Blakey and Joannides

[W. Tracy Parnell]

JFK File expert Robert Reynolds and I take a look at Blakey's Joannides claims through the years:

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2025/06/jfk-file-expert-skeptical-of-blakeys.html

[Tom Graves]

JFK File expert Robert Reynolds and I take a look at Blakey's Joannides claims through the years:

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2025/06/jfk-file-expert-skeptical-of-blakeys.html

Blakey was flaky.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

JFK File expert Robert Reynolds and I take a look at Blakey's Joannides claims through the years:

https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2025/06/jfk-file-expert-skeptical-of-blakeys.html

There sure seems to be a lot of historical revisionism going on here on the part of Hardway and Blakey. I'm not surprised Hardway is doing it; he's a full throated conspiracy advocate and once that fever takes hold it's hard to break. You spend decades of your life endorsing one and it's difficult to reverse course. Blakey's rewriting of what happened re Joannide and the DRE is puzzling. He appears to be taking it, rightly or not, personally. In any case, Morley's "Oswald Operation" claim seem to be behind both of these changes.

Just to note again: None of this gets us to Dallas, does it? To Dealey Plaza at 12:30 on November 22, 1963? It's all "Joannides here and Angleton there" but none of it is connected to who shot JFK from that window in the 6th floor of that warehouse/bookstore. Who believes a complete stranger carrying a large package walked unnoticed and went to that floor, shot JFK, and left unnoticed? Disappearing gunman? Okay, so Oswald was used in a counter intelligence operation to embarrass the FPCC. Then what? How does that get us to Dallas? The CIA lied, they had a motive, therefore they killed JFK? Sorry, that's not persuasive.

Here's Hardway earlier discussing the relationship between the HSCA and CIA. This is from his piece that essentially demolished Tanenbaum's claims about questioning Phillips for the HSCA about the so-called "Hoover memo" and the MC tapes. This description is at odds with his new claims re Joannides.



"Unexpurgated access to everything we asked for." Nothing at all about Joannides giving him problems. Or anything having to do with the DRE or New Orleans. His complaint was about MC. I don't know if it's still his view - his blog seems to be dormant - but he always said that Phillips was the "Mr. Big" behind the assassination, that he controlled Oswald, the Oswald with no agency view. Now it's Joannides in the role of Phillips, I guess. It's always something in conspiracy world.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Very good analysis Steve.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Very good analysis Steve.

What's confusing here is that, as you cite, Breckingridge mentions several arguments/confrontations between the HSCA/Blakey and the CIA (himself) over how they handled the Committee's requests. It's understandable that there would be disagreements like this.

But Hardway's account (above) says the opposite; that he saw no disagreements between the two, that the CIA was cooperative until, he claims, the Mexico City investigation came up. Then Hardway mentions (but not in the Rosenbaum piece) the difficulties he had with Joannides. But that seemed to be a cultural difference and not evidence of anything sinister.

Then we have Fonzi saying that they had difficulty getting information about the DRE from the CIA. But his works - "The Last Investigation" and "Who Killed JFK?" - barely mention the DRE. There's not the slightest suspicion in his major writings about any role for the DRE in the assassination. Directly or indirectly. And where in his/HSCA's report on the DRE is there any hint of difficulties getting information? Here: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk10/hscv10b.htm.

Meanwhile, Blakey's allegations are all over the place, getting increasingly more accusatory each year.

Why do I have a weird suspicion that Oswald is somewhere watching this and laughing (that's tongue in cheek of course).

[Tom Graves]

What's confusing is that Breckingridge cites several arguments/confrontations between the HSCA/Blakey and the CIA (himself) over how they handled the Committee's requests. That's understandable.

But Hardway's account (above) says the opposite; that he saw no disagreements between the two, that the CIA was cooperative until, he claims, the Mexico City investigation came up. Then Hardway mentions (later but not in the Rosenbaum piece) the difficulties he had with Joannides.

Then we have Fonzi saying that they had difficulty getting information about the DRE from the CIA. But his works - "The Last Investigation" and "Who Killed JFK?" - barely mention the DRE. There's not the slightest suspicion in his works about any role for the DRE in the assassination. Directly or indirectly.

And Blakey's allegations are all over the place.

I can't make heads or tails out of this.

It's interesting to note that Bruce Leonard Solie (look him up), the probable KGB mole who probably sent Oswald to Moscow in 1959, hid Office of Security documents on Oswald and the JFKA from the HSCA and explained how he did it in every case. British researcher Malcolm Blunt says he was also "all over the Kennedy investigation, and all over Clay Shaw for Jim Garrison."

Scroll down to digital page 67 for one of them. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=104136#relPageId=67&search=os/srs