Bill O'Reilly's Lies In "Killing Kennedy" Show His Assassination Book Is A Sham

It doesn't take a genius to perceive that Bill O'Reilly is a consummate liar who's been exposed in so many venues and ways it boggles the mind how he could still have a job. I mean, if Brian Williams could get six months suspension over his "misrepresentation" - on how he'd been in a chopper that was fired on by RPGs while on assignment in Iraq, how is it O'Reilly hasn't gotten suspended for a year or even fired?  Apart from media lies he's also lied about his work background, claiming to once having been a "history teacher at a Florida high school."  Well, that high school was Monsignor Edward Pace High in Miami where I graduated from, and he never taught history - he taught English.   This is important because this blowhard is trying to claim experience and background inapplicable to his "Killing" books - which are made up bollocks.

The latest lie exposed (at salon.com) concerns O'Reilly's claim (in his book, 'Killing Kennedy')  of tracking George de Mohrenschildt (then Oswald handler for the CIA), who befriended the Oswalds after they'd returned from Minsk, USSR.  In his daffy book, O'Reilly writes - regarding the death of  de Mohrenschildt - which most serious researchers take to be homicide of yet another would-be witness:

"As the reporter knocked on the door of de Mohrenschildt’s daughter’s home, he heard the shotgun blast that marked the suicide of the Russian, assuring that his relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald would never be fully understood.

By the way, that reporter’s name is Bill O’Reilly."

Now let's note first that the mistake of de Mohrenschildt   before being called for preliminary testimony for the HSCA Investigation, is that he'd already maintained Oswald had been a "scapegoat" and he'd been charged with "babysitting" him to ensure he hit the right marks at the right time for the frame up. Alas, three hours after he'd revealed the CIA had sanctioned his contacts with Oswald he was found shot to death in his daughter's home in Manalapan, FL.

Now, where was O'Reilly really? Well, 1200 miles away talking to one of the lead HSCA investigators, Gaeton Fonzi (author of the book, 'The Last Investigation' which I recommend to all interested readers). This is verified from a tape posted at one of the JFK assassination clearing houses JFKFacts.org,  .

To paraphrase Jefferson Morley: "No way could O'Reilly have heard a gunshot from 1200 miles away."  Besides which, IF O'Reilly was there it is a good bet he wouldn't be around now. Any CIA hit men taking out de Mohrenschildt    surely wouldn't have allowed any witnesses - no matter how proximate, optical or audible,  to live.

How vicious and vindictive were these CIA contract killers that took out de Mohrenschildt ? Clue one emerges after mobster Johnny Roselli had blabbed to journalist Jack Anderson how "Ruby was one of our boys and had been hired to kill Oswald". (Twyman, 'Bloody Treason', p. 386).  Of course any testimony on this score would have blown the cover story that Ruby shot Lee out of the goodness of his heart ("to spare Jackie a trial appearance") to kingdom come. It would also have fixated public consciousness on the conspiracy,  which of course could not be permitted. That would've exposed LBJ's Warren Commission for the fraud it was.

Thus it was that prospective HSCA witness Johnny Roselli had to also meet his cruel end, as described below by Gaeton Fonzi in 'The Last Investigation', p. 375:

"In July, 1976, Roselli had disappeared and in August, the month before the Committee (HSCA) was established, Roselli surfaced in the shallows off the Intracoastal Waterway in North Miami. He had been smothered to death and shot, then cut open from chest to navel. His legs had been hacked off and stuffed with his torso into a 55-gallon steel drum which was wrapped with heavy chain and moored to a weight in the water. The mooring broke when the gases from Roselli's decomposing body forced the drum to float to the surface."

Well,  the killers wanted to make damned sure there were no flapping gums. Like David Ferrie nine  years earlier, and George de Mohrenschildt  a year later, they wanted to ensure Roselli never talked. Murdering witnesses does wonders to keep a conspiracy under wraps - while moron media blabbermouths and their useful idiot lackeys keep babbling about "tin foil hats".

