After an extensive investigation, the office produced a report that addressed the many questions that confronted the difficult issues, it laid out new evidence, and it reached a definitive conclusion.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Now the interesting thing about the movie is that many of the questions it raised about the Warren Commission and its investigation were all investigated by our committee 13 years ago. We published our findings in 27 volumes of information and evidentiary material.
The hypothesis may be put forward, to be tested by the s subsequent investigation, that this development has been in large part a matter of the reciprocal interaction of new factual insights and knowledge on the one hand with changes in the theoretical system on the other.
I would say in just about every investigation we have, there will be differences of opinion, where you have partial facts, as to what those facts mean.
In reply, I can only plead that a discovery which seems to contradict the general tenor of previous investigations is naturally received with much hesitation.
Our staff not only received the reports from these agencies, they examined them. They questioned them.
We were criticized throughout that investigation for being too thorough, for taking too long. But time has proved the correctness of that approach.
Enough research will tend to support your conclusions.
You don't get to cut that chain of evidence and start over. You're always going to be pursued by your data shadow, which is forming from thousands and thousands of little leaks and tributaries of information.
The prosecution wants to make sure the process by which the evidence was obtained is not truthfully presented, because, as often as not, that process will raise questions.
What are facts but compromises? A fact merely marks the point where we have agreed to let investigation cease.
No opposing quotes found.