Jump to content
The Education Forum

Debilitating Morass of Conspiracy Mindset


Recommended Posts

In response to Terry, Terry, it was not Professor Blakey who assigned Joannides to be the CIA liason(or one of them) to the HSCA. I know from his statements that Blakey now regrets not taking seriously his staff's complaints about Joannides.

Why do you think Blakey even knew Joannides before the CIA assigned him to be the (a?) liason officer with the HSCA?

Let's hope Morley et al win their appeal re the Joannides documents.

**************************************************************

"Why do you think Blakey even knew Joannides before the CIA assigned him to be the (a?) liason officer with the HSCA?"

Probably because I haven't trusted many gov. appointees since the year of 1964, especially those put in key positions regarding any investigation concerning the assassinations.

But, first and foremost, are you suggesting that the C.I.A. assigned Johannides? Because. if this is true then the HSCA was corrupted and doomed before it even started!

Second of all, Blakey should have definitely been on top of this, and yanked Johannides on a "conflict of interest" issue. He didn't do his job, plain and simple as that. He allowed this to go down, right under his nose. Therefore, I consider him to have been complicit with the C.I.A., especially for not having taken evasive measures to dismiss Johannides.

Third of all, I would never trust the C.I.A. to do anything, even if they tried to assign God, Himself to the HSCA!

"Let's hope Morley et al win their appeal re the Joannides documents."

It'll be a cold day in hell, before that ever happens, my friend.

With love,

Your Femme Nikita.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry, of course it was the CIA that assigned the people who would serve as its liason with the HSCA. Nothing unusual about that.

The problem however is that Joannides was involved with JM/Wave, the DRE, etc, and should have been a WITNESS. But that was never disclosed to anyone at the HSCA including Blakey. If Blakey was unaware of the conglict-of-interest, which he was, there was of course nothing he could do about it.

He was of course livid at the CIA when Joannides' role was discovered by Jeff Morley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry, of course it was the CIA that assigned the people who would serve as its liason with the HSCA. Nothing unusual about that.

The problem however is that Joannides was involved with JM/Wave, the DRE, etc, and should have been a WITNESS. But that was never disclosed to anyone at the HSCA including Blakey. If Blakey was unaware of the conglict-of-interest, which he was, there was of course nothing he could do about it.

He was of course livid at the CIA when Joannides' role was discovered by Jeff Morley.

******************************************************************

"Terry, of course it was the CIA that assigned the people who would serve as its liason with the HSCA. Nothing unusual about that."

What do you mean, "Nothing unusual about that."? No one in their right mind should have been entrusting the C.I.A. to do anything but stonewall the HSCA. That is, unless you're inferring that the whole HSCA was an intended fiasco, doomed from the start, being that it was set up under similar corrupted, and rigged circumstances harking back to the Warren Commission's dubious appointees?

"The problem however is that Joannides was involved with JM/Wave, the DRE, etc, and should have been a WITNESS."

Well, no Sherman, Herman, Issac, Thurman, Sherlock! All the more reason to question some "liason" appointed by the freakin' C.I.A.! Wouldn't ya think?

"He was of course livid at the CIA when Joannides' role was discovered by Jeff Morley."

Yeah, and for all we know he could've been working for the man [The Company], himself. So, as far as I'm concerned, he still didn't do a good enough job. If he had been on top of it, he would have interviewed Johannides from the outset of his appointment. Especially, someone assigned by the C.I.A.! Therefore, if Blakey had no suspicions regarding the C.I.A., then for all we know he was already unwittingly, or unduly influenced, or prejudiced in their favor. And, that ain't exactly what I'd describe as an unbiased committee member. Sorry. He blew it.

Nikita

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry, obviously the HSCA had to correspond with someone at the CIA to obtain access documents, answer questions, etc., and it was not going to be the DCI, obviously. So the CIA was going to appoint a liason officer. How else would the process work?

Should Blakey have been more suspicious of the CIA particularly after it failed to disclose its attempts to kill Castro to the WC? Probably so. But there still needed to be a channel of communications. Just as there was an FBI agent assigned specifically to liason with the CIA, and I am sure vice-versa. Liason officers are just the way government works. Similar to a public relations officer who is the interface between the institution and the press and the public.

Regarding your Sherlock Holmes point, as I said, no one at the HSCA suspected that Joannides had a role with the Cuban exiles, and an important role at that.

Should the HSCA have demanded to inspect the job record and assignments of each of the CIA people with whom it was dealing? In retrospect, probably so. But that is hindsight. It's like asking why Earl Warren never asked Allen Dulles if the CIA had ever engaged the Mafia to try to kill Castro. He did not ask because he never would have suspected such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry, obviously the HSCA had to correspond with someone at the CIA to obtain access documents, answer questions, etc., and it was not going to be the DCI, obviously. So the CIA was going to appoint a liason officer. How else would the process work?

Should Blakey have been more suspicious of the CIA particularly after it failed to disclose its attempts to kill Castro to the WC? Probably so. But there still needed to be a channel of communications. Just as there was an FBI agent assigned specifically to liason with the CIA, and I am sure vice-versa. Liason officers are just the way government works. Similar to a public relations officer who is the interface between the institution and the press and the public.

Regarding your Sherlock Holmes point, as I said, no one at the HSCA suspected that Joannides had a role with the Cuban exiles, and an important role at that.

Should the HSCA have demanded to inspect the job record and assignments of each of the CIA people with whom it was dealing? In retrospect, probably so. But that is hindsight. It's like asking why Earl Warren never asked Allen Dulles if the CIA had ever engaged the Mafia to try to kill Castro. He did not ask because he never would have suspected such a thing.

*****************************************************************

"Should the HSCA have demanded to inspect the job record and assignments of each of the CIA people with whom it was dealing? In retrospect, probably so. But that is hindsight. It's like asking why Earl Warren never asked Allen Dulles if the CIA had ever engaged the Mafia to try to kill Castro. He did not ask because he never would have suspected such a thing."

Thank you, my love. I'm so glad you're back. I missed your excellent rationale and explanation as to the whys and wherefores of many of these situations that were seemingly kept under wraps and away from public scrutiny. Then again, I can be such an impatient little hot-head at times.

Especially when something seems drastically amiss, and I can't for the life of me, figure out how something like that could have managed to slip under the radar.

I'll let Blakey off the hook, since you've succeeded in convincing me that it really was out of his hands.

Your Femme Nikita

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, thank you, Terry. Appreciate that.

Have you read some of the statements Blakey has made about the CIA after he discovered that they played him for a fool in the Joannides case? I think he once said he would never again believe anything the CIA told him.

I hope that if Morley should lose in the appellate court he takes it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am sure there are no existing documents proving any CIA agent was involved in the assassination, but the CIA's stonewalling in Joannides certainly indicates there is some information it is attempting to hide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...