G. Robert Blakey

[Chris Cox]

Thanks for your support--I push on.

I wondered what you'd think at the HSCA explanation of the G2 being too well-run (files kept organized, security tight...) enterprise that a guy couldn't just waltz in and poke through the stacks. Remember from Colin's documentary the office he found the marriage license in looked real organized didn't it? I jest tho' incredibly, he found the marriage certificate.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It is possible that George Robert Blakey knows more about the assassination of JFK than anyone left alive. However, he is not talking.

According to a recent post by Gary Aguilar on Alt. Assassination, Blakey will be presenting a paper entitled "second Thoughts" at the Washington DC conference in November. I predict that his "second thoughts will not extend to admitting that he was wrong about who killed JFK or who killed J.D. Tippit, so I would not recommend that anyone cancel their Lancer reservations on the assumption that Blakey will have anything important to say.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...f12a820d6f275de

My apologies to Prof. Blakey. According to Lisa Pease's report on the Washington conference, Blakey did have some important things to say after all. I suspect most forum members will find Blakey's comments on the CIA of special interest, but Blakey has expressed these views before. What was brand new was his acknowledgement that the Neutron Activation Analysis relied on by the HSCA was "Junk Science."

QUOTE ON

In addition, Blakey had originally used the Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA), a method for testing metal composition in bullets, as the basis for saying that – despite the acoustical evidence of conspiracy – Oswald had fired the fatal shots. Now, in light of the exposes about the inaccuracies of NAA, Blakey called that “junk science.” QUOTE OFF

The significance of this is that Blakey is admitting that CE399 and the limo fragments COULD have been planted AND that the one remaining crutch for the single bullet theory has now been kicked away. For those interested in this subject please see my posts on bullet lead analysis earlier this year on alt.assassination.jfk

Here is the link to Lisa Pease's report on Consotiumnews.com

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/112205a.html

[Lynne Foster]

I would not take Lisa Pease seriously, she is a Garrison groupie.

As for Mr. Blakey, I think he represents Hoover's FBI. I don't think he can be candid, because if he is, he might open himself up to the allegation that like Hoover, he is responsible for covering up the truth about the Kennedy assassination.

If I was a prosecutor, I would charge Mr. Blakey with conspiracy to cover up the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and then, Dawn would call me her hero.

According to Lisa Peace: "Professor Blakey’s hands shook slightly as he spoke to the group gathered for dinner on Saturday night. He confessed that he had trusted the CIA too much."

Not a word about Hoover's role in setting up the Patsy, Mr. Blakey?

No wonder his hand was shaking -he was pulling of a Garrison -blame the CIA to protect Hoover's FBI.

Edited November 25, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[J. Raymond Carroll]

No wonder his hand was shaking -he (G. Robert Blakey) was pulling off a Garrison -blame the CIA to protect Hoover's FBI.

Lisa Pease (see my last post above) also reports on a most interesting presentation by John Newman. Newman points a finger at James Angleston of the CIA. Could Lynn please tell us whether this means that, if she were a prosecutor, she would prosecute John Newman along with Robert Blakey?

[Lynne Foster]

No wonder his hand was shaking -he (G. Robert Blakey) was pulling off a Garrison -blame the CIA to protect Hoover's FBI.

Lisa Pease (see my last post above) also reports on a most interesting presentation by John Newman. Newman points a finger at James Angleston of the CIA. Could Lynn please tell us whether this means that, if she were a prosecutor, she would prosecute John Newman along with Robert Blakey?

Not unless Newman was trying to protect Hoover.

Angleton is a viable suspect, isn't he? It's just Blackey's obvious obfuscation, when he is asked a question.

[John Simkin]

This statement by G. Robert Blakey made in 2003 is very interesting:

I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee. My reasons follow:

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 were crucial issues in the committee's investigation. The Agency knew it full well in 1964; the Agency knew it full well in 1976-79. Outrageously, the Agency did not tell the Warren Commission or 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 DRE files? We will never know, for the Agency now says that no reporting is in the existing files. Are we to believe that its files were silent in 1964 or during our 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 DRE should have been made available to the commission and the committee. That the information in the files and the agents who could have supplemented it were not made available to the commission and the committee amounts to willful obstruction of justice.

