Howard Willens Defends Warren Commission and Attacks HSCA Acoustics

                 THE IMAGINARY CONSPIRACY: UNMASKING JFK’S INVISIBLE

                                 SECOND SHOOTER ON THE GRASSY KNOLL

                                    By Howard P. Willens

                                      February 1, 2019

      When the Warren Commission published its report in 1964, less than one year after President Kennedy’s assassination, all of us on the Commission staff knew that the report’s conclusions would be criticized.  We had great confidence in our finding that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president, but our finding that there was no evidence of a conspiracy was necessarily limited.  Conspiracies by their nature are designed to remain secret, so the Commission could not rule out the possibility that new evidence would appear in the future.  

      Ten years later, we learned that the FBI and the CIA had deliberately withheld important information. 

When the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (“Select Committee”) launched an investigation in 1977 which would include examining any new evidence, the Commission staff looked forward to its findings.  We were surprised, however, when the Select Committee Report in 1979 relied on a controversial audio recording to conclude that there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy.  Although the Select Committee could not identify any of the people who conspired with Oswald, a bare majority of its members found that a second shooter on the grassy knoll adjacent to the motorcade route fired one shot that missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants.  No one at the scene ever saw this shooter. More than 40 years later, the Select Committee remains the only investigative body to conclude that there is evidence of a conspiracy to kill the president.  

      It is now abundantly clear that the Select Committee’s conclusion was wrong.  Scientific research demonstrated that the audio recording did not contain any evidence of a shot fired by a second shooter.  But conspiracy theorists continue to promote this baseless theory, using alternative facts to mislead another generation of Americans. As a former assistant counsel on the Warren Commission staff, I feel an obligation to address this ongoing commitment to a fictional conclusion.   Reexamination of the Select Committee’s second shooter finding compels a simple conclusion: no one other than Lee Harvey Oswald fired a gun at President Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

      On October 29, 2018, Professor Blakey and I participated in a debate entitled “Conflicting Conclusions” at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, Texas.  Our moderator was Stephen Fagin, the curator at the Museum.

      I challenged Professor Blakey on his conspiracy theory during our debate, but he refused to engage in any meaningful discussion.  He never acknowledged the facts on which the Warren Commission (and some members of his Committee) relied to reject the possibility of a second shooter, including the fact that no fourth shot was heard by 90% of the 178 witnesses in Dealey Plaza whose interviews were evaluated by the Warren Commission.  Also, Blakey rejected any discussion of the acoustics evidence, suggesting it was too complicated for the curator and me to understand and we should avoid “getting into the weeds.” 

      Professor Blakey said during the debate that I was making our differences “personal” or challenging his “good faith.”  With the historical record at stake, there is nothing “personal” about asking Blakey to acknowledge the evidence and reconsider his conclusions. 

I believe that lawyers, especially those in government service, must meet a high standard of professional conduct and take responsibility for their actions – and for their mistakes.  With this standard in mind, several key issues about the Select Committee’s conspiracy conclusion need to be addressed.

      1. Counsel Failed to Question the Incorrect Assumption That the Tape Recording Was Made From a Microphone on a Motorcycle in the Presidential Motorcade

      2.  Counsel Withheld from Committee Members Evidence That Did Not Support the Second Shooter Theory

      3.  Counsel Did Not Provide His Clients with the Time Necessary to Consider the Validity of the Acoustics Evidence.

      4.  The Committee’s Acoustics Evidence Has Been Completely Rejected by Professionals

            Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (1982)...

            Vincent Bugliosi (2007)...

            Sonalysts, Inc. (2013-14)...

      CONCLUSION

      During our debate in 2018, Professor Blakey refused to acknowledge the “non-scientific” evidence relied on by the dissenters (and the Warren Commission) to reject any second shooter conspiracy.  He also declined to discuss the acoustics evidence, suggesting it was too complicated for non-professionals in the field.  He repeatedly warned we should avoid “getting into the weeds.”

      Let’s be clear: the “weeds” are the facts. The purpose of the investigations by the Warren Commission and the Select Committee was to determine the facts about the assassination based on the available evidence.  It is troubling to see a lawyer of Professor Blakey’s experience and authority actively avoiding discussion of the facts.

      The truth is simple: the theory of an invisible second shooter on the grassy knoll is ridiculous. Nothing could be less “scientific” than the proposition that someone fired a gun in a crowd without being seen by anyone and without leaving any trace on the ground or in the films and photographs of the event. The acoustics evidence provided support only for the proposition that a wrong assumption leads to an incorrect conclusion. The absence of evidence supporting this theory is best explained by the fact that it didn’t happen.

      I wrote “History Will Prove Us Right” in 2013 to show that the Warren Commission staff’s only motive was to track down, analyze and publish every fact relevant to the assassination. Above all, we were determined to find and report any evidence of a conspiracy to kill the president.  In 1964, any such evidence might have have revealed a clear and present danger to the United States. We examined the possibility of a conspiracy involving the Soviet Union, Cuba, organized crime, and others.  But there was no evidence to support any finding of a conspiracy. The Commission’s report was based on facts. It was not perfect, and in some respects it was incomplete, but it was honest.

      Nearly 200 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville described the people he encountered in Jacksonian America:   

 “They mistrust systems; they adhere closely to facts and study facts with their own senses.  As they do not easily defer to the mere name of any fellow man, they are never inclined to rest upon any man’s authority; but, on the contrary, they are unremitting in their efforts to find out the weaker points of their neighbor’s doctrine.” 

      The Warren Commission staff welcomed this kind of fact-based critique.  The work of any Presidential commission, Congressional committee, or Special Counsel should be tested against the facts. Only in that way can we determine the scope and integrity of the inquiry and assess the validity and persuasiveness of its conclusions.

      It is not too late to reclaim history.