ABC''s The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

WildHoneyAlways

Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Joined
Oct 23, 2001
Messages
8,163
Location
In a glass case of emotion
Did anyone have an oppertunity to to watch this program? I did not but I have done much research on the Kennedy assassination. I believe that there was more than one gunman. The ABC report backs up the Warren Commission in concluding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I just can not buy it.

In the larger picture, the death of JFK marks the end of the American public's trust in the United States government. (LBJ, Viet Nam, Nixon) Could this program have another agenda?
 
Last edited:
i saw this, as well as a program on the discovery channel the night before

before i saw these i thought there had to be more than one gunman, but after watching these shows, especially the discovery channel one, i tend to believe oswald acted alone

but i admit to not knowing everything about the assassnation, so i am open to some reasonable explanations
 
I have spent more time than I care to admit researching the Kennedy Assasination. I will come back to this thread when I am able. The best book that is written on the Oswald did it alone topic is written by Gerald Posner, and it is called Case Closed. It is well worth the read even if you do not believe Oswald did it alone, it is Well written and researched, and I believe one of the best books ever to get into the history of Lee Harvey Oswald. I have a Dozen others I could recommmend some good, some not so good.

I just got home from being operated on and will be back to chat about this when I can.
 
I think they were right on. I don't see how anyone can continue to doubt that it was just Oswald. Like they said at the end, people just have to have the conspiracy so that it will make sense rather then seeming random and chaotic. They just can't accept that a little no one could kill a great and loved president for selfish reasons. It was all about wanting that attention and to make a mark on the world.

I just don't see how you can still hold onto a conspiracy theory after watching that program. Of course, before I watched this I could care less about this whole debate and had never formed an opinion. Still, makes perfect sense to me, and I can handle that a little nobody killed a president all by himself.:|
 
While I don't doubt that a "nobody" such as Lee Oswald could have killed the president that is not where my conspiracy thoughts come from. I question why there was a need to cover everything up. The autopsy photos for example. Also, why did the president's brain go missing? You don't just lose the president's brain, right?

Anyway, I hate to admit it but I have an 11 by 14 color copy still from the Zapruder film on my bedroom wall. Yes it is strange and morbid but it is one of the frames that was not originally printed in Life magazine. (it shows an exit wound at the back of the skull)

I don't know, it's not impossible that LHO did this himself but I believe it to be improbable.

*anxiously awaitng Dread's educational post:wink: *
 
Well...there are days.....like today when I find myself believing the conspiracy end of things.....

And there are the other days when I believe he acted alone.
 
I thought I would tell everyone to check out FRONTLINE on WGBH. They have a three hour special focussing only on the life of Oswald.

Alos, this link to yahoo is an interesting article. It is one of the few places that I have seen mentioned that the Secret Service driver practically stopped the car. This allowed the fatal head shot. Many shows never look at or mention this fact that the protocal was for the vehicle to speed up when the President was in danger, not stop, which is what it did. Now that can be human error......but in my opinion....it was THE fatal error that allowed the Fatal shot to be made by Oswald or another gunman.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031121/ap_on_re_us/jfk_conspiracy_5

There are some video and sound clips as well.
 
With the number of shows broadcast this last week alone, I have the suspicion that the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories are more a product of the media than anything else. It gives them a fascinating product to sell.
 
While I agree with you NB.....that there are people who are trying to make a $$$..... There is something not quite right about so many things surrounding this case.
 
The ABC report on Thursday about the matter essentially proved to me that Oswald was the only one. Scientist have used computer models to recreate the whole incident. People find it hard to believe that a single person acting alone could kill the President of the USA, but given the right circumstances, it is possible, and it actually happen to Reagan to but he survived the attack.
 
For those who hate the Bush Family

[Q]Kennedy: The George Bush Connection
by Mark Turner
THE KENNEDY FILES
FILE #3

? 1992 by markturner@writeme.com Mark D. Turner
P.O. Box 1955, Bluefield, WV 24701-6955
The Outer Limits BBS - (540) 322-2529



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This file may be freely distributed but Mark D. Turner retains all copyrights. Do not make any changes to this file, please. Comments and suggestions for future issues are appreciated.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE GEORGE BUSH CONNECTION
In this day and age when some people can not even name the president of the United States, it is not the least bit surprising that most have no knowledge of George Bush's possible connections to the Kennedy assassination. The relationship has its roots in Bush's "former" employment with the CIA. As CIA agents have been quoted in the past, you never really leave the Agency.