Obviously, too, it did not identify the agent who was its contact with the DRE at 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 a day-to-day basis was Scott Breckinridge. (I put aside our point of contact with the office of chief counsel, Lyle Miller) We sent researchers to the Agency to request and read documents. The relationship between our young researchers, law students who came with me from Cornell, was anything but "happy." Nevertheless, we were getting and reviewing documents. Breckinridge, however, suggested that he create a new point of contact person who might "facilitate" the process of obtaining and reviewing materials. He introduced me to Joannides, 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 be of 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 who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during 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 a flat out breach of the understanding the committee had with the Agency that it would co-operate with the investigation.

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

They were certainly right about one question: the committee's researchers did not trust the Agency. Indeed, that is precisely why they were in their positions. We wanted to test the Agency's integrity. I wrote off the complaints. I was wrong; the researchers were 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 an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald. Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion, the Agency may well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could well be that it materially understates the matter.

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

I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally 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 the government cooperated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

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

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

I am now in that camp.

[John Simkin]

John, why do you think the CIA "pushed" the HSCA's "mafia probably did it" conclusion on Blakey?

If you believe the CIA were involved in a disinformation campaign, why do you still believe the story they pushed to Blakey and the HSCA?

Gary Mack: “The CIA pushed a story to Blakey and the HSCA? That’s a theory, not a fact. For your information, Blakey has publicly and privately supported the HSCA conclusion of two shooters since 1979 when science proved to him that two gunmen were firing that day. Whether the acoustics ultimately stands or falls is an entirely separate matter. It is difficult for me to comprehend how his supporting a conspiracy finding plays into the CIA’s hands, as your theory posits.”

The Warren Commission attempted to convince the world that JFK was assassinated by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald. All the available evidence suggested this was impossible. Therefore Arlen Spector and Gerald Ford had to come up with the single-bullet theory. As revealed by the ARRB in 1997, Ford had to alter details of JFK’s wounds in the WC report in order to fool the public.

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

Despite the propaganda campaign of the American media, the world did not believe this story. The WC had a credibility problem. This became a serious matter when Jim Garrison began his investigation into Oswald’s activities in New Orleans. This is of course what John Whitten wanted to do in his initial CIA investigation. That is the reason Richard Helms took him off the case and handed it over to the trusted James Jesus Angleton.

It was therefore decided to change the story. Oswald did have fellow conspirators. Oswald was not the only gunman. The assassination of JFK was now to be blamed on the Mafia. This is a story that the American public would want to believe. This would enable them to have faith in the American political system.

Richard Billings, who worked for Henry Luce, had played an active role in the CIA’s Operation Tilt, an attempt to get JFK removed from office in 1962, was sent to infiltrate Garrison’s investigation (as was Bernardo De Torres and Gerry Hemming).

In January 1967, Billings arranged a meeting with Garrison. Billings told Garrison that the top management at Life Magazine had concluded that Kennedy's assassination had been a conspiracy and that "his investigation was moving in the right direction". Billings suggested that he worked closely with Garrison. According to Garrison "The magazine would be able to provide me with technical assistance, and we could develop a mutual exchange of information".

Garrison agreed to this deal and Billings was introduced to staff member, Tom Bethal. In his diary Bethal reported: "In general, I feel that Billings and I share a similar position about the Warren Report. He does not believe that there was a conspiracy on the part of the government, the Warren Commission or the FBI to conceal the truth, but that a probability exists that they simply did not uncover the whole truth." Billings managed to persuade Bethal that Clay Shaw was innocent. Later it was revealed by W. Penn Jones that "Bethal made the entire trial plan, a complete list of State's witnesses and their expected testimony and other materials available to the Shaw defense team."