What does Gaeton Fonzi have to say about de Mohrenschildt? In the photo section on the 6th page (of  16 pages) we see this stock image of him:

And on the left side we read  the following:

"The Assassinations Committee discovered  that George de Mohrenschildt, a prominent Dallas social figure who mysteriously befriended a working class ex-Russian defector, had been asked by the CIA's resident Domestic Contact Agent to debrief Oswald. When Committee investigator Fonzi tracked down De Mohrenschildt in South Florida, the longtime CIA asset was found dead before he could be questioned. However, in the skewered world of Washington politics, De Mohrenschildt's sudden death was a factor in keeping the Assassination Committee alive"

How so? The answer emerges in a post-script addendum by Fonzi, referencing the date (March 29, 1977)  of de Mohrenschildt's killing and what else transpired, after he was notified by Fonzi that he was being sought to testify in the HSCA hearings:

"That evening in Washington,  with the Committee on the verge of losing a House vote for its reconstitution and funding Chief Counsel Sprague resigns. The next morning the news of de Mohrenschildt's death and Sprague's resignation produce a victory for the Committee's continuation."

Be assured this was no coincidence. While de Mohrenschildt was a key witness (who would have disclosed how Oswald was being manipulated or "sheep dipped" in Agency parlance) Richard Sprague - the original HSCA head - vowed to "dig deeply into the methods of the FBI and CIA" and also hold them to account. But as per its usual wont, the CIA began a smear campaign in the media against him  - and also rounded up useful collaborating 'whores' in the House (like Henry Gonzalez- who told the spooks to "ignore all Sprague's subpoenas") to ensure Sprague had to depart. That it occurred simultaneously (the same night) as de Mohrenschildt's death probably led Sprague to see what would also happen to him if he didn't leave. The CIA takes no prisoners, as we've beheld with their torture routines- and how their henchmen solved the Roselli problem.

You can read more of the details here:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_19.html

Take particular note in the above link of the fact that in the wake of Sprague's departure, none other than CIA "Information and Privacy Coordinator"  Jim Lawderman took control and on July 27 wrote out the terms of the CIA’s control of Blakey’s  HSCA investigation. (Mellen, J., ‘Farewell to Justice’, p. 345).  One of the terms cited was (ibid.):

“ Certain areas relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy should be entirely disregarded based upon our contention they are without merit or corroboration” (ibid.)

 

 

Thus, the CIA's overseers were effectively judging the threshold for acceptable evidence even before there was any.

NONE of this appeared in O'Reilly's book 'Killing Kennedy'. But we know what did appear were his false claims of where he was when de  Mohrenschildt met his Maker.

The CIA control meant the HSCA like the Warren Commission before it, was basically a sham, a posturing bit of showmanship to try to please and placate the hoi polloi. There was never any real intent to get at the truth - exposed when they actually managed the incredible Jedi mind trick of finding for conspiracy (95%) but also still claiming the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository. Square the circle anyone?

Fonzi himself minces no words on p. 402 of his penultimate chapter, 'Looking Beyond Conspiracy':

"This was the last investigation and it did not do the job the American people had asked it to do....there is not one investigator, not one, who served on the Kennedy task force who honestly felt he took part in an adequate investigation, let alone one 'full and complete'"

But again, the presence of CIA control had to hold a shadow over it, and fear played a role as Fonzi observed in his "Last Note", p. 410:

"If there was one point in the House Assassinations Committee investigation which showed without a doubt that the Committee did not want to open doors that would force it to face facts it did not want to face it was this: David Atlee Phillips perjury before the Committee".

So the HSCA Committee would rather let this rat perjure himself,


Than confront the CIA that put him up to it. Recall it was Phillips who was Mexico City station chief and who crafted the cables that helped to frame Oswald. As noted by Peter Dale Scott (‘Oswald, Mexico and Deep Politics’, 2013, p. 25) : “at least three show signs of CIA doctoring and the first, which does not, was nevertheless so misleading as to be possibly dishonest.” This was the cable from the Mexico City Station on Oct. 8 that claimed Oswald had appeared at the Soviet Embassy on Oct. 1, claiming  he had spoken with Valeriy Kostikov three days earlier.