THE CIA DID IT!
Many researchers place the blame for the murder of John F. Kennedy on the CIA. The easiest way to clear the mafia or other non-governmental groups is to look at the massive cover-up that the government has participated in over the years. If mafia boss Carlos Marcello had really ordered the hit, could he have had the CIA and FBI suppress so much evidence from the public for so long? Could he have had the normal security lowered for the assassination? Could he have had the Washington D.C. phone system knocked out of order for an hour right as the shooting took place? Could he have convinced the Warren Commission to release such an idiotic official version of the murder? Of course not. The set-up and cover-up had to take place INSIDE of the government, not outside.

The CIA seemed to have the most (and best) motives for the elimination of Kennedy. During the Eisenhower presidency, the CIA came up with a plan to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. The thought was that the citizens would hear of the attack and join in to overthrow Castro. Former Cubans were trained by the CIA and the U.S. government fur- nished them with weapons and transportation. Since it was near the end of his administration, Eisenhower put the plan on hold so the new president would not have to deal with any problems which might arise from the mission.

Upon entering office Kennedy decided that the plan's requirement of 16 planes would obviously reveal American backing of the plot. The plan had hoped that American involvement would not become known to the world. The use of 16 planes would make American backing obvious to everyone. Kennedy cut the number of planes down to six. As the date of the invasion neared, Kennedy decided against the plan and announced in the press that the United States would not invade Cuba with the military.

The CIA went ahead with the plan and quickly found that things were not going as they had hoped for. They asked for more planes but were told they would have to be held back until the forces captured a Cuban airport. Then, the planes could be sent and the explanation would be that they were captured planes which the rebels had put into use. The CIA-backed rebels never got that far and were quickly defeated. The citizens of Cuba never joined them in the fight. The CIA, as has been revealed in books by participants, blamed Kennedy for the defeat. The books and papers reveal a deep hatred for the imagined betrayal.

Later, Kennedy formed a panel to keep him informed as to what was going on in Vietnam. American involvement was still low at this point but Kennedy was worried. He has been quoted as saying he could not justify sending American boys half-way around the world to fight communism when it existed just south of Florida in Cuba. One of the panel's members was Allen Dulles, head of the CIA. Kennedy caught him in various lies and fired him. The fact that the CIA had kept training Cubans for another invasion until Kennedy finally sent in FBI agents to break up their camps and confiscate their weapons was another reason for the dismissal. Other high-ranking CIA officials were fired, too, including the brother of Dallas' mayor. Kennedy changed the operating procedure of the CIA so they would have to get approval for any future covert actions from Robert Kennedy.

Due to persistent problems with the CIA and their continual involve- ment in matters which were not their concern, Kennedy declared that he was going to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. Even former president Truman, who had created the CIA, expressed concerns about their behavior. Kennedy was apparently going to leave their destruction until after the next election but did start withdrawing troops from Vietnam, much to the dislike of the CIA. One of Johnson's first moves after he replaced Kennedy as president was to increase American involvement in Vietnam. It seems he owned an airline company that was contracted to fly troops back and forth across the Pacific Ocean, but that is another matter.

Later, E. Howard Hunt, on behalf of the CIA, faked cables to implicate John F. Kennedy in the assassination of South Vietnam's president, Ngo Dinh Diem. So, it is apparent that the CIA disliked Kennedy and had the means to set-up and cover-up the assassination. Now, it is known that they convinced the Warren Commission that the Soviet Union and Cuba had murdered Kennedy. They scared the members into believing that revealing this to the American public would result in a nuclear war in which millions would be killed. To further this theory, they produced fake evidence showing that Oswald had visited the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico to arrange the killing and escape. The head of the CIA operations in Mexico has since admitted that no such real evidence ever existed. A Warren Commission investigator has admitted that they acted to save millions by sacrificing one man (Oswald).

The job was not too hard to pull off since former CIA-head Allen Dulles was a member of the Commission. He was the only one to attend more than half of the hearings and was also in charge of deciding what intelligence data was seen by the other members. President Johnson didn't seem to find it strange to appoint the man that Kennedy had fired to investigate his hated former boss' murder.


