Wednesday, February 6, 2019

Response to Willens - Unmasking JFK's Invisible Second Shooter

                  Howard Willens Imaginary Conspiracy Annotated (By Bill Kelly - B.K) 

 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.  

BK: Conspiracies by their very nature are designed to remain secret, but as JFK said, all problems caused by men can be solved by men, and it is something that we can do and are doing.

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

BK: Yea, the FBI failed to inform you and the Warren Commission that they had destroyed a letter written by the alleged assassin, and the CIA and Warren Commissioner Allen Dulles deliberately withheld the fact that they had conspired with the Mafia to kill Fidel Castro, but that conspiracy, designed to remain secret, was not so. And the conspiracy to kill JFK is being discovered in similar ways.

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. 

BK: The HSCA did not rely on the acoustics to determine there was probably a conspiracy to kill the President, it had developed dozens of significant leads that are still being pursued to this day.

Although the Select Committee could not identify any of the people who conspired with Oswald,....

BK: Those who have been identified as conspirators did not conspire with Oswald, he was what he said he was, set up as the patsy and fall guy in a crime he didn’t commit. The idea that any conspiracy had to be a co-conspiracy with Oswald is false.

....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. 

BK:  Most firearm experts and first class snipers agree that the fatal shot to the head of the President did not originate from the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository, but rather from in front or behind the victim, as he approached the shooter or went away from him, but not left to right sideways, an impossible shot.

No one at the scene ever saw this shooter.

BK: Some people on the knoll saw a man behind the fence with a gun, the Bademan photo implicates a policeman with a rifle, and the black couple sitting on the bench on the knoll saw something that scared them to death and flee, while dozens of others thought a shot originated from the knoll and ran there.

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.  

BK: The Church Committee also pursued many good leads and uncovered evidence and witnesses to conspiracy, as did the New Orleans District Attorney’s office, and the case is now being resolved to a legal and moral certainty by independent investigators, as no official body will touch it.

      It is now abundantly clear that the Select Committee’s conclusion was wrong. 

BK: That is not so abundantly clear to me or those who signed the Ten Points of Agreement or the majority of the citizens who don’t  believe Oswald was the only person responsible for the President’s death.\

Scientific research demonstrated that the audio recording did not contain any evidence of a shot fired by a second shooter. 

BK: No scientific research has been done on that DPD police audio recording except for the HSCA, and that was conducted, not by conspiracy theorists, but audio and sound experts who worked for major defense contractors and the Woods Hole Institute on submarine sonar, utilizing a unique echo analysis that concluded the probability of a fourth shot from the front was “95%,” not a guess. Issuing scientific papers discounting a frontal shot is not the proper way to prove or disprove a scientific theory – that is only done by duplicating the experiment, something that has not yet been done.

But conspiracy theorists continue to promote this baseless theory, using alternative facts to mislead another generation of Americans.

BK: Not a baseless theory, and not alternative facts, as another generation can make up their own minds and such acoustical echo-analysis can be conducted with much improved scientific measuring instruments today.

As a former assistant counsel on the Warren Commission staff, I feel an obligation to address this ongoing commitment to a fictional conclusion.  

BK: The fictional conclusion is the one reached by the Warren Commission – that one man alone was responsible for the murder of the President.

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.

BK: Well it can be said with some certainty today that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the Sixth Floor Sniper, and did not fire that gun that day, but somebody did – a man in a white shirt (Oswald wore brown) and a very distinct bald spot on the top of his head, a characteristic not shared by Oswald.

      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.” 

BK: When Zapruder’s secretary was asked about a shot from the knoll she said she suspected such, and when asked why she didn’t hear it, replied that maybe a silencer was used. Earwitness evidence is not very substansive. And I don’t blame Blakey for not wanting to get “into the weeds” as Mr. Willens certainly does not understand the echo-analysis done by the HSCA acoustic experts. Why not talk to them? They still stand by their work.

      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. 

BK: I ask Mr. Willens to acknowledge the evidence and reconsider his conclusion that the President was killed by one man alone – with the evidence being – the assassination was connected to Cuba, it had something to do with the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro, and as we are coming to know for certain, one of those plots to kill Castro was redirected to JFK in Dallas.

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. 

BK: As a WC lawyer, I think Mr. Willens should have the same high standards of professional conduct and take responsibility for his action and the WC’s 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

BK: Willens fails to question the incorrect assumption that one man alone was responsible for the murder;

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

BK: Willens fails to acknowledge all of the evidence that supports a Second Shooter

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

BK: Willens fails to acknowledge that every official investigation so far was limited by time, and the responsible agencies of government who were responsible for the Cuban operations that were entangled with the Dealey Plaza operation simply waited out their time;

      4.  The Committee’s Acoustics Evidence Has Been Completely Rejected by Professionals
            Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (1982)...
            Vincent Bugliosi (2007)...
            Sonalysts, Inc. (2013-14)...

BK: The Committee’s Acoustic Evidence was not tested but simply rejected with paper reports.

      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.

BK: Mr. Willens, I will engage in a meaningful discussion, if you will. If you will discuss the Hosty note and the CIA-Mafia plots as your WC colleague Sam Stern did with the HSCA.


      The truth is simple: the theory of an invisible second shooter on the grassy knoll is ridiculous.

BK: You are the only one who says the shooter was “invisible,” as he can be seen in the Badgeman Photo – that the late Gary Mack, Sixth Floor curator, took to be real.


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.

BK: A First Class Sniper, one well trained and equipped with the latest weapons and gear, could have been a half-mile away, tucked in a window so he couldn’t be seen from the street, as they are trained.

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.

BK: The idea that Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed the president is a wrong assumption that leads to an incorrect conclusion. The absence of evidence of Oswald being on the sixth floor at 12:30 pm CST – and the preponderance of witnesses testimony and evidence that he was on the first floor at that time and on the second floor ninety seconds later is best explained by the fact that he didn’t do it, though somebody certainly did.

      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 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.

BK: The WC did not investigate the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro, one of which was redirected to JFK in Dallas, not only a conspiracy, but a more specific covert intelligence operation that we are just now piecing together, as those involved in those plots to kill Castro are well known and the details have been found among the recently released records. The WC, as you say, was honest, for what you knew at the time, but incomplete. We are not completing that flawed investigation. 

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.

BK: The facts are the assassination in Dallas was directly connected to Cuba, specifically the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro that originated at the CIA’s JMWAVE station, one of which was redirected to JFK at Dealey Plaza. That is the conclusion that history will eventually make.


      It is not too late to reclaim history. 

No comments:

Post a Comment