Thus, our democratic reps were in fear and trepidation at the prospect of confronting the national security state - which they also had to know played the major role in Kennedy's killing (at Johnson's behest as would come out years later.)

Meanwhile, in Fonzi's mind there was never any issue or doubt on conspiracy (p. 408):

"Long before the Assassinations Committee received confirmation from the acoustic tests in Dealey Plaza, the evidence for a conspiracy was overwhelming.  And in the narrow perspective of my personal quest for substantiation, I've come to conclude that, for me, two pieces of evidence provide irrefutable evidence of conspiracy:  One demolishes the single bullet theory - the locations of the bullet holes in the back of Kennedy's jacket and shirt - hard, tangible, measurable evidence - that obliterate the possibility of a bullet emerging from Kennedy's throat and striking Governor Connolly. The other was.... the deliberate act of connecting Oswald to the assassination before the assassination."

It seems to me that if "Billo"  O'Reilly wanted to truly write a serious book on the assassination, he not only would have spoken to Fonzi in 1977 (as he did - from the tapes released), but also have gotten hold of his book 'The Last Investigation', published in 1993 and taken his conspiracy position seriously.  After all, Fonzi was instrumental in helping O'Reilly move ahead while at Miami Magazine, and even moving on to TV spots.  But then, the objective was never about telling the truth and "informing the folks" but interjecting himself into a historical aftermath that amounted to bare faced lies, and sticking with the usual official bollocks that "Oswald dunnit".


 See : This interview with Gaeton Fonzi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdCPBOHSGKk

And also my original take on O'Reilly's book:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/be-still-my-heart-oreilly-does-jfk.html

Frequently Asked Questions on the JFK Assassination: (Pt. 7): The HSCA Investigation

Why was the House Select Committee on Assassinations launched and who headed it? What general standards did they apply?

The HSCA emerged partly as a result of the widespread discontent with the Warren Commission and the demands to launch a real government  investigation independent of a biased presidential commission – when that commission itself had been compromised. (LBJ stood to benefit if indeed he had any role in passively cooperating to gain power, and his control, especially via appointments,  meant no other investigations – whether state, federal or otherwise could be started at the same time.)

The HSCA also likely grew out of the somewhat earlier (and slightly overlapping)  Church investigation of the intelligence agencies, and the massive outcry that arose when it was revealed how much leeway they had to interfere in our way of life. The Church Committee and its findings in fact prompted passage of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which purpose had been to eliminate domestic spying, for example by the CIA and NSA. This had been law up until the legislation was gutted via a 2011 re-do that legalized warrantless wiretaps by the Bush administration.

Originally heading the HSCA was a former Philadelphia prosecutor named Richard A. Sprague, and Robert K. Tanenbaum a brilliant prosecutor out of New York. Sprague, by contrast to the palsied, compromised Warren fiasco, at once set out strict guidelines, including:

 

-        No one would be hired connected to the FBI, CIA or any federal agency and gave the reason that “to do a thorough investigation, those agencies’ actions had to be part of the investigation” (Probe interview with R. Sprague, Jan-Feb, 2000, p. 17)

 

-        He vowed to “delve deeply into the methods of the FBI and CIA” (ibid.)

 

Did the Intelligence agencies /National Security state interfere as they did in the Warren Commission?

 

Indeed they did. As soon as the CIA got wind of Sprague’s criteria for investigation top Spook Richard Helms began to lobby the Kennedy family not to cooperate. They mostly ignored him.