SO HOW DOES BUSH FIT IT?
Although he denies it, there is a growing body of evidence that George Bush was working for the CIA as early as 1961. Many feel he was actually recruited during his college days (which is when he joined the Skull and Bones Society, a front for the Illuminati). Bush claims to have been working for his own oil company during the early 1960's. It would make for a convenient front since he claims to have been off- shore on drilling rigs for weeks at a time. The rigs were located all over the world. Was he really on the rigs or was he running around on CIA business? The various biographies of Bush are all sketchy on this phase of his life.

During this time, Bush had moved to HOUSTON, Texas. His wife was, of course, BARBARA. His oil company was ZAPATA Off Shore Co. (which he named after a communist Mexican revolutionary who would invade towns and murder every man, woman and child. Bush also named an earlier oil company after Zapata, a questionable choice for a hero). The code name for the Bay of Pigs invasion was Operation ZAPATA! A former high-ranking Pentagon official, Col. Fletcher Prouty, was the man who secured two Navy ships for the operation. He has told of seeing the two ships repainted to non-Navy colors for the invasion. The ships were given the new names HOUSTON and BARBARA!

Of course, maybe the names were just coincidences, but Bush was living in Houston with Barbara and running Zapata in 1961 during the planning of the invasion. The name "Operation Zapata" was top secret and known only to a very few.

In 1977 and 1978, the government released nearly 100,000 pages of documents on the Kennedy assassination. One which slipped out by mistake was from the FBI to the State Department written a few days after the assassination. The State Department was worried that anti- Castro groups in Miami might stage another invasion of Cuba in the aftermath of the JFK murder. The FBI informed them that they had questioned both pro-Castro and anti-Castro groups and could find no information about such plans. The memo went on to state that the information was passed along to "George Bush of the Central Intelli- gence Agency" the day after the assassination.

Why was the information passed along to the CIA? Probably because of their previous invasion attempt and other planned attacks. Why George Bush? Probably because he was involved in previous invasion plans!

When the document first surfaced no one paid much attention to it. When the presidential campaigns began for the 1980 election then the name George Bush caught researchers' eyes. When asked about the memo, Bush denied working for the CIA at the time. As evidence built that it was indeed him, the CIA claimed it was a different George Bush although their policy had always been to neither confirm nor deny a person's employment. The other George Bush was tracked down by reporters and said that although he did work for the CIA at the time, he was never involved in that sort of work. The interesting point is that the CIA did not bother to contact the other George Bush and inform him that reporters might soon be calling. Other evidence surfaced that showed the George Bush mentioned in the document was actually George H. W. Bush and had the same address as the famous George Bush.

Another Bush connection involved George de Mohrenschildt, a rich Russian oil man who lived in Texas when Lee Harvey Oswald settled there after his trip to the Soviet Union. De Mohrenschildt was a long-time CIA agent and quite possibly served as a CIA control officer for Oswald. The Warren Commission described him and his wife as being the two people friendliest to Oswald at the time of the assassination. De Mohrenschildt's son-in-law told the Warren Commission that if any- one had helped with the assassination it was most likely de Mohren- schildt. De Mohrenschildt was also the man who moved Oswald to Dallas.

Shortly before the House Select Committee on Assassinations started meeting in the late 1970's a new doctor appeared in de Mohrenschildt's town. De Mohrenschildt started seeing him and quickly became mentally unstable. His wife convinced him to stop seeing the doctor. The doctor then moved away and left a false forwarding address. The very day the Committee tried to contact de Mohrenschildt about testifying, he was found dead of a gun shot wound. His personal address book was found and it contained the entry "Bush, George H. W. (Poppy) 1412 W. Ohio also Zapata Petroleum Midland." Bush's full name is George Herbert Walker Bush which matches the initials given and his earlier oil company was named Zapata Petroleum Corp. Why was his name in de Mohrenschildt's book? Is "Poppy" his CIA code name?

It is known that in the early 1960's de Mohrenschildt made frequent trips to Houston, which was the location of Bush's home. He told friends he was visiting the Brown brothers, who were close friends and financial supporters of Lyndon Johnson. CIA documents reveal that during the planning phase of Operation Zapata, de Mohrenschildt made frequent trips to Mexico and Panama and gave reports to the CIA. His son-in-law told the Warren Commission that he believed de Mohren- schildt was spying for the planned Cuban invasion.


A QUESTION OF CHARACTER
When Bush was picked to be director of the CIA in 1976, he testified to Congress that he had never worked for the CIA before. Of course, it did not make much sense to appoint a director who had no such back- ground but Congress approved him anyway. Now it would seem that Bush committed perjury in his congressional testimony.

