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.
