Tag: SECRET SERVICE

  • Vincent M. Palamara, Survivor’s Guilt


    Vince Palamara is, with little question, the critical author who has the most knowledge of the failures of the Secret Service in their obligation to protect President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. In other fields of knowledge and information e.g. who is the most outstanding expert in the medical field, on Jim Garrison, on the HSCA etc., there is some room for debate. But very few would argue about Palamara being on first base in regards to the Secret Service.

    Well over a decade ago, Palamara put together a self-published manuscript of his work in that area. It was also called Survivor’s Guilt. By his own admission, he then burnt out on the case. He succumbed to the hype about Vincent Bugliosi’s colossal charade of a book, Reclaiming History. Impressed by the prosecutor’s reputation, the author put together a You Tube video in which he said that Bugliosi had solved the case. Thankfully, several months later, Palamara then reversed himself on the subject of Reclaiming History. He has since written some good reviews for this site on books by Gerald Blaine and Clint Hill. He also has his own blog, and maintains a site which commemorates the heroism of Abraham Bolden. So today, Palamara is back in good standing among the critics.

    The 2013 version of Survivor’s Guilt runs to about 430 pages of text. In this reviewer’s opinion, the first half of the book is rewarding, informative and well worth reading. That first half makes up one of the more distinctive efforts timed for the 50th anniversary of JFK’s murder. It is well argued, profusely and accurately documented, and is quite frank and candid about what went wrong in Dealey Plaza, and why it is hard to buy the Secret Service’s incredibly poor performance as a case of pure negligence. There are 18 chapters in the book. The first half, that is up to Chapter 9, makes up the worthwhile part of the work. So let us discuss that valuable part at this time.

    I

    Palamara begins the book with what most would think is some of his strongest material indicating a cover up after the fact by the Secret Service. In the days after the murder, there were questions as to why there were no agents riding on the rear bumper of Kennedy’s limousine at the time of the shooting. After all, this is what the specially modeled bumper is designed for. But at the time the limousine entered Dealey Plaza, there were no agents in place on the rear bumper.

    This is an important point to explore. Because if one buys the Warren Commission verdict of three shots from the rear, then having no agents on the rear of the car probably had an effect on the shooting. At the least, if they had been in place, it would have made it more difficult. The Warren Commission had questions about this also. (Palamara, p. 3) Therefore, Secret Service Director James Rowley had five affidavits prepared about their experiences with President Kennedy. As the author notes, “At first glance, all five reports appear to support the notion that President Kennedy did not want agents on or near the rear of his limousine.” (ibid, emphasis added) The five reports were allegedly done by Jerry Behn, Floyd Boring, Emory Roberts, John Ready and Clint Hill.

    The problem with this evidence is that it seems clearly coerced by Rowley. Why? Because when Palamara later interviewed many of these agents, they contradicted what they had written for the Commission. For instance, when Palamara talked to Boring, the agent said that Kennedy did not exercise control over them at all. (ibid, p. 6) Clint Hill told the author that Kennedy never told the agents not to ride on the car. But he further added that, “I had never heard the president ever question procedural recommendations by his Secret Service detail. (ibid, p. 14) In fact, earlier in the Dallas motorcade, Hill actually was on the bumper. (ibid, p. 11)

    Palamara notes other oddities about these submissions. Three of the five reports are not even on official Secret Service stationery. They are on plain typing paper. Clint Hill’s report is not even dated. Four of the five reports are based on exchanges with Boring. In other words, the agents heard this from him. Yet, as the author points out, this was later contradicted by Boring. Gerald Blaine even says there was a Secret Service meeting on November 25th, in which it was decided to cover up Kennedy’s orders not to ride on the car. As Palamara points out, this is absurd. The implication is that Rowley made some of the agents switch the blame for the Secret Service’s lack of protection to Kennedy.

    Palamara further points out the absurdity of Blaine and Rowley’s positions by mentioning the famous film of agent Donald Lawton being called off the back of the limousine by Emory Roberts as it pulled out of Love Field. Lawton memorably shrugs his shoulders in bewilderment three times as this recall. Palamara further adds that agent Henry Rybka was supposed to be in the follow up car. But, in fact, inexplicably, Rybka was left at the airport. (ibid, p. 9)

    Further, and quite compellingly, Palamara now goes to other agents ignored by Rowley. He asks them if Kennedy ever directed the Secret Service not to ride on the back of the limousine. This list of agents goes on well into the double digits. It includes people like Winston Lawson , Rufus Youngblood, and Sam Kinney. Almost none of them back up what Rowley is proffering. For instance, Kinney states, “That is absolutely, positively false … no, no, no. He [Kennedy] had nothing to do with that. No, never.” (ibid, p. 27) Arthur Godfrey said, “That’s a bunch of baloney; that’s not true.” When Palamara asked John F. Norris about the charge against Kennedy, he replied, “I would doubt that very much.” (ibid, p. 28) Jerry O’Rourke wrote to the author, “Did President Kennedy order us off the steps of the limo? To my knowledge, President Kennedy never ordered us to leave the limo.” (ibid, p. 37)