George Bush was apparently high enough in the CIA to help plan the Bay of Pigs invasion. It would probably be safe to assume that he even named the operation and its two ships. Considering the hatred that the CIA felt toward Kennedy over their failed mission and Bush's involvement in that same mission, it would be quite interesting to know what Bush's feelings toward John F. Kennedy really were and what his full role in the assassination investigation was.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further information on the George Bush connection may be obtained from Mark Lane's "Plausible Denial" (Thunder's Mouth Press) and James "Bo" Gritz's "Called To Serve." Lane's book is an excellent accounting of the CIA's involvement (especially E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis). Gritz (a 1992 presidential candidate) tells about many of the CIA's questionable ventures and also about his trips to Laos to attempt rescues of American POWs who are still held by Vietnam.
[/Q]

I am not saying I believe this.....

De Mohrenschildt was close to Oswald. That has been well documented by other author's writings on the topic of L.H. Oswald. It is interesting that he apparently was friends with Mr. Bush.


http://www.angelfire.com/ky/ohwhy/Bush.html
 
How did they deal with the issue of the period of time in which those those 3 (?) shots were fired. Wasn't it discovered to be basically physically impossible to accurately fire 3 rounds at a moving target in that short a time span using the rifle Oswald had prints on? Didn't they do tests with expert military snipers/marksmen who couldn't even come close?
 
Last edited:
Would basic ballistics tests on the bullets prove or disprove that Diemen ie whether the bullets were all fired from the one gun? I think I caught a small part of this from I think the Sunday show here this morning and from the computer animation that guy recreated it looks entirely possible only one guman was present. It doesn't really do anything to prove or disprove Oswald acted alone, more that there was only one gunman. I dont think the truth will ever be fully known. Interesting nonetheless.
 
Diemen said:
How did they deal with the issue of the period of time in which those those 3 (?) shots were fired. Wasn't it discovered to be basically physically impossible to accurately fire 3 rounds at a moving target in that short a time span using the rifle Oswald had prints on? Didn't they do tests with expert military snipers/marksmen who couldn't even come close?

in the discovery channel program i saw, they had recreated the scene with a guy up in a tower and a car driving by, all set up exactly the same way it was with kennedy. they had a watermelon for the head and cardboard cutouts for the body, and had the car moving at the same speed, and the guy was able to hit the watermelon once and the cardboard body twice everytime, and always around 7-7.5 seconds, which is well below the 9 seconds that oswald did it in.

the only problem that occurred was that that type of gun jammed about 24% of the time, so he wasnt always able to get all 3 shots off in each test they did. but it did show that indeed, it was very possible to do it.
 
Don't forget the first round is already Chambered. That means he reloaded twice. Perfectly possible in the time period when you tak into account the target was slowing down and not speeding up.
 
Last edited:
im convinced that oswald was the lone shooter, but, did he do it just because he was a nut job and wanted the attention? or was he put up to do it in some larger plot?

i think if i was trying to find a guy to shoot the president, i dont think id turn to oswalt. he was a bit of a whacko and someone i wouldnt trust to carry out a plan, or keep the secret.

but then why did ruby shoot oswald? to keep him quiet, or just because he was pissed off? ruby is the one guy i dont understand, but in my opinion oswalt was a nutjob and acted alone to kill the president in order to go down in history.
 
Ruby leads me to believe that there is more to the story. While I think Gerald Posner does an outstanding job presenting the history of Oswald, I do not buy into his analysis of Ruby.

As I am sitting here in my coma like state..... THE PBS Frontline show was Outstanding.
 
sue4u2 said:

*Feel better soon Dreadsox. I know someone else who has gone through some of what you have. It's a living hell.*

Thanks Sue:hug:
 
One of the more realistic articles written on the topic that says Oswald did it, but was with the Mob.

[Q] Nov. 22, 2003 | After a week of media overkill triggered by the 40th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination, the American public is left as bewildered as ever by the "crime of the 20th century." ABC News took the part of the establishment media this time (a role played on past JFK anniversaries by CBS and the New York Times), reassuring us in a two-hour Thursday special report hosted by Peter Jennings that the Warren Commission got it right in 1964: Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, case closed. But a poll released by the network itself in time for its special underscored just how unconvincing the public finds this official version: four decades after the president's murder, 68 percent of Americans stubbornly refuse to believe that Oswald was a lone assassin, and the same number think there was "an official cover-up" to hide the truth about the assassination from the public.

