Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files

[John Iacoletti]

Yeah, they wanted to hear from as many witnesses as they could find and then ignore or discredit the ones that didn’t comport with the predetermined conclusion.

[Charles Collins]

Yeah, they wanted to hear from as many witnesses as they could find and then ignore or discredit the ones that didn’t comport with the predetermined conclusion.

Thanks for your “opinion”. I prefer the opinion of someone who was actually there and involved with the day to day activities of the WC.


From pages 132-133 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens:


With respect to Warren’s interest in a “clean record,” I do not believe that any of our lawyers curtailed their interrogation of a witness in order to avoid any conflicts in testimony. None of us took Warren’s comment as a directive that our investigation—or interrogation of witnesses—should be conducted to avoid full and truthful testimony from all our witnesses that might create inconsistencies in the record. It would have been unprofessional to pursue such an objective and impossible to achieve it; and the record we produced and made public illustrates that we did not do so. It is certainly true, however, that Warren, like a presiding trial judge, urged several of our lawyers on occasion to move on to another area of examination when he thought that a particular subject had been sufficiently explored.

[Charles Collins]

In no particular order:

- I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.

- I would've informed the Warren Commission members about the CIA-mafia plots against Castro.

- I wouldn't have discouraged US intelligence officials in Mexico City from investigating what Oswald did there and the people he allegedly was seen with.

- I wouldn't have waited til the very last minute to look into the Sylvia Odio-Oswald story and wouldn't have tried to discredit Ms. Odio who only reluctantly came forward to cooperate with investigators because she was scared.

- I would have tried to better explain the discrepancies between the accounts of Kennedy's wounds between the dozens of witnesses and autopsy photos. For example, many witnesses between Parkland and JFK's autopsy in Bethesda claimed that he had an exit wound in the back of his skull that isn't visible in his autopsy photos.

- I would've tried to resolve the numerous broken chain of custody problems with the evidence from the crime scenes. (The Book Depository and Dealey Plaza) 


That's a short list. I could go on.

The bottom-line is, the Warren Commission was a politically driven attempt to obscure the truth about the Kennedy assassination because our leaders at the time feared the national security or political consequences of JFK's murder being the result of a conspiracy.

Even if they ultimately got it right, that Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy, most people won't be satisfied with their conclusion because it's clear as day now that several government agencies engaged in a cover-up

I will respond to your individual comments in no particular order and usually in separate posts. Here is my first response to one of them:

I would've informed the Warren Commission members about the CIA-mafia plots against Castro.


This was a decision apparently made by the CIA. I don’t believe that it would be fair to blame the WC for this. Here is some of what Willens had to say about it. From pages 156-157 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens:


Moving to what I assumed would be a contentious subject, we discussed the failure of the CIA to comply fully with some of the commission’s recent inquiries regarding pre-assassination documents in the CIA files on Oswald. Helms, one of the most fluent and self-confident government officials I ever met, exhibited not the slightest embarrassment at our complaint about his agency’s failure to comply fully with our request. He smoothly explained that the agency had not provided materials that utilized confidential communication techniques and revealed confidential sources. I responded that the commission did not need to know these confidential aspects, but it certainly needed more than the summaries provided by the earlier CIA memorandum. After some discussion, we reached a compromise that required the CIA to provide the commission with a paraphrase of any message or other writing requested by the commission, the original version of which would reveal a confidential source or confidential communications technique, and the commission staff would be permitted to review the actual messages to ensure that the paraphrases were complete and accurate.57

Having met with CIA representatives on several occasions over the past two months, I was impressed with their competence and apparent willingness to cooperate with the commission. They were always polite, seemingly accommodating when we requested information, and respectful of the commission’s obligation to conduct a thorough investigation of the assassination. I thought it might be “because they do not have any special axe to grind” in our investigation. As it turned out, I could not have been more wrong. The CIA had huge interests at stake in our efforts. As was revealed by congressional investigations in 1975–76, they were determined to keep extremely important information from the commission. We never knew that, among other things, the agency had been busying itself with various plots to assassinate Castro during 1960–63, including one plan scheduled to be implemented on November 22, 1963. Helms knew all about this as he looked at me across the table and promised full cooperation in providing any information that might be relevant to our work.58

Another investigation (of the CIA itself) uncovered the plots years later. Ironically, it was David Belin’s efforts that uncovered them. You can read all the details in Belin’s book “Final Disclocure”.

[John Iacoletti]

Thanks for your “opinion”. I prefer the opinion of someone who was actually there and involved with the day to day activities of the WC.

Of course you do. It’s not at all remarkable that Willens thought they got it right.

[Jon Banks]

Of course you do. It’s not at all remarkable that Willens thought they got it right.

Exactly. What else is he expected to say about the investigation? His reputation and legacy is on the line.

I have more respect for those who argue that the lone-nut theory was correct even if the investigations were botched than for those who are still in denial about the Warren Commission and other investigations.

