The Warren Commission did not buy that testimony. They wanted some external corroboration for everything. So we have corroboration in the acoustics. But you can put it either way. The acoustics corroborates the eyewitness testimony. Or the eyewitness testimony corroborates the acoustics. Or that either one independently establishes two shooters in the plaza.
ABCNEWS: Why were you convinced the scientists were right about the acoustics?
Blakey: Everything that I know about what happened in the plaza gives me three shots. One misses, two hits. And I know the rough time in between them. I get the timing principally from the Zapruder film. And we can correlate the timing of the tape to the timing of the film. I take the tape of the assassination — forget the shot in the grassy knoll for a minute — what does it look like? Exactly the same. It matches.
If there had not been a shot in the grassy knoll, there would have been no controversy by the people who support the single bullet theory and the no conspiracy theory, because I would have proved with acoustics the single bullet theory. And they would have applauded.
The problem is it looks like this. There's a fourth shot, the shot from the grassy knoll, three of them fit. I have to buy the tape as a whole or reject the tape as a whole. Coincidence? Or truth? I say truth.
And if I've got three fitting, if the glove fits, convict, if the glove doesn't fit, acquit. This glove fits. If I get three, I get the fourth, too.
ABCNEWS: Are you still confident in the acoustics evidence?
Blakey: I was disturbed by the Academy Of Science study, because it tended to undermine the acoustics. Now I think that they're wrong. The more recent analysis of the acoustics indicate the probability of random noise is less than one percent, which, put another way, it's a 99 percent chance that the event that I identify as the sound from the assassination from the sound from the grassy knoll, is not random noise.
ABCNEWS: In your book you point the finger squarely at Carlos Marcello and his organization. Why would he want to kill Kennedy?
Blakey: Carlos Marcello was being subject to the most vigorous investigation he had ever experienced in his life, designed to put him in jail. He was in fact summarily, without due process, deported to Guatemala. He took the deportation personally. He hated the Kennedys. He had the motive, the opportunity and the means in Lee Harvey Oswald to kill him. I think he did through Oswald.
When I say this was a mob hit, I don't mean the national syndicate. We had, from the FBI — we being the House Select Committee On Assassinations — we got all that illegal electronic surveillance, and we studied it for a period before the assassination and the period after the assassination. We concluded that it was so good that it precluded the possibility that the National Commission was involved, but there was no electronic surveillance in New Orleans.
Oswald Assassination a Mob Hit or Kill the Killer
ABCNEWS: How central is Jack Ruby's murder of Oswald to your understanding of this case?
Blakey: To understand who killed President Kennedy and did he have help, I think you have to understand what happened to the assassin of President Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald. I see Jack Ruby's assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald as a mob hit.