This deep cloud of suspicion has enabled conspiracy theories to flourish, and the wildest one this season is being advanced by none other than White House spokesman Scott McClellan's father, Barr, who worked in the late '60s for a Texas law firm that represented Lyndon Johnson. In a new book, "Blood, Money & Power," McClellan charges that LBJ conspired with his old boss, power attorney Edward Clark, and Texas oil interests to replace Kennedy through the barrel of a gun.


McClellan's allegation fits the flamboyant pattern set by the master of fevered conspiracy dreams, Oliver Stone, who is back this anniversary with a new director's cut of "JFK," his 1991 indictment of the CIA, the military-industrial complex and, yes, LBJ. Only a Hollywood moviemaker as gloriously and arrogantly wrong-headed about history as Stone could have seized upon the corrupt and supremely weird New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison -- who brought, and spectacularly lost, the only legal case related to the assassination before a jury -- as a great American hero.

But if moonstruck conspiracy-weavers like Stone and McClellan give JFK conspiracy research a bad name, that doesn't mean the Warren Commission was right. As even its most resolute defenders -- such as Gerald Posner, author of the 1993 bestseller "Case Closed" -- concede, the distinguished panel headed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren was denied key pieces of the puzzle by the FBI and the CIA. And the most important pieces of information related to the CIA/Mafia plot against Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and the illegal FBI surveillance of Mafia leaders, which revealed a widespread and murderous hostility toward President Kennedy and his crime-busting brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy. The Warren panel did have a neon-bright sign pointing to the Mafia right before its eyes -- Jack Ruby, the Mob-connected nightclub owner who murdered Oswald on national television -- but the commission inexplicably decided not to pursue this angle. Commission investigators credulously accepted the word of a Chicago hood named Lenny Patrick that Ruby had no underworld ties, when in fact it was Patrick himself who had run Ruby out of town for stepping on his gambling turf.



Bobby Kennedy was not so credulous. Kennedy, who according to his biographer Evan Thomas "regarded the Warren Commission as a public relations exercise to reassure the public," immediately turned his suspicions on the Mafia, CIA, and anti-Castro Cubans after his brother's murder. He would accept the solemn word of fellow Irish Catholic John McCone, the CIA director, that the agency had nothing to do with the crime. But he would go to his grave in 1968 suspecting that JFK was the victim of a plot, and his thoughts lingered darkly on the lords of the underworld. In the years after JFK's assassination, as Bobby was elected to the Senate from New York in 1964 and then ran for president in 1968, he would launch more than one of his old Mafia-hunting Justice Department associates on a search for the truth, including Walter Sheridan and Ed Guthman, and even his press secretary Frank Mankiewicz.

"Bobby said to me, 'You look into this, read everything you can, so if it gets to a point where I can do something about this, you can tell me what I need to know,'" Mankiewicz recently told me. "I became an assassination buff. I came to the conclusion that there was some sort of conspiracy, probably between the Mob, anti-Castro Cuban exiles, and maybe rogue CIA agents. Every so often I would bring this up with Bobby. I told him who I thought was involved. But it was like he couldn't focus on it, he'd get this look of pain or more like numbness on his face. It just tore him apart."

Kennedy had reason to be haunted by his brother's death: he knew that his organized-crime crusade as JFK's attorney general might have triggered Jack's murder. Like a long line of American politicians -- including his legendary rivals Johnson and Nixon -- Jack Kennedy was not above using the Mafia for favors. The family patriarch Joe Kennedy had organized crime ties dating back to his bootlegging days and the Kennedys used these connections to deliver money and votes during the 1960 presidential campaign, principally in the West Virginia primary and in Chicago during the general election, which tipped the key Illinois electoral vote into the Democratic column. The priapic JFK was also quite happy to move in Frank Sinatra's hedonistic social circle and share women like Judith Campbell with Mafia dons (until Bobby, Jack's vigilant keeper, warned his brother to drop both the singer and the call girl). As president, Kennedy allowed the CIA to continue its unholy alliance with the Mafia to kill Castro, a covert operation hatched in the final days of the Eisenhower administration.

And yet, as attorney general, Bobby Kennedy waged a merciless war against these very same underworld kingpins. While FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover had long insisted there was no such thing as the Mafia, Kennedy knew better, and he took the number of organized crime convictions from a mere 35 in 1960 to 288 in 1963, a figure that doubled within a year as a result of the momentum built up in the last months of the Kennedy reign. Bobby created a "Get Hoffa" unit in the Justice Department to hound the Teamster leader, who had turned the union's pension fund into a piggy bank for the Mob. He even unceremoniously deported the powerful godfather of Louisiana, Carlos Marcello, who had cops, FBI agents and politicians in his pocket.