 

As exists today, however, there were quislings, traitors and enablers in the midst of setting things up. For example, Rep. Henry Gonzalez – a Chairman of the Committee- just told the CIA to “ignore” the subpoenas issued by Sprague.  When the CIA demanded “security checks” on everyone, Sprague refused.  Tanenbaum was blunt: “I’ll be damned if they’ll investigate us before we investigate them” (op. cit.,)

 

The CIA retaliated by marshaling its media assets mainly via “Operation Mockingbird” since over 50 CIA plants were already embedded in assorted news organizations including The New York Times (Watergate investigator Carl Bernstein estimated 10 there) as well as The Washington Post. Few people are aware of these connections. Kathryn S. Olmstead in her book, Challenging the Secret Government’,1996, University of North Carolina Press, page 21, notes:

 

"Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee’s brother-in-law was covert operations Chief Cord Meyer  and Post publisher Phil Graham was a close friend of another covert operations chief, Frank Wisner. “

 

Meanwhile, the Sulzbergers (New York Times) “socialized with  CIA Directors Allan Dulles, John McCone and Richard Helms". More to the point, the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird was an ongoing project that kept any unwanted revelations off the radar.

 

 

The CIA also marshaled its congressional assets, probably resorting to blackmail or other nefarious devices. One of the CIA charges was that Sprague was  “trampling on people’s rights” – the same charge made against Jim Garrison in his own investigation.

 

Tanenbaum was notable in excavating a CIA document – an internal memo from Richard Helms’ office – that revealed how the CIA had followed, harassed and attempted to intimidate Jim Garrison’s witnesses.

 

What happened to Sprague?

As one might imagine, Sprague’s stone cojones terrified the National Security state and its overweening enablers, congressional sycophants, stooges and hangers-on.  Thus, no surprise he was forced to resign. He was replaced by G. Robert Blakey a CIA toady and “expert in organized crime” who was the one responsible for incepting the idiotic “Mafia did it” meme. (Any sensible person with any intellectual heft – who investigated this case- knew damned well the Mafia lacked the power to cover up and destroy evidence, including JFK’s suit coat, disassembling, cleaning and rebuilding the  limo, and absconding with the brain – found missing after the autopsy)

 

Blakey’s first step was to cut a deal with the CIA. In this deal, none other than CIA "Information and Privacy Coordinator"  Jim Lawderman – on July 27, 1977- wrote out the terms of the CIA’s control of Blakey’s investigation. (Mellen, J., ‘Farewell to Justice’, p. 345).  One of the terms cited was (ibid.):

 

 

“ Certain areas relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy should be entirely disregarded based upon our contention they are without merit or corroboration” (ibid.)

 

Thus, the CIA was effectively judging the evidence even before there was any. This statement in many ways is as glaring and outrageous as the terms of the document NSC-68 paving the way for perpetual war. It also explains key anomalies in the HSCA  investigation.

 

 

What were some of the anomalies revealed in the HSCA Investigation?

 

 

There were a number of them, each of which diluted the impact of the overall investigation and included:

 

-        David Atlee Phillips’ lies and manipulation tactics.  HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi is abundantly clear regarding the tactics of David Atlee Phillips (The Last Investigation, p. 336):

 

“David Atlee Phillips, former Chief of the Western Hemisphere Division of the CIA, lied under oath to the House Select Committee – and he got away with it. In its final report the Committee slipped in that fact obliquely, relegating it to a footnote. This was a devious way to cover its ass; it also illustrated the Committee’s readiness to dismiss evidence that would contradict its final report. That it disregarded Phillips' perjury confirms the Committee's tacit decision not to pursue the truth 'wherever it might lead' - especially if it headed toward the CIA. Chief Counsel Blakey had, after all, a' working agreement' with the Agency."

 

The last point makes it especially confounding to read Blakey's words (reported ca. 2001)  about being incensed at Joannides for “obstructing our investigation” , when the liar and perjurer Atlee Phillips was equally guilty.  Fonzi goes on to emphasize Phillips import (op. cit., p. 336):

 

David Phillips represented the most crucial investigative link ever developed between the Central Intelligence Agency and the assassination of President Kennedy."

