G. Robert Blakey

[John Simkin]

I have recently made contact with G. Robert Blakey. I have invited him to join the forum but he declined the offer. However, he has replied to a few questions that I sent him. I thought members ight be interested in what he has had to say. Let me have any questions you might have and I will try to get him to answer them.

Thank you for your reply. You maybe aware that I have produced a short biography of you at:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKblakey.htm

(1) Is there anything you would like me to add to this page?

Take out the reference to Hoffa. I don't think he was in any way involved in the plot.

(2) Are there any mistakes that need to be corrected?

See last comment.

(3) Would you be interested in providing a statement that summarizes your current thoughts on the assassination?

I have seen nothing to change my mind, though I am less confident of the acoustical result today in light of other analyses of it. The other evidence in the plaza, however, still points to two shooters no matter how valid the acoustical study comes out in the end.

(4) Did you know that Dick Billings had taken part in Operation Tilt (Pawley/Bayo Mission) before he was employed by the HSAC?

Yes. Knew it at the time. He was then and is now a close friend.

(5) Is Dick Billings still alive?

Yes

(6) Have you seen the photographs of the Pawley/Bayo mission?

I saw them before.

[Wim Dankbaar]

John,

Ask him what he thought of Regis Blahut.

Wim

[John Simkin]

More questions and answers:

(1) Would Dick Billings be willing to talk to me?

You have to find him on your own. I suppose he would. He is a nice guy. Why not? But I don't give out addresses of other people. My life is an open book. That is my life. It goes with having worked for the HSCA.

(2) Why it was that the HSCA never followed up on the approach from Dr. Burkley's lawyer indicating the Doctor was ready to offer proof of a conspiracy beyond Lee Oswald?

I have no idea what you are talking about? No memory of anything about it.

(3) Why did the HSCA ignore the comprehensive record of missing and false autopsy evidence that Doug Horne and the ARRB were able to develop.

I have no idea what you are talking about? No memory of anything about it.

(4) Are you aware of the number of Bethesda personnel and even FBI agents who now contest parts of the WC record on the autopsy.

Sure. So what? The pictures do it all.

(5) Have you heard that David Phillips family suspected that Phillips was involved in a conspiracy and that Phillips actually pointed to intelligence figures as being involved in a conspiracy shortly before his death?

Haven't heard that.

John, I don't know why I answered your e-mail or questions to the degree that I did. If I responded to all of the e-mails I get, I would have nothing else to do in my life. Belive me, that phase is over. I am concerned with things that are in front of me now. !964 is a long time ago. So, too, is 1979.

[Chris Cox]

Good work, John.

I have so many questions of Blakey too. I wish he would join us. There's a good piece on the Frontline site with

Blakey intvu.

My most pressing question is: Mr Blakey, were you aware of extent of Cuban operations (their proximity to the

assassination) at the time you took the job? If not, how did the information come to you? How did it affect the way

you viewed the assassination?

My father Paul J. Hughes a pilot in Cuban operations (pre and post-revolution) has files from NARA stamped HSCA, so

I assume your investigators were top-notch in doing their homework.

I have met Gaeton Fonzi and he is an impressive researcher. Much was pushed aside as being irrelevant, obtuse to

investigation. Unfortunately a key witness died in De Morenchildt(sp?). Evidence was supressed.

Your countrymen are still interested in the assassination because it matters to our understanding of the

functioning of our government. If there were others involved, something was horribly wrong in our country at the

time of Vietnam, Civil Rights and Nuclear catastrophe.

A more pointed question: Do you feel betrayed in any way by having Joannides so close to the investigation? Have you

learned anything new, do you follow current assassination research and are you interested in seeing a new

investigation launched?

Thanks John

[Dawn Meredith]

Good work, John.

I have so many questions of Blakey too.  I wish he would join us. There's a good piece on the Frontline site with

Blakey intvu.

My most pressing question is:  Mr Blakey, were you aware of extent of Cuban operations (their proximity to the

assassination) at the time you took the job? If not, how did the information come to you? How did it affect the way

you viewed the assassination? 

My father Paul J. Hughes a pilot in Cuban operations (pre and post-revolution) has files from NARA stamped HSCA, so

I assume your investigators were top-notch in doing their homework.

I have met Gaeton Fonzi and he is an impressive researcher.  Much was pushed aside as being irrelevant, obtuse to

investigation.  Unfortunately a key witness died in De Morenchildt(sp?). Evidence was supressed.