Bobby was the Kennedy family's avenging angel. And if his family had stooped to conquer in American politics, he would remove the stain from their name by ridding the country of the underworld bosses who were subverting American government, business and labor.

Not surprisingly, organized crime leaders were outraged by what they saw as a Kennedy double cross. And no Mafia lord was more venomously agitated against the Kennedy brothers than Marcello, who spent two nightmarish months of exile in Central America before slipping secretly back into the country. According to the testimony of a Marcello business colleague named Edward Becker later given to government investigators, the New Orleans godfather made an ominous threat in fall 1962. "Don't worry about that little Bobby sonofabitch," said Marcello. He said he would make sure the "dog" stopped biting, not by cutting off its tail -- Bobby -- but its head, the president. Marcello also spoke of taking out "insurance" for the president's assassination by "setting up a nut to take the blame ... the way they do it all the time in Sicily."

Lee Harvey Oswald was known to the Marcello organization through Marcello's private investigator David Ferrie, a strange fixture in many JFK conspiracy theories. (Ferrie had a rare disease that caused him to lose all his hair, which he replaced with bad mohawk hairpieces and fake eyebrows.) Ferrie, a former Eastern Airlines pilot who was active in secretive anti-Castro operations, had served as the commander of Oswald's teenage civil air patrol unit and was seen socializing with him in New Orleans during the summer of 1963.

Bobby Kennedy never got into a position to reopen the file on his brother's assassination -- as he told a crowd of California college students he would in 1968 if elected president. But one of the young federal prosecutors who had worked for him at the Justice Department -- inspired by the battle cry in Shakespeare's "Henry the Fifth," they and Bobby referred to themselves as "we band of brothers" -- would. In 1977, G. Robert Blakey, who had worked on Bobby's "Get Hoffa" team, was named chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the only government panel besides the Warren Commission to investigate JFK's murder. Blakey, an organized crime expert who wrote the 1970 RICO act, would go into the two-year, $6 million probe believing the committee would reach the same conclusions as the Warren Commission. He would emerge as the Warren Report's most authoritative critic and a firm believer that Kennedy had died as the result of a conspiracy, masterminded by Marcello and his Mafia ally, Santo Trafficante, the Florida godfather who had been driven out of the lucrative Havana casino business by Castro and who had been recruited in the CIA plot to kill the Cuban leader
The Assassinations Committee was expected to corroborate the Warren Report, but in its final days of hearings, the panel heard surprising testimony from three acoustics experts that pushed the investigators in the conspiracy direction. Sound evidence inadvertently recorded by a Dallas motorcycle patrolman's microphone, they testified, proved there was a fourth shot in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22 -- and it came from the direction of the infamous grassy knoll. Since Oswald only had enough time to fire three shots from his Book Depository perch and couldn't possibly have fired from the grassy knoll, it meant a second shooter -- and a conspiracy.

The committee issued its stunning final report in July 1979: Kennedy was "probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy." And while the committee found no evidence that "the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group" or "anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups" were involved in the plot, it could not "preclude the possibility that individual members of (these organizations) may have been involved."


Afterwards, the committee's acoustics findings were cast in doubt by a special panel of the National Academy of Sciences, which asserted that the sounds contained on the police dictabelt were simply static. In 2001, the NAS panel was in turn challenged by a study conducted by government scientist D.B. Thomas and published in the British forensics journal Science and Justice, which found that there was indeed a fourth shot from the grassy knoll.

Because of the dispute surrounding the Assassination Committee's acoustics evidence, the committee's report has lost credibility over the years. In its Thursday special report, ABC News put Blakey briefly on camera, only to dismiss his organized crime theory and to offer another technical rebuttal of the acoustics-based second-shooter theory.



But Blakey's case is not as easily brushed aside as ABC would have it. His case is not just based on the sound evidence from Dealey Plaza, which might or might not stand the test of time, but on voluminous research compiled by his committee staff on Oswald, Ruby, and alleged Mafia conspirators Marcello and Trafficante. Blakey presents this case, including new information unearthed after the committee's report, in his 1981 book, "Fatal Hour: The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime," which was revised in 1992. It's a case that many assassination experts find persuasive, including former Wall Street Journal investigative reporter Jonathan Kwitny, who declared flatly, "Bob Blakey's staff cracked the case."