Warren Commission members, Hale Boggs and Richard Russell, were two of the Commission members who were critics of the Warren Report. Funny how Charles hasn't mentioned them.

On Hale Boggs and Richard Russell:

"Although they praised the Warren Commission report in the media, many government leaders had serious misgivings about its findings. Commission member Richard Russell reluctantly signed the Warren Report even though he could not rule out the possibility of a conspiracy, and he later admitted to having “lingering dissatisfaction” with many of its conclusions. Congressman Hale Boggs had similar doubts about the report, in particular the “single bullet theory”—the argument that one shot had stuck both President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally.

Lyndon Johnson remained in lock step with the Warren Commission’s findings for most of his career, but he privately disagreed with the single bullet theory and reportedly believed that the Cubans had engineered the assassination. Likewise, President Kennedy’s brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, publicly commended the Warren Report even though he suspected a conspiracy had taken place."

https://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-warren-commission

[Charles Collins]

If you don’t want to know if there was a conspiracy due to the national security implications or other possible reasons, you start with the narrative that Oswald was a “lone-nut” and ignore all information that points to other possible explanations.

As John noted, that’s what every government investigation of the Kennedy assassination except the HSCA did.

…you start with the narrative that Oswald was a “lone-nut” and ignore all information that points to other possible explanations.

As John noted, that’s what every government investigation of the Kennedy assassination except the HSCA did.


Yet the opposite of your claim can be seen in the work of the WC. Why anyone who actually looks into the details of the WC’s work would make a claim like yours is beyond comprehension of a sane mind. Here’s an example in a first response to one of your claims:


I wouldn't have ignored or downplayed Jack Ruby's relationships with organized crime, the FBI, and the Dallas PD. I would've looked into who Ruby was calling and meeting with in the weeks leading up to the weekend of Kennedy's assassination and his murder of Oswald.

A quote from pages 199-201 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens:

As a general matter, the lawyers taking the depositions were getting what they wanted from the witnesses—a greater degree of certainty about tentative conclusions, elaboration in areas that had not been fully developed by the agencies, and leads that prompted further depositions and new investigative requests. A memo from Hubert evaluating the results of the depositions that he and Griffin had taken in Dallas provided a good example. They wanted evidence regarding Dallas Police Department planning for Oswald’s security and the transfer from the jail, and possible complicity of any department official in his death. He and Griffin also searched for evidence about Ruby’s entry into the basement on that Sunday morning. This evidence might show that Ruby had lied on this subject and had conceived a plan to kill Oswald, which in turn would trigger further investigation as to who might have known of, or participated in, his plan.52

Based on the interviews of thirty-seven police officers, Hubert reported that the department’s security precautions when Oswald was in custody were seriously deficient. There were no plans for his transfer until the morning of November 24; and the plans announced on that date were not coordinated and were changed at least once. However, based on the evidence, Hubert believed that it was improbable that any individual or group within the Dallas Police Department engaged in a plot with Ruby to kill Oswald. Further, he and Griffin found no evidence of a conspiracy to cover up the deficient security arrangements and to blame this failure upon any one individual within the department.53

As to Ruby’s entrance into the basement, Hubert’s view at this point was more cautious. He thought that the alternative best supported by the evidence was that Ruby entered by the Main Street ramp as he claimed, although two other entrances were available to him. However, three newsmen believed they saw Ruby around the jail earlier on the morning of November 24, and Hubert and Griffin planned to take their depositions.54 At the same time, the Hubert/Griffin team pursued Ruby’s possible Cuban associations. They had found evidence that Ruby had a connection with Robert Ray McKeown of Houston, who had been convicted of selling arms to Fidel Castro. They learned of a visit by Ruby to Havana with Lewis J. McWillie for about ten days in September 1959. They found some conflict in the reports as to whether Ruby made two trips, or only one, to Cuba in 1959. The team also decided to investigate seven or eight different rumors linking Ruby to Cuba to determine if Ruby had associated with underworld figures interested in overthrowing Castro and if those associations were connected to his murder of Oswald.55

 They followed up with investigative requests to the FBI two days later, including a request to the FBI to investigate thirty-eight people identified as associates of Earl Ruby, Jack’s brother, based on an Internal Revenue Service analysis of his telephone calls during the course of an IRS tax investigation. In early April, Hubert and Griffin planned to take an additional thirty-two depositions, most of them in Dallas, including people believed to have information regarding Ruby’s presence at the Dallas police headquarters on November 24 and others with knowledge of his personal history and relationships.56

[John Iacoletti]

And then they just declared that the cop watching the ramp was “mistaken” when he said nobody came down because it conflicted with their desired result.

[Jon Banks]

And then they just declared that the cop watching the ramp was “mistaken” when he said nobody came down because it conflicted with their desired result.

They did that sort of thing with almost every witness whose testimony didn’t fit into their narrative.