 

-        The conclusion that the head (kill) shot came from the Texas School Book Depository despite the HSCA’s own acoustic tests which showed it originated on the grassy knoll (also corroborated by the Parkland surgeon’s own testimony and the actual autopsy photos.)  Thus, the weird attempt of the HSCA to "square the circle" - finding for conspiracy while retaining the original Warren Commission location for the head shot's origin. (See FAQ, Pt. 5 on why exactly it doesn't work)

 

-        The entry of the National Academy of Science team (under Norman Ramsey) to dispute and question the original findings of the MIT acoustics team – which traced 4 impulses and one to the grassy knoll – could have been at the instigation of the CIA to discredit the original finding, and thereby the original HSCA conspiracy finding. (They found it 95% probable)

 

- Major security breaches occurred right under the nose of the HSCA  investigation. Blakey attributed it to 'curiosity' but even to a naive defender, that’s stretching things.

 

Blakey subsequently called the FBI on being notified of one incident involving the autopsy photos, and they took fingerprints. Analysis disclosed a print belonging to one Regis Blahut, the CIA's security representative.  Evidently, Blahut was resolute in denying he had anything to do with it but, after three consecutive polygraph test failures, Blahut blurted to a reporter[1]:

 

"There are other things involved that are detrimental to other things."

 

Blahut's words could have been an oblique reference to the cold-blooded black ops hit on William Bruce Pitzer (Head of the Audio-Visual Unit of Bethesda Naval Hospital,) who had access to an original, unedited 16 mm film of the autopsy, as well as 35 mm slides of same, in 1966.

 

This is noted by Pitzer's associate, Petty Officer Dennis David, who worked with him at the Film Unit, in the video 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy', Pt. 6 of the Nigel Turner BBC series. (See also the book on the Pitzer Incident: Without Smoking Gun by Kent Heiner.  Interviewed, Mr. David noted that three or four days after the assassination, Pitzer had shown him in his office.

 

-   a 16mm film of the autopsy

 

-  Slides: including tissue slides and also slides showing JFK while on the table at the morgue

 

David pointed out two slides specifically, one of which clearly showed a small hole in the upper temple, and the other a large gaping hole in the back of the head. In his words:

 

"The wound was a frontal entry wound, opposed to what the Warren Commission said."

 

It makes sense then that if this evidence became available it would point the finger at government for complicity in the Pitzer hit, and Blahut’s job was to see that didn’t occur.

 

The total collective of misfires, obfuscations, manipulations and misdirection prompted HSCA Investigator Gaeton Fonzi, to write [2]:

 

“So again, our government slapped the American people in the face. We have been slapped in the face over and over and over again and we still deny it is happening to us. Why?”

 

 

Why indeed would such severe impediments be imposed to prevent an honest and forthright investigation as Richard Sprague wanted?

 

 

The obvious reason is that there was way too much at stake for the ones that killed Kennedy – a clandestine branch of our own government, embedded in the CIA. Most likely run out of CIA Staff D and the ZR/Rifle program – then mutated into Executive Action against Kennedy. People can toss up hands and put fingers in ears and sing “lalalala’ all they want but there it is! Why else forge such consistent impediments against an open investigation? The only reason would be to protect the interests, people that did it – and  who up to now have gotten away with it, including the murder of dozens of key witnesses any time a trail was revived for an investigation.  Don’t believe me? Then  look at Richard Charnin’s stats of witnesses killed around and at the time of the HSCA investigation:

 

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/

 

 

So in this sense, Fonzi is spot on correct. The clandestine interests that did it have absolutely no desire for the American people to find out. They want to keep them in La-la land believing a lone nut – who they groomed to be the decoy – was the one responsible.

Do you think there will ever be a genuine investigation that for once forges ahead and refuses to accept the defects of earlier inquires?

Well, let me put it this way: In today’s hyper-National Security state (since 9/11)  where spooks are into everything we read, see online and communicate, that has about as much chance occurring as extraterrestrials landing from Zeta Reticuli and hauling all the spooks away!  In other words, don’t hold your breath. The national security state now rules with an iron fist and all supposed leaders can do is ask “How high?” when ordered to jump.

 

---

[1] Fonzi, op. cit., p. 219.

[2] Gaeton Fonzi: 1993, The Last Investigation, Thunders Mouth Press, p. 410.