Last Sunday, as the 40th anniversary media circus began, I sat down with Blakey in his home in South Bend, Ind., close to the Notre Dame campus, where he has taught law since 1980. During a two-hour interview, the 67-year-old Blakey, who combines the no-nonsense manner of a federal prosecutor with the intimidating Socratic style of the professor from "The Paper Chase," made two things as clear as a court summons: He still believes there was a conspiracy, but he is no conspiracy freak.

"There's no doubt that Oswald fired the fatal shots, all the forensic evidence points to it, and his conduct is consistent with it," said Blakey. "I'm a former federal prosecutor and I could have convicted him with no problem. But then 48 hours later, Oswald himself is shot by Ruby -- and then Ruby becomes a major factor."

Blakey believes that Oswald was supposed to be silenced by the second shooter as he emerged from the Book Depository in police custody -- but he eluded both the police and his executioner, who was likely one of Trafficante's Cuban henchmen. So the Mafia conspirators behind the assassination drafted Ruby to do the job. "Ruby was always a wannabe around organized crime. He knew the Mob leaders in Dallas, Joe Civello and Joe Campisi, both of whom were connected to Marcello. The night before the assassination, Ruby met with Campisi" -- who later visited him in jail.

"Now put yourself in Ruby's position," continued Blakey. "The Mafia comes to you, Campisi says, 'I want you to kill Oswald' -- what are Ruby's choices? At that point he knows there was a conspiracy involving the Mob to kill the president. So he either does it or he's dead. It's just that simple. And the deal is, look, you do this for us and we'll take care of you down the line. Plus, you'll be one of us, which is what he's always wanted to be. And he probably won't be executed for the crime, it'll be murder without malice, he'll do some years and then walk out a hero."

"Now what was Ruby's conduct during his interrogation by the Warren Commission? He's saying loud and clear, 'Get me out of here -- take me to Washington.' Why? Because the local cops are corrupt and he knows it. If he were to say something there to investigators and it got out, he could be killed right in jail. So when he's interviewed by the Warren Commission, he says, 'I'll tell you the whole truth if you take me to Washington.' He was pleading with them, but they paid no attention to it."

For Blakey, Ruby is the "Rosetta Stone" of the crime, "because he's Mob-connected. The Warren Commission said he wasn't -- and they were just wrong. Ruby's associations all point toward organized crime, his whole life had been in that."

Mafia leaders, acknowledged Blakey, don't normally hit high elected officials. (At least American ones don't: The Italian Mafia, as detailed in Alexander Stille's "Excellent Cadavers" and Peter Robb's "Midnight in Sicily," has no such compunction.) But they felt that under Bobby Kennedy's crusade they were fighting for their existence -- and they believed that Jack Kennedy had "crossed the line" by accepting their favors, that he was "corrupt" and therefore a legitimate target.

But Blakey emphasizes the assassination was not sanctioned by the Mafia's national commission; it was a local, closely-held conspiracy, based in Carlos Marcello's New Orleans, outside of FBI surveillance, which was focused on cities like New York and Chicago, and outside of the national Mafia's oversight.

"The bigger you make this conspiracy, the less plausible it is," said Blakey, "Principle No. 1: You only involve people you'd trust with your life -- and then you kill them afterward. This is Sicilian. The conspiracy buffs make this as wide as possible -- they think it has to be government. It just doesn't work this way."

Blakey does believes that Trafficante probably recruited anti-Castro Cubans -- who were angered at JFK's failure to remove Castro -- to take part in the plot. But that's about as far as he's willing to cast his net.

While Marcello, according to Blakey, was the principal driver of the plot, Trafficante was an important co-conspirator. Blakey's theory about the two Mafia leaders was given significant corroboration in 1994 when Frank Ragano, the long-time attorney for Santo Trafficante (and Jimmy Hoffa), published an eye-opening memoir, "Mob Lawyer," with the assistance of veteran New York Times organized crime reporter Selwyn Raab. Ragano revealed that in March, 1987, a seriously ill Trafficante, facing emergency heart bypass surgery that he would not survive, told him that he and Marcello were responsible for JFK's murder. "That Bobby made life miserable for me and my friends," Trafficante told his trusted lawyer. "Who would have thought that someday (John Kennedy) would be president and he would name his goddam brother attorney general? Goddam Bobby. I think Carlos fucked up in getting rid of Giovanni (John) -- maybe it should have been Bobby." Blakey, who talked with the now-deceased Ragano before he published his book, finds the account persuasive, as have other organized crime experts like Raab and journalist Nicholas Pileggi.

