Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files

[Jon Banks]

Why was Dulles allowed to be part of the Warren Commission?


From page 32 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens:

“Johnson had asked Robert Kennedy to suggest possible commission members from the private sector. Kennedy proposed Allen W. Dulles, the former CIA director, and John J. McCloy, the former president of the World Bank. President Johnson agreed.”

I don't see how that debunks the facts that Allen Dulles was biased and had a conflict of interest.

Of course RFK had his own motive for participating in the cover-up. He didn't want information about the CIA's anti-Castro plots to surface during the investigations. Some of the plots RFK himself oversaw.

Dulles clearly tried to divert speculation away from the CIA, an organization that he had a relationship with even after Kennedy fired him. 

[Charles Collins]

I don't see how that debunks the facts that Allen Dulles was biased and had a conflict of interest.

Of course RFK had his own motive for participating in the cover-up. He didn't want information about the CIA's anti-Castro plots to surface during the investigations. Some of the plots RFK himself oversaw.

Dulles clearly tried to divert speculation away from the CIA, an organization that he had a relationship with even after Kennedy fired him.

I answered your question. Debunking your opinions wasn’t intended.

[John Iacoletti]

Ironically, the next time I saw something like this “clearly exclude” standard was in the final report of the House Select Committee in 1979, which used the equally unacceptable phrase “evidence does not preclude,” in its misguided denunciation of our work.

The WC used the “does not preclude” argument several times, for example with the fiber evidence, the rifle in the backyard photos, and the Tippit bullets.

[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 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.


My third response to this comment:

From pages 295-297 of “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens:


Ruby’s testimony before the commission and a possible polygraph examination did not affect Griffin’s assessment of his investigative mission. For Griffin, many details still required follow-up. Both Rankin and Redlich participated with me in the discussion about the need for further investigation in the Ruby area. I wanted to be certain they understood the extent of the investigative effort to date, the strongly expressed conviction of Hubert and Griffin that much additional effort was needed, and that the investigation involving Ruby’s background, associations, and actions over the weekend of November 22 to 24 required more time and effort than we had anticipated earlier. I confess that, as a matter of bureaucratic self-interest, I did not want to be the sole decision maker on what needed to done in the Ruby area as contrasted with what might be done.

 Griffin now had the assistance of Murray Laulicht, a recent graduate from the Columbia University School of Law who was recommended to me by a Justice Department friend. Rankin hired him with the initial thought that Laulicht would serve as his law clerk. But, in light of Hubert and Griffin’s complaints about a lack of manpower, we decided to assign Laulicht to work exclusively with them. His work was excellent. He brought fresh eyes to problems that Hubert and Griffin had been working on for months. Griffin particularly welcomed his arrival because Hubert would have limited future availability for our work.75

 Hubert told Rankin that he could not remain with the commission “on a permanent-duty status” after June 3, though he was prepared to return to Washington on weekends or to go to Dallas if necessary. In a handwritten note to the commission staff on June 5, Hubert advised all of us of his need to return to New Orleans and said: “I cannot leave however without saying to all of you that I have never been associated with a group of people as able and dedicated as this group.” Later in June, Rankin took advantage of Hubert’s offer, and asked him to obtain the testimony of twenty-two additional witnesses in Dallas.76

 I asked Griffin on June 1 to give me every investigative request he believed was necessary to complete his investigation. He and Hubert agreed to do so with the qualification that additional requests might be required due to future developments in Ruby’s criminal case. Their investigative requests to the FBI—more than 30 in number—began arriving on June 1 and kept flowing through the full month. Some were very small—like Griffin’s desire to follow up on the deposition of Hyman Rubenstein (Ruby’s brother) about an allegation that Ruby years ago had attempted to hit a person with a chair who made a derogatory remark about President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Some were more involved—such as a request for a review of the arrest records and summaries of FBI reports about any alleged criminal or subversive activities of ten acquaintances of Ruby and an exploration of a 1959 FBI report describing Ruby as a “known Dallas criminal.”77

 In their entirety, these requests reflected a prodigious effort by Griffin to supervise an investigative effort that met his professional standards and to be prepared to draft portions of the commission’s report with a high level of confidence in the facts. No lawyer on the staff worked more diligently or thoughtfully than Griffin.

[Charles Collins]

The WC used the “does not preclude” argument several times, for example with the fiber evidence, the rifle in the backyard photos, and the Tippit bullets.

It amazes me that instead of trying to support earlier statements that were made (ie: suggesting that a thorough investigation of Ruby wasn’t made), y’all are constantly trying to change the subject.


I don’t know the context of the statement by the HSCA that Willens is objecting to. But here is the next paragraph from his book “History Will Prove Us Right”:


Either because they agreed with me on the merits, or to placate me, Hubert and Griffin produced a second version of the May 14 memo, in which the offending sentence was modified to read that “evidence should be secured, if possible, to affirmatively exclude [the same three possibilities].” Either version of the investigative goal, of course, would support an aggressive investigation of leads bearing on these questions. But the second formulation suggested that, at some point, the investigation of these (or similar) questions would permit reasoned judgments as to whether such conspiratorial relationships existed even if they had not been “clearly excluded.” The question of “what is enough” is raised regularly in the practice of law, and it was becoming of paramount importance to the commission as our staff moved from the investigative stage to drafting the report.81


It is the underlined words “reasoned judgements” that you seem to have a problem understanding. When the WC used the “does not preclude” arguments were they calling for a conclusion or simply suggesting reasoned judgements? Same question for the context in which the HSCA used the term.

[John Iacoletti]

It amazes me that instead of trying to support earlier statements that were made (ie: suggesting that a thorough investigation of Ruby wasn’t made), y’all are constantly trying to change the subject.

I didn’t make the previous statement.

It is the underlined words “reasoned judgements” that you seem to have a problem understanding.

I understand it perfectly. One person’s “reasoned judgment” is another person’s wild-ass guess.

[Charles Collins]

I didn’t make the previous statement.

I understand it perfectly. One person’s “reasoned judgment” is another person’s wild-ass guess.

I understand it perfectly. One person’s “reasoned judgment” is another person’s wild-ass guess.


You quite obviously don’t grasp the concept….   

[Jon Banks]

It amazes me that instead of trying to support earlier statements that were made (ie: suggesting that a thorough investigation of Ruby wasn’t made), y’all are constantly trying to change the subject.

The Warren Commission didn't make a good faith effort to investigate conspiratorial evidence in the Kennedy assassination.

Facts are facts and none of the quotes you've posted changes that view which is shared by most people.