Friday, August 19, 2016

There is a new article out by a Warren Commission lawyer, Howard Willins. He's in his 80s now, and naturally, he defends what the Warren Commission did. Also listed as an author is Richard Mosk, who was also a WC lawyer. But, he died in April, so I don't know how much he contributed to the article.

I'm a little bit interested to see how WC lawyers would look back upon their conduct 53 years ago. And I'm hoping that amidst the excuses, rationalizations, and defenses, that there might be a glimmer or two of revelation that's actually worth something.

And here's one that I think is very telling: To make the case for their honesty and objectivity, Willins (and I'll assume it's him since Mosk is dead) said that, at first, he and the other staffers were skeptical of the FBI conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and they were eager to "ferret out a conspiracy that the Bureau had missed." 

This amounts to an admission that they NEVER considered the possibility that Oswald was innocent, even though Oswald declared his innocence 13x on tape, that we know of, where we can hear him ourselves. And there were plenty of grounds to consider that he was innocent. For instance, no one at the TSBD confirmed Buell Frazier's claim that Oswald walked in with a big long package. Jack Dougherty, who was right there inside the back door when Oswald walked in, vehemently and repeatedly denied it. And the very fact that they couldn't come up with anyone to verify it means something; it means that no one would. You know damn well they looked for someone. 

"Did you notice if Oswald was carrying a large, long package?"
"No, I didn't."

I wonder how many times that happened. How many people did Oswald allegedly pass on his way through that crowded building to wherever he hid his alleged rifle? And where did he hide it? It was the 6th floor, right? Don't we have to assume that? Well, there were men up there already, laying flooring. So, how did none of them see him with it? Isn't this a basis to at least consider the possibility that Oswald was innocent? But, Willins tacitly admitted that their minds were closed to that. The only thing they considered, apart from what the FBI claimed, was whether anyone else was involved or had prior knowledge of it.

Here's another gem: Willins admitted that the most important witness to the Warren Commission was Marina Oswald. Was that because she was Oswald's wife? I don't think so. In a regular trial, the wife doesn't even have to testify against her husband. She can't be forced. It his case, it wasn't officially a trial, so they got around it. But, who's kidding who? It was the show trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. 


Wait a second! Putting aside for a moment the alleged shooting attempt on General Walker, why on Earth would Marina lie about Oswald going to Mexico City? He wasn't accused of committing any crimes in Mexico City. Why would it even occur to her to lie about such a thing? She had no reason whatsoever to lie about that- not by the wildest stretch of anyone's imagination- and not even Oswald had any reason to lie about that. When you're accused of killing the President of the United States, why, in God's name, would you lie about a trip to Mexico City? He wouldn't. He couldn't. He didn't. And neither did she. Her lying started AFTER she changed her story and went along with what she was being told.  
Yes, Marina lied, Willins, but she lied to YOU in saying what you wanted to hear. And the same is true about him having shot at General Walker; she began lying when she said he did it. 

And to be thorough, Marina also, at first, said that she knew nothing about Oswald owning a rifle. So, all those "memories" of details about it came back to her later. "Oh yeah, I guess he did own a rifle." 

Willin's admission that Marina originally knew nothing about these things and only came to adopt them as her beliefs after months of full immersion among her handlers and many, many hours of intense interrogation sessions with FBI agents, is very telling.

Here's another gem: Willins admitted appealing to Chief Counsel Rankin to let another lawyer, Norman Redlichs participate in Marina's interrogation on the grounds that he had done the most prep work for it. And Rankin relented. So, who was Redlichs? He was a law professor at the New York University Law School who went on to become a dean. And I found this as a footnote on Wikipedia:

"Warren Commission staff lawyer Norman Redlich was asked by author Vincent Bugliosi in 2005 whether Specter was the sole author of the Single Bullet Theory and he said 'No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously.' When asked whom he meant by 'we', he said 'Arlen, myself, Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg.'

Simultaneously? They all came to it simultaneously? Something that never happened before or since in the history of firearms (for one bullet to transverse the bodies of two men causing 7 wounds and bursting 2 bones) and they all thought of it simultaneously? Not one of them was a firearms, ballistics, or forensic expert, and yet, they all thought of it simultaneously?

And, Willins admitted that the FBI's analysis did not include the Single Bullet Theory. So, the FBI, with its actual ballistics and forensics and firearms experts, didn't come to that conclusion, but these East Coast lawyers did. But, Willins didn't deny the reason why they "simultaneously" came up with it. It was because it wasn't realized, at first, that the first shot missed. And that used up one of the shells found on the 6th floor. So, that meant that they HAD to account for all the wounds (other than Tague's) from the two remaining rounds. 

So really, it was just mathematical necessity that drove their "simultaneous" conclusion.

Then, Willins referred to the reenactment that was done in May 1964 which he said proved the Single Bullet Theory, but let's be clear: 


And consider how easy it would be to test because the animals wouldn't even have to be living. We kill, what, a million animals a day in this country just for food? So, you set up a couple of carcasses, with comparable density and resistance, to see if there's enough firepower to penetrate that much tissue. Why, in 53 years, has this not been done?????

I'll tell you why: Because it wouldn't happen. The bullet would be stopped long before it traveled so far through so much tissue. Bullets have energy, but tissues have resistance. And, they know that, and that's why they won't test it. 

Then Willins, acting like a prosecutor giving closing arguments laid out the case against Oswald:

1. He said Oswald owned the rifle used to murder President Kennedy.

Response: No. He didn't. This presentation by John Armstrong proves that Oswald was framed for owning the rifle, just as he was framed for killing the President.

2. His palm print was on it. 

Reponse: That was claimed only after Oswald was dead. In two examinations by the Dallas Police prior to that, no such palm print was found. 

3. Ballastics experts testified that the bullets that hit the limo occupants came from that rifle.

Response: Whose experts? There are ballistics experts who claim that the fatal head shot entailed the use of a "frangible" or explosive bullet which could not have come from that rifle. Oswald was not given the opportunity to have his lawyer present his own ballistics expert to rebut the claims of their ballistics expert, which would have happened at trial.

4. Oswald's prints were found on several boxes in the area of the Sniper's Nest.

Response: Oswald worked there, and he handled boxes all day long. It would have been easy enough to see him handle a box and then pull that box aside to place in the Sniper's Nest. 

5. His previous assassination attempt on General Walker, his killing of Dallas patrolman J. D. Tippit (who stopped Oswald for questioning after he fled from the depository), his struggle to resist arrest when he was apprehended, and his many lies during police interrogation all supported the conclusion that he was the assassin.

Response: He didn't attempt to assassinate Walker; he didn't kill Tippit; and he didn't lie to police, so all you have is his struggle with police in the theater, and even that has been grossly exaggerated. Look how Officer Nick McDonald changed his story after the FBI firearms expert Cunninigham denied that the pistol backfired.  

6. Both Warren and Bugliosi said later that this evidence would have resulted in Oswald’s conviction after a two- or three-day trial had the victim not been the president of the United States. 

Response: WHAT???? A 2 or 3 day trial???? That is preposterous. How dare they say such a thing? How dare you repeat it?

Willins didn't even bring up the Doorway Man controversy. Nor, did he bring up the issue of Oswald's alibi. After all, there is no doubt that Oswald plead innocent, right? Nobody is disputing that. And, it means that he had to tell police where he was when the crime occurred.  

And keep in mind that it would happen automatically. Police would automatically ask the suspect for his alibi when he denied guilt.

"You didn't do it? OK, then where were you?

I presume people have watched enough episodes of Law and Order to know that.  

But, if somehow they didn't ask him the perp would automatically volunteer his alibi:

"What??? Me??? You think I did it? I couldn't have done it if I wanted to. I was nowhere near that place. I was at such-and-such with so-and-so."

That's how it goes down. And again: it's automatic. And, in Oswald's case, his alibi was that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." It even has the alibi format, including both a such-and-such and a so-and-so. 

Of course, Oswald was standing in the doorway during the shooting, and there is simply no doubt about it. We have photographs to prove it. 

And this latest, hapless and pathetic attempt by Attorney Willins to defend the the Warren Commission won't work. It won't silence the critics, and it won't stop the march to Oswald innocence and JFK truth which can't be stopped. It's coming, Willins. And you, like everyone else who was involved in framing Oswald, will be discredited. 


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.