Jump to content
The Education Forum

Can Robert Blakey help us out here?


Lynne Foster
 Share

Recommended Posts

I got interested in the assassination of John F. Kennedy through reading Dorothy Killgalen's work, and when I compare her insight to that offered by Mr. Blakey and others who are supposed to have a better grasp of the Kennedy assassination investigation, I am left disappointed.

I have noticed that Mr. Blakey is a member of this forum, and I am wondering whether he can comment on those who suggest that the truth about the Kennedy assassination has been blocked by deliberate and understandable stonewalling. In particular, I highlight this website as a point of reference:

http://www.geocities.com/matwilson_2000/ch11.htm

On the surface, like most free, amateurish websites , one can call the above a conspiracy website, but in terms of content [the cold, hard facts] it appears to be very reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article suggests that those who disagree with its version of the assassination should be charged with obstruction of justice.

This argument is as logical as the argument of Ira Einhorn that the CIA framed him for murder.

Lynne, I suggest you instead read the article by Forum member David Talbot, that appeared in Salon magazine, "The Man Who Solved the Kennedy Assassination."

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article suggests that those who disagree with its version of the assassination should be charged with obstruction of justice.

This argument is as logical as the argument of Ira Einhorn that the CIA framed him for murder.

Lynne, I suggest you instead read the article by Forum member David Talbot, that appeared in Salon magazine, "The Man Who Solved the Kennedy Assassination."

If there are people who are still covering up the truth, that may not be a bad idea.

But that's not my interest here. As I understand it, Mr. Blakey knows a great deal about the Mafia connection, and I have read that the American Mafia was merely the gopher in the plot to assassinate JFK.

The unreliable blunderers who had failed to assassinate Castro were reduced to being a chaffeur for French sharpshooters who were ushered in and out of the US to maintain a "traceless" assassination.

The obsessive need to keep the hands of the American Mafia clean was spelled out in the following website:

http://geocities.com/mobaster/corsican.htm

Can Mr. Blakey talk about this possibility?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blakey served as chief counsel and staff director to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1977 to 1979). In this role he led the investigation into the assassination of JFK. In the published report Blakey argues that "four shots, over a total period of 7.91 seconds were fired at the Presidential limousine. The first, second and fourth came from the Depository; the third from the Grassy Knoll."

The HSCA report concluded that the "scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy." It added that "on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."

In books published in 1981 and 1993 Blakey argued that he believed Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the gunman who killed JFK and that Mafia boss, Carlos Marcello, organized the assassination. In a recent email to me Blakey claimed that despite problems with the acoustical evidence he was still convinced that at least two gunmen killed JFK.

In November 2005, Blakey is due to give a talk in Washington on the assassination entitled "Second Thoughts". I have heard via someone involved in the organization of this conference that Blakey is now concerned that the CIA might have been someway involved in the assassination. This is connected to new evidence about George Joannides. It is now known that in 1963 Joannides worked closely with the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE), a militant right-wing, anti-Communist, anti-Castro, anti-Kennedy, group. This was a group that Oswald was in contact with in New Orleans in August 1963. Interestingly, in 1978 Joannides served as the CIA's liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Over the last two years Blakey has campaigned for the CIA to release the files concerning the activities of Joannides. It is now believed that in 1963 Joannides was involved in a conspiracy to link Oswald with the government of Fidel Castro.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blakey served as chief counsel and staff director to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1977 to 1979). In this role he led the investigation into the assassination of JFK. In the published report Blakey argues that "four shots, over a total period of 7.91 seconds were fired at the Presidential limousine. The first, second and fourth came from the Depository; the third from the Grassy Knoll."

The HSCA report concluded that the "scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy." It added that "on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."

In books published in 1981 and 1993 Blakey argued that he believed Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the gunman who killed JFK and that Mafia boss, Carlos Marcello, organized the assassination. In a recent email to me Blakey claimed that despite problems with the acoustical evidence he was still convinced that at least two gunmen killed JFK.

In November 2005, Blakey is due to give a talk in Washington on the assassination entitled "Second Thoughts". I have heard via someone involved in the organization of this conference that Blakey is now concerned that the CIA might have been someway involved in the assassination. This is connected to new evidence about George Joannides. It is now known that in 1963 Joannides worked closely with the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE), a militant right-wing, anti-Communist, anti-Castro, anti-Kennedy, group. This was a group that Oswald was in contact with in New Orleans in August 1963. Interestingly, in 1978 Joannides served as the CIA's liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Over the last two years Blakey has campaigned for the CIA to release the files concerning the activities of Joannides. It is now believed that in 1963 Joannides was involved in a conspiracy to link Oswald with the government of Fidel Castro.

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

a thought:

from : http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca...10_AC_9_DRE.pdf

The DRE chief of military operations, who also infiltrated

into Cuba prior to the Bay of Pigs invasion and told the cominittee

that the Cuban underground believed it had the total backing

of the United States. By March 1961, however, one leader testified

that the underground realized the invasion would be a failure, because

the U.S. Government had failed to perform even before the invasion.

"It never got us the supplies it promised and never did, the

things it was supposed to do," he claimed. Another leader was

also upset about Agency performance and once wrote to friends

threatening to kill CIA personnel if anything ever happened to one

person as a result of Agency bumbling. The DRE chief of military

operations told the committee lie thought the invasion was designed

to fail and that it was only conceived to relieve the pressure

building in the anti-Castro exile community.

Perhaps the CIA tie in is a complicated one. They would wish to neutralise this threat while maintaining an anti - communist stance. Perhaps Oswald here, with supposed Communist sympathies is tied to anti castro groups by judicious releases that serve the purpose of seeding doubt all around. The anti communists are provided with a focus and the pro castros are provided with a focus and the attention on the CIA is diverted. 'Divide and rule'?

A further thought:

I think the reality is a realisation that the anti castro moves were doomed because cubans basically supported castro may have led to a percieved need to explain coming failure and to resuscitate the counter revolution. Again the bluster about killing CIA agents if invasion failed may be a preperation for pressing further anti castro CIA ops. The CIA while sympathetic to anti communist action would not want to be dictated to. Again 'divide and rule'

(a side note : Julius Caesar said Divide and Rule, not, as is often misquoted, 'Divide and Conquer', a minor point perhaps? In the moment of being able to generate division amongst ones enemies or those one wishes to control, one is to some extent in advantage situation. To stay in 'advantage' one only needs to keep opponents squabbling amongst themselves.)

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...