Billings attempted to persuade Garrison that Carlos Marcello and the Mafia were behind the assassination of JFK. Garrison did not believe the story. His investigation suggested that it was the CIA who had been responsible.

In September, 1967, Billings told Jim Garrison that Life Magazine was no longer willing to work with him in the investigation. Billings claimed that this was because he had come to the conclusion that he had links to organized crime. Soon afterwards, Life began a smear campaign against Garrison. It was reported that Garrison had been given money by an unnamed "New Orleans mobster".

This smear campaign helped to destroy Garrison’s credibility (in the long term it destroyed his career).

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

Despite the destruction of Garrison, the American people refused to believe the lone-gunman theory. The problem became worse in 1975 when Frank Church became the chairman of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. This committee investigated alleged abuses of power by the CIA and the FBI. His report revealed that the intelligence agencies had been involved in assassination attempts of radicals such as members of the Black Panthers. It also revealed for the first time, details of Operation Mockingbird. The CIA not only had a history of carrying out assassinations, they also had an operation that enabled them to cover-up these activities.

The result of this information being made public some politicians began calling for a fresh investigation into the assassination of JFK. In 1976, a Detroit News poll indicated that 87% of the American population did not believe that Oswald was the lone gunman who killed Kennedy.

In 1976 Thomas N. Downing began campaigning for a new investigation into the assassination of JFK. Downing said he was certain that JFK had been killed as a result of a conspiracy. He also believed that the CIA and the FBI had withheld important information from the Warren Commission.

Coretta Scott King was also calling for her husband's murder to be looked at by a Senate Committee. It was suggested that there was more chance of success if these two investigations could be combined. Henry Gonzalez and Walter E. Fauntroy joined Downing in his campaign and in 1976 Congress voted to create a 12-member committee to investigate the deaths of Kennedy and King.

Thomas N. Downing named Richard Sprague as chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Gaeton Fonzi was to later say: "Sprague was known as tough, tenacious and independent. There was absolutely no doubt in my mind when I heard of Sprague's appointment that the Kennedy assassination would finally get what it needed: a no-holds-barred, honest investigation. Which just goes to show how ignorant of the ways of Washington both Sprague and I were".

Sprague quickly assembled a staff of 170 lawyers, investigators and researchers. On 8th December, 1976, Sprague submitted a 1977 budget of $6.5 million. Frank Thompson, Chairman of the House Administration Committee made it clear he opposed the idea of so much money being spent on the investigation.

Smear stories against Sprague began appearing in the press. David B. Burnham of The New York Times reported that Sprague had mishandled a homicide case involving the son of a friend. Members of Congress joined in the attacks and Robert E. Bauman of Maryland claimed that Sprague had a "checkered career" and was not to be trusted. Richard Kelly of Florida called the House Select Committee on Assassinations a "multimillion-dollar fishing expedition for the benefit of a bunch of publicity seekers."

It was clear that Sprague was going to be someone who would be difficult to control. He was therefore removed and replaced by G. Robert Blakey. This was a wise choice as he had already developed a career out of investigating the Mafia. It would not be too difficult to persuade him that it was Carlos Marcello who was behind the assassination. However, just to make sure, Richard Billings was appointed to help Blakey carry out his investigation.

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

As Gaeton Fonzi (staff investigator) and Gary Cornwell (deputy chief counsel) have pointed out in their books on the HSCA investigation (The Last Investigation and Real Answers), Blakey was determined to blame the Mafia for the assassination and was very unwilling to explore the possibility of CIA involvement.

Blakey (and his masters) had a problem. How could he blame the Mafia for the assassination without revealing the LBJ/CIA/FBI cover-up? This is why the HSCA report did not include information on how Ford changed details of JFK’s wounds in the original report. This vital information was not disclosed until 1997 by the ARRB. Yet Blakey was aware of it during his investigation. The only way that Blakey could cover for LBJ/CIA/FBI was to claim that new evidence had emerged to show there was a conspiracy: the acoustic evidence. This enables Blakey to peddle the Mafia did it theory without any involvement of the intelligence agencies in the assassination or the cover-up.