Over the years, conspiracy theorists have attacked Blakey for his exclusive focus on the Mafia. As the House Assassinations chief counsel, he clashed with some of his younger, more aggressive investigators over how combative an approach to take with the CIA in ferreting out evidence. While some of them bitterly complained about CIA stonewalling, Blakey publicly praised the agency's cooperation. But in recent years there has been a development in the JFK case that has made even the cautious Blakey reevaluate his view of the CIA.

In April 2001, Washington Post reporter Jefferson Morley revealed in an article for the weekly Miami New Times that George Joannides, the agent assigned by the CIA to act as a liaison with the House Assassinations Committee, had actually played a role in the Oswald story. Morley revealed that Joannides, the CIA's top Miami psychological warfare specialist in Miami, had financed and guided the anti-Castro Cuban group, the DRE, that Oswald tried to infiltrate in the summer of 1963. Blakey was stunned by the revelation.

Today Blakey says that if he had known Joannides' background, he would have immediately relieved him of his duties and made him "a witness under oath."

The CIA subterfuge, in direct defiance of a congressional committee, clearly still unnerves Blakey. "There's no agency file on the Oswald connection. The CIA has come up with explanations -- oh, the DRE were loose cannons and we were pulling away from them, therefore there's no reason for reporting it. But I don't buy it."

What were Joannides and the CIA trying to hide? Blakey speculates that the agency was "probably trying to avoid embarrassment -- if the agency was financing one of these anti-Castro groups and Oswald was connected to it, whoa!" In the emotionally turbulent aftermath of the assassination, the revelation that the CIA was monitoring the president's future assassin would have been explosive.

Was there something darker than that involved in the apparent CIA coverup? "Well, I don't know," said Blakey, "and that's the problem. You can't talk about what you don't know. You can only speculate." Blakey denies that the CIA as an institution was involved; if rogue agents took part, they were strictly acting on their own.

Joannides is beyond any further inquiry. "He's dead," said Blakey, "everybody's dead, that's one of the problems with this. I think that's why the 40th anniversary has been so big. The media knows that on the 50th anniversary there won't be any talking heads left. This is their last shot."

The Kennedy story has already grown irrelevant to most Americans, says Blakey, half of whom are under the age of 25. "I know it for a fact, I teach them -- this is just not a big deal for them. They grew up in a different world."

So what will history conclude about the assassination?

"My guess is that the Warren Commission will carry the day -- because it's too hard for people to grasp the other stuff. The Assassination Committee's work has been reduced to the acoustics."

Maybe, says Blakey, if he could have told the story in its full mythic power -- the charismatic leader who makes a deal with the underworld to gain the throne; the younger, intensely loyal brother who angers the gods of the underworld and brings about the beloved leader's death, and is himself cut down before he can avenge that murder. "It really is the stuff of Greek tragedy. But I'm a prosecutor, I told it the way I know how." [/Q]
 
Last edited:
so Dread after decades have past what is YOUR GUT feeling?
what in your research is your conclusion?

db9
 
Gut Feeling.....MOB....That had formerly been working with the government. The operations originally hatched when Ike was President, ended when Kennedy was President. That was not the reason for the hit. Bobby coming down hard on the mob was. Deporting Carlos Marcello illegally was the final nail in the coffin. There are Major links between Marcello (Godfather of New Orleans) Oswalds Uncle (Worked for him), David Ferrie (Read above), Jack Ruby....ect.

I think that the conspiracy buffs get off track because the governement was actually trying to cover up the covert operations and connections with the mob with the cuba operations. There is plenty of evidence that Oswald attempted to not only infiltrate por castro groups but anti castro groups as well.

He was a PATSY. He was not supposed to be arrested. I believe he was supposed to be wacked along the way, possibly by Officer Tippet but Oswald shot him first and for some reason, not only did he shoot him, came around the car to put a bullet into his head to make certain he killed the police officer.

Ultimately, Oswald was a nut, that was used...somehow to get the job done. There is no way to explain Jack Ruby.....and why he so desparately wanted to testify in Washington DC. if he were not fearful for his life. Ruby was ordered to make the hit.

Mob...it makes sense....It explains the governement actions as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom