Bilis challenges the propriety of the willful blindness instruction on two grounds. Bilis points to the fact that he voluntarily met with officers of the WPD to discuss the issue of drug dealing in his bar. Bilis claims that this visit, by itself, wholly negates the possibility that he lacked knowledge of the drug activities in the bar. With respect to Bilis's first argument, we conclude that his 1996 visit to the WPD did not preclude the giving of the willful blindness instruction. Bilis disclaimed any specific or definite knowledge of drug activities or dealers.
Speculation is one thing.
Knowing is a different thing. We conclude that Bilis's denial of specific or definite knowledge satisfies the first prerequisite for the giving of the willful blindness instruction. Bilis's second argument fares no better. Bilis's own testimony clearly supports the inference that he purposely avoided learning details about the drug dealing in the bar. This testimony clearly supports the inference that Bilis purposely avoided learning about the drug dealing taking place in his bar.