It is therefore no surprise that this is the theory supported by Gary Mack and other disinformation agents. But it is not true. In reality, JFK was assassinated by a group of men made up of anti-Castro Cubans and CIA agents.

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

[John Simkin]

One of my contacts, who wishes to remain anonymous, has sent me this very interesting account of a meeting with G. Robert Blakey.

Robert Blakey's speech at Mt. Saint Mary's College, Los Angeles Nov. 20, 2006

After being stuck in Los Angeles traffic (what a shock), I caught the last 40(ish) minutes of an hour+ talk by Mr. Blakey. From what I could tell, the 400 seat auditorium looked almost half full and the audience appeared to be comprised of students and faculty from Mt. Saint Mary's College - both undergrads and law school students. I understand that Mr. Blakey's daughter heads up the PR department at the college. While I am merely an amateur observer, I was surprised to discover that the audience was not very well acquainted with the case.

Mr. Blakey seemed to reiterate his ongoing belief that Oswald was guilty as charged, but there had been a potential shot from the GK that missed (although the acoustic evidence was not conclusive), and a probable, but limited, conspiracy involving the Mob. He emphasized that he had never seen conclusive evidence of a conspiracy involving any US government agency, the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro, exiled Cubans, US Military, etc. , and a conspiracy could only have involved the Mafia. All very benign. He said nothing about Joannides. Nothing about his recent involvement in J. Morley's case against the CIA to release the Joannides files. Nothing about his supposed resulting distrust of CIA cooperation during his reign at the HSCA. Nothing about the Blahut incident. Nothing about any of the controversy surrounding the HSCA staff (although he did accuse Robert Groden of stealing the autopsy photos at one point). Nothing about why the Justice Dept. ignored his recommendations. At least not while I was in the audience.

Only four, unmemorable (literally) questions were asked during the Q & A session.

Immediately following, I attended a reception for Mr. Blakey on the campus at the Doheny Mansion - which is beautiful. I waited until the crowd began to disperse before approaching him to ask a few questions. But a few hangers on who probably had the same idea, allowed me only enough time for three questions (in non-researcher form, I'm sure).

1. I asked if someone had indeed taken a shot from the GK, and missed (as he had suggested), where did he think the bullet went? He responded with a bit of a smile and he said, "It's probably still on it's way to Houston."

2. I asked how he felt about the recent court ruling against Mr. Morley, on behalf of the CIA re: turning over the Joannides files. He shook his head and looked disappointed before responding, "The judge was a Republican."

3. I asked about his infamous HSCA Nondisclosure Agreement (which has always interested me) - he didn't hesitate to respond that the agreement was absolutely not enforceable in perpetuity. He firmly stated that it had applied only to the life of the committee, and ended after it had disbanded. He added that he couldn't understand how such a simple issue had been twisted around by researchers, the press, etc. through the years.

That was it. No time to follow up, as his daughter whisked him away. All very benign.

[William Kelly]

Thanks for that report John,

I think I saw the text of GRB's talk on line.

I thought Mt. St. Mary's College was in Maryland?

The only way to spice up Blakey's take would be to put him together with Ali G.

BK

[Antti Hynonen]

William Kelly Posted Dec 3 2006, 04:49 AM

Thanks for that report John,

I think I saw the text of GRB's talk on line.

I thought Mt. St. Mary's College was in Maryland?

The only way to spice up Blakey's take would be to put him together with Ali G.

BK

Mount St. Mary's College, LA, CA.

Mount St. Mary's University, MD.

[William Kelly]

William Kelly Posted Dec 3 2006, 04:49 AM

Thanks for that report John,

I think I saw the text of GRB's talk on line.

I thought Mt. St. Mary's College was in Maryland?

The only way to spice up Blakey's take would be to put him together with Ali G.

BK

Mount St. Mary's College, LA, CA.

Mount St. Mary's University, MD.