Your countrymen are  still interested in the assassination because it matters to our understanding of the

functioning of our government.  If there were others involved, something was horribly wrong in our country at the

time of Vietnam, Civil Rights and Nuclear catastrophe.

A more pointed question: Do you feel betrayed in any way by having Joannides so close to the investigation? Have you

learned anything new, do you follow current assassination research and are you interested in seeing a new

investigation launched?

Thanks John

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blakey was brought in to counteract all the real efforts of Sprague, who truly wanted to get to the heart of the matter. I have a video from the early 80 or maybe even the 70's called simply "The Killing of President Kennedy". I have not watched it in many years, but remember how intense Sprague was in this great documentary. He wasn't going to be stopped by anyone, and he was very much interested in all the intelligence angles. I have never understood what really happened between him and Gonzales. Sprague being replaced by Blakey ended any real search for the truth and cover story no three being put in place. ("The Mob did it).(No. 2 being Castro did it because he was angry with Kennedy bros trying to kill him, the much turmpeted garbage of Jack Anderson).

So I am not at all surprised Blakey would have no interest in being in a forum. His job was done, capped with his and Billings' little book.

That said it was exciting to see the headline at the end of HSCA in the Boston Globe proclaim "JFK victim of conspiracy". The did take the case one step past the LN silliness. (Even tho the headline ended "probably mafia". I had it on my wall for a few years).

Dawn Meredith

ps Does anyone else have a problem getting onto this forum becasue the "page" where you can reply and not just read keeps flipping back to the "intro" page (the one that refers to the education forum. Frustrating.

[Tim Carroll]

Dawn Meredith

ps Does anyone else have a problem getting onto this forum becasue the "page" where you can reply and not just read keeps flipping back to the "intro" page (the one that refers to the education forum.  Frustrating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, yes, yes!

[John Simkin]

Does anyone else have a problem getting onto this forum becasue the "page" where you can reply and not just read keeps flipping back to the "intro" page (the one that refers to the education forum.  Frustrating.

This is a security feature of the forum. A few months ago we were the victims of an attack by a nasty right-wing group who disliked some postings we made about Bush and Blair.

Once you are directed to the home page a cookie will be placed into your browser. You should then be allowed to enter the forum on any page as you like (I know I am). If you are not, I assume it is because you have set your browser not to take cookies.

[Guest]

Does anyone else have a problem getting onto this forum becasue the "page" where you can reply and not just read keeps flipping back to the "intro" page (the one that refers to the education forum.  Frustrating.

This is a security feature of the forum. A few months ago we were the victims of an attack by a nasty right-wing group who disliked some postings we made about Bush and Blair.

Once you are directed to the home page a cookie will be placed into your browser. You should then be allowed to enter the forum on any page as you like (I know I am). If you are not, I assume it is because you have set your browser not to take cookies.

The security settings are exactly as John describes.

I am sure that the inconvenience of one or maybe two more clicks on the mouse will be viewed by most members as a small price to pay for the additional security which keeps us online.

[Dawn Meredith]

Does anyone else have a problem getting onto this forum becasue the "page" where you can reply and not just read keeps flipping back to the "intro" page (the one that refers to the education forum.  Frustrating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a security feature of the forum. A few months ago we were the victims of an attack by a nasty right-wing group who disliked some postings we made about Bush and Blair.

Once you are directed to the home page a cookie will be placed into your browser. You should then be allowed to enter the forum on any page as you like (I know I am). If you are not, I assume it is because you have set your browser not to take cookies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The security settings are exactly as John describes.

I am sure that the inconvenience of one or maybe two more clicks on the mouse will be viewed by most members as a small price to pay for the additional security which keeps us online.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John and Andy you're both right, it just took me a few extra minutes to figure this out, I posted before I realized that it is just merely a bit tricky.

Dawn

living in the middle of the right wing stuff, on the eve of this scary election, I agree, we can't have too much extra online security.

[John Geraghty]

With regard to Blakey mark lane covers the whole investigation very well in 'Plausible Denial', he explians who was taken out and why, he bases this upon conversations with those were involved in the investigation and those who were interested.

[Dawn Meredith]

With regard to Blakey mark lane covers the whole investigation very well in 'Plausible Denial', he explians who was taken out and why, he bases this upon conversations with those were involved in the investigation and those who were interested.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks John for the reminder. Lane deals with the firing of Sprague very well. Of course it was the CIA-press who forced Sprague's firing. Funny how we "remember" things, all I could remember was the big upheval between he and Gonzalez.