    Clearly, from this opening episode the author is implying that there was some very odd behavior by the Secret Service in Dallas. And secondly, Rowley was intent on covering it up, by any means necessary. Even if it meant he was going to blame the victim for his own death. Palamara then goes on to mention how this myth then got enshrined in the literature by writers like William Manchester, Blaine and Ron Kessler. (ibid, pgs. 19, 20) In fact, Palamara points out that fellow Secret Service agent Talmadge Bailey told him that Blaine made up the information about the November 25, 1963 meeting. (ibid. p. 23) Palamara also points out that Blaine submitted what he termed to be contemporaneous handwritten notes to the National Archives. The author then notes glaring discrepancies which indicate that these “contemporaneous notes” were obviously composed at least months, if not years later. (ibid)

    This opening chapter closes with more interesting evidence discrediting the “Kennedy ordered the agents off the car” myth. Roy Kellerman was the de facto man in charge of the Secret Service detail in Dallas. This was because, Gerald Behn, who should have been in charge on the ground, decided to take a leave at the time. Kellerman testified to the Warren Commission for two days. If Boring had actually relayed a Kennedy order to the Secret Service on this point, would not have Kellerman known about it? If that is so, then why did he not mention it during his two days of testimony? (ibid, p. 43)

    II

    In Chapter 2, Palamara notes another rather bizarre oddity about the failure of the Secret Service in Dallas.

    Most informed observers understand that Dallas was not really in Kennedy’s back pocket politically. In fact, there were many sectors of rightwing animus towards the president. And for a variety of reasons: civil rights, his failure to invade Cuba in 1961 or 1962, his attempt to lower the oil depletion allowance etc. In Miami when the Secret Service checked the security index, they came up with six pages of warnings about people like Orlando Bosch and Pedro Diaz Lanz.(p. 169) Yet, when Secret Service agents Winston Lawson and Kellerman checked the indices of the Protection Research Section (PRS) files for any threats on November 8th and 10th, none were found. Youngblood did a check on the morning of November 22nd. Again, no warnings turned up. This is astonishing; on many different levels. First of all, there was a Cuban exile community in Dallas. In fact, there was a small unit of Alpha 66 in town, one of the most high profile and militant anti-Castro groups in existence. Second, Dallas was the home of former General Edwin Walker. Kennedy had removed Walker from his command for passing out John Birch literature to his men. After this, Walker lived in Dallas. He became quite close to some extreme rightwing groups there. He was also active in the riots at Ole Miss over the entry of James Meredith, an entry which Kennedy backed forcefully. Third, a few months earlier, Kennedy’s UN ambassador Adlai Stevenson had been in town. He was reportedly spat upon and even jostled with a placard. Fourth, in November, Joseph Milteer had already told FBI informant Willie Somersett about a coming assassination attempt on Kennedy from an office building with a high-powered rifle. Why did the Secret Service not have this information in their PRS files? Or anything about the failed attempt to kill Kennedy in Chicago, which predated all three checks.

    Further, there seems to have been some last minute switches in personnel in the November trips to Chicago, Miami, New York and Dallas. For instance, although Glen Bennett was on a temporary assignment for the Presidential Protection Division (PPD), he was on the trips to Tampa and Dallas. Yet, Bennett told the HSCA he was not on this Florida trip, which was on November 18th. (ibid, p. 62) Bennett was detailed from PRS to PPD and then onto protection duty in New York, Tampa and Dallas. Tim McIntyre also denied he was on protection details in November in Chicago and Miami. Yet, he was. This is interesting because there were threats on JFK’s life in both Miami and Tampa. Therefore, PRS and the White House Secret Service detail should have been ratcheted up to the equivalent of Defcon 5 by Dallas. Especially after the (now famous) Chicago attempt on Kennedy’s life. Yet, as everyone knows, most significantly the author, nothing of the sort happened in Dallas. In fact, as Palamara is at pains to show, quite the opposite occurred. Instead of a tightening of security around Kennedy, a loosening of security occurred. A loosening so blatant and extraordinary, that it seems today to cross over into the negligent. If not worse.