Thank you Antti,

I didn't know about LA.

If they ever play in basketball, take Maryland.

There are a few real news reports covering the event.

BK

[John Simkin]

In his article "The Man Who Did Not Talk" Jeff Morley has this to say about Blakey and Joannides:

http://www.playboy.com/magazine/features/jfk/jfk-page01.html

Perhaps the single most intriguing story to emerge from the JFK files concerns a career CIA officer named George Joannides. He died in 1990 at age 67, taking his JFK secrets to the grave in suburban Washington. His role in the events leading up to Kennedy's death and its confused investigatory aftermath goes utterly unmentioned in the vast literature of JFK's assassination. Vincent Bugliosi's otherwise impressive 1,600 page book debunking every JFK conspiracy theory known to man mentions him only in an inaccurate footnote. In 1998, the Agency declassified a handful of annual personnel evaluations that revealed Joannides was involved in the JFK assassination story, both before and after the event.

In November 1963, Joannides was serving as the chief of psychological warfare operations in the CIA's Miami station. The purpose of psychological warfare, as authorized by U.S. policymakers, was to confuse and confound the government of Fidel Castro, so to hasten its replacement by a government more congenial to Washington. The first revelation was that Joannides had agents in a leading Cuban student exile group, an operation code-named AMSPELL in CIA files. These agents had a series of close encounters with Oswald three months before JFK was killed.

The second revelation was that the CIA's Miami assets helped shape the public's understanding of Kennedy's assassination by identifying the suspected assassin as a Castro supporter right from the start.

The third revelation, the one that is most shocking, is that when Congress reopened the JFK probe in 1978, Joannides served as the CIA's liaison to the investigators. His job was to provide files and information to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. But far from being a helpful source and conduit, Joannides stonewalled. He did not disclose his role in the events of 1963, even when asked direct questions about the AMSPELL operation he handled.

When the story of the Joannides file emerged, former HSCA chief counsel G. Robert Blakey was stunned by the audacity of Joannides's deception. Blakey, a former federal prosecutor, thought the Agency had cooperated with Congress's effort to look into JFK's murder. Twenty-three years later he learned that the CIA bureaucrat ostensibly assisting his staff was actually a material witness in the investigation. "The Agency set me up," reported the Washington Post.

Blakey, now a law professor at Notre Dame, says Joannides's actions were "little short of outrageous. You could make a prima facie case that it amounted to obstruction of Congress, which is a felony."

Blakey has long argued that organized crime figures orchestrated Kennedy's assassination. The revelation of Joannides's unknown role has given him second thoughts about the CIA's credibility.

"You can't really infer from the Joannides story that they [the CIA] did it," he says. "Maybe he was hiding something that is not complicitous in a plot but merely embarrassing. It certainly undermines everything that they have said about JFK's assassination."

[Terry Mauro]

In his article "The Man Who Did Not Talk" Jeff Morley has this to say about Blakey and Joannides:

http://www.playboy.com/magazine/features/jfk/jfk-page01.html

Perhaps the single most intriguing story to emerge from the JFK files concerns a career CIA officer named George Joannides. He died in 1990 at age 67, taking his JFK secrets to the grave in suburban Washington. His role in the events leading up to Kennedy's death and its confused investigatory aftermath goes utterly unmentioned in the vast literature of JFK's assassination. Vincent Bugliosi's otherwise impressive 1,600 page book debunking every JFK conspiracy theory known to man mentions him only in an inaccurate footnote. In 1998, the Agency declassified a handful of annual personnel evaluations that revealed Joannides was involved in the JFK assassination story, both before and after the event.

In November 1963, Joannides was serving as the chief of psychological warfare operations in the CIA's Miami station. The purpose of psychological warfare, as authorized by U.S. policymakers, was to confuse and confound the government of Fidel Castro, so to hasten its replacement by a government more congenial to Washington. The first revelation was that Joannides had agents in a leading Cuban student exile group, an operation code-named AMSPELL in CIA files. These agents had a series of close encounters with Oswald three months before JFK was killed.

