Three assassinations, three cover-ups Part 1
A branch of the Congress of The United States of America has concluded that the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., were likely the result of conspiracies. A witness to the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy has come forth recently, revealing details of a second gunman, at least, in the shooting death of RFK.
Will we ever be told the truth about these murders of the American democratic spirit?
In 1979, the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) issued a final report of its three-year investigation into the assassinations of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. The HSCA conducted its hearings and investigations mostly in secret. The Committee sealed much of the evidence supporting its findings for 50 years.
The HSCA concluded in its final report that John F. Kennedy was “probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.” The Committee also concluded “there is a likelihood that James Earl Ray assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King as a result of a conspiracy.” In both cases, the Committee also found that the investigations conducted by U.S. Government agencies and departments were “inadequate.” Regarding King, HSCA went a step further: “The Department of Justice failed to supervise adequately the Domestic Intelligence Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in the Domestic Intelligence Division’s COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) campaign against Dr. King, grossly abused and exceeded its legal authority and failed to consider the possibility that actions threatening bodily harm to Dr. King might be encouraged by the program.”
Congress passed the “President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.” The “JFK Act” established the Assassination Records Review Board (AARB). The Board’s charge was to gather and release all U.S. Government records related to President Kennedy’s assassination. In the first chapter of the AARB’s final report, the Board states that the JFK Act “was a unique solution to a unique problem. The problem was that 30 years of government secrecy relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy led the American public to believe that the government had something to hide. The solution was legislation that required the government to disclose whatever information it had concerning the assassination.”
The JFK Act mandated that all assassination records be opened to the public no later than the year 2017. Government offices could continue to postpone public release of material in assassination records after the year 2017 if “the President certifies” that (1) “continued postponement is made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military, defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations” and (2) “the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”
In a 2000 final report, the Review Board stated that the Board had facilitated the release of more than 60,000 documents relating to the JFK assassination.
After years of service, key members of the House Select Committee on Assassinations and the Assassination Records Review Board voiced criticisms about the Central Intelligence Agency’s interaction with each inquiry. Both G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel to the House Select Assassination Committee, and U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim, who served on the Review Board, have stated that they no longer trust the CIA due to the Agency’s selection of George Joannides as a liaison to both boards. Joannides served as a CIA case manager in Miami at the time of Kennedy’s assassination.
In a 2003 statement, Blakey, who is now a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, wrote–
The committee focused, among other things, on (1) (Lee Harvey) 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!
. . . 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. (emphasis added)
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 . . . 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. (emphasis added)
. . . I now believe the process lacked integrity precisely because of Joannides.
. . . 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. (Emphasis added.)
Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth. (emphasis added)
U.S. District Judge Tunheim also cited Joannides’ liaison role to the AARB as justification for his belief that the CIA “probably misled” that board. According to information discovered through a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by a former editor at the Washington Post, as of October 2009, the CIA still has nearly 300 documents about Joannides it won’t reveal. The agency’s reason for refusing to release those documents: “grave” national security concerns.
Both the House Select Committee on Assassinations and the “JFK Act” were forced upon the United States Government in response to citizen outrage. Following the first public release of the “Zapruder film,” the Kodachrome film taken by Dallas resident Abraham Zapruder of the presidential motorcade through Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963—which presented visual evidence of the inconsistencies to be found in the Warren Report of the Kennedy assassination—Congress felt compelled to respond and HSAC was born. Similarly, public reaction to the Oliver Stone movie JFK compelled Congress to pass the JFK Act, which established the AARB.
The American people should not have to wait until 2017, at the earliest, for the truth that can be found at this late date about the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The collective murder of these three men silenced American liberalism’s most powerful voices and ushered in the criminally minded presidency of Richard Nixon and the Ronald Reagan presidency. The Reagan presidency, itself mired in the criminal prosecution of war in Central America and arms dealing with such terrorist-supporting nations as Iran, signaled the advent of a thirty-year reign of American conservatism which has resulted in an era now regarded as the most divisive period in American history since the Civil War.
Much of modern American history is based on lies. Those lies must be revealed.