    III

    In Chapters 3 and 4, Palamara details two significant aspects of the Secret Service failure in Dallas. He devotes Chapter 3 to denuding another attempt by the White House detail to blame the victim for his own murder. With ample evidence, he shows that it was not Kennedy who wanted the bubble top removed in Dallas. That was a Secret Service decision. (p. 91)

    Chapter 4 is devoted to the setting of the motorcade route. This is a key point. Because as anyone who has been to the Dealey Plaza, triple underpass site will know, the two turns made by the motorcade into the plaza, onto Houston and then Elm, created an almost ideal situation for what military assassins call an L shaped ambush. That is a slow moving target, vulnerable to snipers from concealed places at three points surrounding the target. In addition, the location allowed for easy exits since there were parking lots adjoining at least two sniper locations: the Depository and the grassy knoll. Palamara does some good and interesting work in regard to the mystery of how this bizarre, indefensible route was chosen. He states that considering the fact that agent Gerald Behn, White House assistant Ken O’Donnell and Kennedy advance man Jerry Bruno were all opposed to the Trade Mart as the dinner destination, its seems odd that it was ultimately chosen. (pgs. 98-101) As late as November 14th, there was no dogleg on the motorcade route. The route came straight down Main Street. (ibid, p. 102)

    The author makes the case that the two men who added the dogleg onto Houston and Elm Streets were Secret Service agents Forrest Sorrels and Winston Lawson. There were other routes possible, and the motorcade route was not automatically determined by the selection of the Trade Mart. (ibid, p. 103) Palamara later adds that the final route was not actually decided upon until November 20th. He feels that this change, which included the dogleg, was kept secret after being authorized in Washington by agent Floyd Boring. In a suppressed Commission document the author found, the assistant police chief, Charles Batchelor, revealed that the secrecy about this change in the route made it hard for the local authorities to furnish any help to the Secret Service. (p. 105) Another witness, Sgt. Sam Bellah told the author that the police did not know about the route change until the evening of November 21st. Bellah said the original plan did not have the motorcade pass in front of the Texas School Book Depository. Bellah said that his commander, Captain Lawrence, came to his home late on the evening of the 21st. He took him to the triple underpass to show Bellah the new route for the motorcycle advance escort, of which Bellah was a part. (ibid) Bellah said that there was never any explanation as to why the route was changed at the last moment.

    Another local policeman, Captain Orville Jones told author Larry Sneed the same thing. That the motorcade route was changed just prior to the 22nd. Jones told the author that many people he knew in the Secret Service did not approve of going through Dealey Plaza at all. There were other routes discussed which avoided the triple underpass. (ibid)

    Another witness to this strange alteration was motorcycle officer Bobby Joe Dale. Dale said that there was more than one route discussed and reviewed by the police. In fact, three had been bandied about. Dale said it was not until Kennedy’s arrival at Love Field that morning that he was alerted to what the actual route was going to be. (ibid, p. 106)

    Winston Lawson told the Warren Commission that the dogleg was necessary, “Because it is my understanding there isn’t any entrance to the freeway on Main Street.” (ibid, p. 108) But as the HSCA correctly noted, ” … the Trade Mart was accessible from beyond the triple underpass in such a way that it was not necessary to enter the Elm Street ramp to the expressway. The motorcade could have proceeded westward through Dealey Plaza on Main Street, passed under the underpass and then proceeded on Industrial Boulevard to the Trade Mart.” (ibid) In fact, this is the route that Jones thought Kennedy would take that day. As the HSCA attorney in charge of the motorcade route inquiry wrote, “Any map of Dallas in 1963 shows that it was easy to reach the Trade Mart on streets that join Main on the West side of the overpass.”

    Compounding this shockingly poor choice of a route was the fact that Secret Service protocol was then broken while it was being navigated. Two years before Kennedy’s murder, Mike Torina, Chief Inspector, stated that whenever a motorcade must slow down for a turn, the entire intersection must be checked in advance.(p. 109) That did not occur here.

    James Rowley wrote to the Commission that he had no knowledge of who actually released the motorcade route to the press. This seems another deception by Rowley. Palamara says it was Betty Forsling Harris a Dallas socialite on the local committee, who did so. She was working closely with representatives of John Connally, the Secret Service, and LBJ aide Bill Moyers. Palamara concludes that this false information was given out for purposes of plausible deniability. That is, the Secret Service could later say that the route was purposely advertised in more than one configuration to show that there was more than one option in hand. When, in reality, the Secret Service knew between November 18th and 20th what the actual route was, including the dogleg.

    This is a quite disturbing issue. In and of itself it seems simply bizarre that Lawson and Sorrels would choose this incredibly dangerous route. But then to not protect the president as he was going through this dangerous path is even more bizarre.

    Once this route was chosen, then the only way it could be made secure was by the Secret Service being supplemented by local law enforcement agents i.e. the police, the sheriff’s office, military intelligence. Again, none of this happened. According to the author, Sheriff Decker told his men not to participate in any security operations. Palamara then writes that the local Dallas police force was called off the night before by the Secret Service. (p. 118) Captain Will Fritz was supposed to commander a detail riding behind the Vice-President with rapid-fire machine guns. According to two sources, this was changed the night before. Instead, this detail was sent to the Trade Mart to protect the speaker’s stand.