The second revelation was that the CIA's Miami assets helped shape the public's understanding of Kennedy's assassination by identifying the suspected assassin as a Castro supporter right from the start.

The third revelation, the one that is most shocking, is that when Congress reopened the JFK probe in 1978, Joannides served as the CIA's liaison to the investigators. His job was to provide files and information to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. But far from being a helpful source and conduit, Joannides stonewalled. He did not disclose his role in the events of 1963, even when asked direct questions about the AMSPELL operation he handled.

When the story of the Joannides file emerged, former HSCA chief counsel G. Robert Blakey was stunned by the audacity of Joannides's deception. Blakey, a former federal prosecutor, thought the Agency had cooperated with Congress's effort to look into JFK's murder. Twenty-three years later he learned that the CIA bureaucrat ostensibly assisting his staff was actually a material witness in the investigation. "The Agency set me up," reported the Washington Post.

Blakey, now a law professor at Notre Dame, says Joannides's actions were "little short of outrageous. You could make a prima facie case that it amounted to obstruction of Congress, which is a felony."

Blakey has long argued that organized crime figures orchestrated Kennedy's assassination. The revelation of Joannides's unknown role has given him second thoughts about the CIA's credibility.

"You can't really infer from the Joannides story that they [the CIA] did it," he says. "Maybe he was hiding something that is not complicitous in a plot but merely embarrassing. It certainly undermines everything that they have said about JFK's assassination."

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

"When the story of the Joannides file emerged, former HSCA chief counsel G. Robert Blakey was stunned by the audacity of Joannides's deception. Blakey, a former federal prosecutor, thought the Agency had cooperated with Congress's effort to look into JFK's murder. Twenty-three years later he learned that the CIA bureaucrat ostensibly assisting his staff was actually a material witness in the investigation. "The Agency set me up," reported the Washington Post."

Well then, I guess the C.I.A. really saw you coming when the Senate appointed you to the investigation. Too bad you had so much faith in them, even in 1978, and even after all the rotten things they'd been allowed to covertly conduct under the auspices of the U.S. gov., you still profess naivete?

Too late and a dollar short, sir.

"Blakey has long argued that organized crime figures orchestrated Kennedy's assassination. The revelation of Joannides's unknown role has given him second thoughts about the CIA's credibility.

"You can't really infer from the Joannides story that they [the CIA] did it," he says. "Maybe he was hiding something that is not complicitous in a plot but merely embarrassing. It certainly undermines everything that they have said about JFK's assassination.""

Oh yeah? Well, thank you ever so much, Mr. Blakey, for your duplicitous oversight in 1978, in helping to set back the investigation another 20 years. And, equal thanks to Mr. Morley for glossing over something the research community has been whipping to death since Johannides "apparent" suicide took place.

Edited November 23, 2007 by Terry Mauro

[Michael Hogan]

According to lasvegasweekly.com:

On November 13, attorney and Notre Dame Law professor G. Robert Blakey will discuss organized crime’s role in the JFK assassination. Blakey, an organized crime expert, drafted the RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), enacted in 1970. As former chief counsel to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, he’s recognized for his extensive investigations into the JFK assassination, and he’s the co-author of the book The Plot to Kill the President.

Blakey will appear at the Mob Museum in Las Vegas.

http://www.lasvegasw...rings-mob-mole/

[B. A. Copeland]

He trusted the CIA too much because he was possibly supposed to. I wager that he was a 'safe pair of hands'. The entire scene where Richard Sprague was replaced was a deliberate setup. There was no way that the investigation would be allowed to go forward after knowing full well the route intended by Sprague (and, which is a route we should always want in any investigation I might add) Only after the damage had been done to the investigation (and was there ever really any surprise of such an outcome?) does Blakey admit more than a decade later that he is in "that camp". Give me a break 'Blake'. He's even still pushing the old OC (organized crime) angle, or emphasizing it I see....

Edited August 22, 2012 by B. A. Copeland