century, the government agencies and government officials who were involved still refuse to provide an explanation into that highly unusual and very mysterious episode. In fact, they still won’t even acknowledge that it happened despite the overwhelming amount of evidence that it did happen.

3 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Oh, by the way, one little additional piece of info regarding holding your body in trust, if you do, you may possibly be NOT liable for any of the laws of the United States, legally, no matter what the laws may be. They might be laws regarding damages to property, or bodily harm to someone, including death. How can this be?

A trust is a contract. Article I, section 10, clause 1 states in part: "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, ... ." If your team of lawyers can figure out the proper legal language for a trust that can take you entirely out of the jurisdiction of any Governmental body, you just might be free to do anything without Governmental repercussions whatsoever.

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Remember the "Ted" Kennedy Chappaquiddick Island incident? Remember how he got out of losing all of his property to the family of Mary Jo Kopechne? He did it by not owning any property - except, perhaps, the shirt on his back. The rest of "his" property was in trust. He didn't own it. He simply manipulated the trust. They couldn't take what he didn't own - what the trust owned.

I strongly suspect that many of the Kennedys held (hold?) their bodies in trust right along with everything else that they "don't own." This means that their bodies don't belong to them, but to a trust of some form.

Since a person vacates his body when he dies, if the body is in trust, the trust kicks in to take care of the body that is left. I strongly suspect that part of the JFK cover-up was not a cover-up at all. Rather, it was the trust guidelines being followed.

Many trusts are written with privacy rules. This means that the details of the trust can only be shown to certain people, at appropriate times, under penalty of perjury or other penalty. Probably, it was all according to trust that people were sworn to secrecy with regard to events around the death of JFK. Breaking silence at a later date placed them in a position of being sued or worse. Suit didn't follow when they broke their silence, because it wasn't worth it to the trustees of the JFK body trust to prosecute.

Even Jackie may have been part of the trust. At least she knew much about its existence. The fact that she wasn't aware of how the trust operation was being carried out, doesn't mean she was ignorant of the trust. The fact that she teamed up with Onassis shows that she may have feared strong repercussions from the trustees.

Comment by Temper Bay
Entered on:

Ask many highschool kids if the truth about Kennedy's assination is important to them, they'll say 'no' - - that is if they don't ask who Kennedy was.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

Purse.IO Save on All Amazon Purchases