Speaking of Lane's great book, there's an interesting interview with Hunt in the online mag. "Slate" where he is asked about the possibility of David Atlee Phillips being involved with the JFK assassination, to which Hunt responds: "(visibly uncomfortable) I have no comment". Then he's asked about the notion that he may have been in Dallas 11/22/63, and again replies, somewhat tellingly : "No comment". I guess that is as close to any admission that we will ever get as to what ever Hunt knows about "the whole Bay of pigs thing" (to use Tricky dick's Watergate recorded words for that event.)

Dawn

[William Kelly]

Don Roberdeu had this note from Blakey on his web page.

http://droberdeau.bl...05/page-12.html

Former Chief Counsel to the HSCA G. Robert Blakey:

I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated withthe committee – the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). My reasonsfollow:

The committee focused, among other things, on (1) Oswald, (2) in New Orleans, (3) in the months before he went to Dallas,and, in particular, (4) his attempt to infiltrate an anti-Castro group,the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil or DRE.

These were crucial issues in the Warren Commission's investigation; they werecrucial issues in the committee's investigation. The Agency knew it full wellin 1964; the Agency knew it full well in 1976-79.

Outrageously, the agency did not tell the Warren Commissionor our committee that it had financial and other connections with the DRE,a group that Oswald had direct dealings with!

What contemporaneous reporting is or was in the Agency's DREfiles?

We will never know, for the Agency now says that noreporting is in the existing files.

Are we to believe that its files were silent in 1964 or duringour investigation?

I don't believe it for a minute. Money was involved; it had to be documented.Period. End of story. The files and the Agency agents connected to the DREshould have been made available to the commission and the committee. That theinformation in the files and the agents who could have supplemented it were notmade available to the commission and the committee amounts to willful obstructionof justice.

Obviously, too, it did not identify the agent who was its contact with the DREat the crucial time that Oswald was in contact with it: George Joannides.

During the relevant period, the committee's chief contact with the Agency on aday-to-day basis was Scott Breckinridge. (I put aside our point of contact withthe office of chief counsel, Lyle Miller) We sent researchers to the Agency torequest and read documents.

The relationship between our young researchers, law studentswho came with me from Cornell, was anything but "happy."Nevertheless, we were getting and reviewing documents. Breckinridge, however, suggestedthat he create a new point of contact person who might "facilitate"the process of obtaining and reviewing materials. He introduced me toJoannides, who, he said, he had arranged to bring out of retirement to help us.He told me that he had experience in finding documents; he thought he would beof help to us.

I was not told of Joannides' background with the DRE,a focal point of the investigation.

Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness whowould have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. Hewould never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrievedocuments. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was thepoint of contact between the Agency and DREduring the period Oswald was in contact with DRE.

That the Agency would put a "material witness" in as a"filter" between the committee and its quests for documents was aflat out breach of the understanding the committee had with the Agency that itwould co-operate with the investigation.

The committee's researchers immediately complained to me that Joannides was, infact, not facilitating but obstructing our obtaining of documents. I contactedBreckinridge and Joannides. Their side of the story wrote off the complaints tothe young age and attitude of the people.

They were certainly right about one question: the committee's researchers didnot trust the Agency. Indeed, that is precisely why they were in theirpositions. We wanted to test the Agency's integrity.

I wrote off the complaints. I was wrong; the researcherswere right. I now believe the process lacked integrity precisely because of Joannides.

For these reasons, I no longer believe that we were able to conduct anappropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald.Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion, the Agencymay well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could well be that itmaterially understates the matter.

What the Agency did not give us, none but those involved in the Agency can knowfor sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. Thelaw has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, youmay reject all of his testimony.

I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further thanI can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity.

We now know that the Agency withheld from the WarrenCommission the C.I.A.-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known ofthe plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agencyunilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth,which will now never be known.

Significantly, the Warren Commission's conclusion that the agencies of thegovernment co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have beendesigned to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain anyinformation that might adversely affect the Agency.

Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication anddissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people.

Period. End of story.

I am now in that camp.

(G. ROBERT BLAKEY, House Select Committee on Assassinations, ChiefCounsel,

2003Addendum to his 1993 "Frontline" documentary interview)

Edited November 20, 2011 by William Kelly