    Palamara now brings in witnesses like former Eisenhower press secretary Jim Haggerty, and former agent Darwin Horn who state that supplementing the Secret Service with local police was a common practice. He then quotes Winston Lawson as denying this before the Warren Commission under oath. His specific words were, “This was not usual procedure.” (ibid)

    Palamara now makes a penultimate point about the arrangement of the motorcade. Military aide Godfrey McHugh almost always rode in the president’s car on these occasions. Yet, in Dallas, another anomaly took place. In Dallas, he was asked by the Secret Service “for the first time” to “ride in the back, instead, as normally I would do, between the driver and the Secret Service agent in charge of the trip.” (p. 119) The reason given was this would allow the president fuller exposure to the crowd. As Air Force aide, one of McHugh’s duties was to supervise Air Force One.

    Finally, the author notes that Batchelor told the Commission that he did not think any local authorities were in place below Houston Street. He then quotes William Manchester as writing, “Possibly [Police Chief] Curry’s department met its responsibilities by deciding to end supervision of Friday’s crowd at Houston and Main, a block short of the ambush … ” Manchester then added, perhaps for ironic effect, “The weakest link in downtown Dallas was Dealey Plaza.” (p. 120)

    As Palamara points out with detailed accuracy, everything about this route, from its unnecessary choice, to the lack of supporting personnel, to the violation of protocol, to the secrecy about which route was actually to be used, to the almost incredible lack of protection at its most exposed point, cried out for a thorough investigation. To put it mildly, that did not happen.

    IV

    From here, Palamara now moves to probably his most grievous charge against the Secret Service. He calls it “security stripping”. The author notes that as of November 10th, there were 18 motorcycles listed in the motorcade. Buy by November 21st, Winston Lawson had decreased the amount or motorcycles on either side of the limousine from four to two. (ibid, p. 131) At Love Field the orders were relayed for the cycles to ride to the rear of the car. Dallas policeman Marrion Baker wrote the author that he never got to the bottom of this strange order. Fellow policeman cyclist B. J. Martin said the same thing about this formation. That it was given to them at Love Field. And it was the weirdest formation he ever heard of. Martin said, “Ordinarily, you bracket the car with four motorcycles, one on each fender.” (ibid, p. 133) HSCA attorney, Belford Lawson wrote about this matter: “The question that must be answered is why the instructions were given to the officers so shortly before the motorcade…” (ibid, p. 132) In fact, two of the motorcycle cops were so far to the rear of Kennedy, that they weren’t even on the same street with him when he was shot. (ibid, p. 134)

    By way of comparison, the author compares the protection in Tampa, with that in Dallas. There it was much tighter and there were police on top of tall buildings. (ibid, p. 136) Interestingly, Lawson was the advance man on presidential visits that year to Little Rock and Billings, Montana. Those records were destroyed in 1995, after the creation of the ARRB.

    The HSCA shined a light of this issue when it wrote the following: “The Secret Service’s alteration of the original Dallas Police Department motorcycle deployment plan prevented the use of maximum possible security precautions.” It then continues with another comparison, “Surprisingly, the security measure used in the prior motorcades during the same Texas visit shows that the deployment of motorcycles in Dallas by the Secret Service may have been uniquely insecure.” (ibid, pgs. 137-38)

    Palamara now points out still another anomaly about the Dallas motorcade. There was a flat bed truck with the media aboard that was supposed to ride in front of the president’s car. Again, according to members of the press, this was cancelled at the last minute. The press was moved much further back and placed in Chevy convertibles. (ibid, p. 139) Palamara fairly poses the question: “Was the motorcade manipulated to prevent photographic records of the crime from being made.” (p. 139) Which they probably would have been if the truck was in front of Kennedy.

    The same exchange of proximity applies to the president’s physician George Burkley. Burkley said he virtually always rode in close proximity to the president. He could think of only one previous exception, the visit to Rome in July of 1963. But in Dallas, he was actually relegated to a bus at the rear of the motorcade. (ibid, p. 142) This, of course, delayed his reaction time in getting to the president. Towards the end of this discussion of the out of order cars, and passengers, Palamara then drips in another interesting tidbit. It was Lawson who was in charge of the car numbers for the motorcade. (p. 143) The author says these changes occurred somewhere between November 19th and the 22nd. And Lawson tried to pass them off to advance man Jack Puterbaugh. (ibid) But Palamara writes, Puterbaugh never made any mention of any such responsibility on his part. HSCA attorney Belford Lawson again summed the situation up well: “Why was there so much juggling around and controversy about seating at Love Field, and why was there so much constant repositioning and shuffling of dignitaries’ cars in relation to press cars during the Texas trip?” Lawson then added another tantalizing question: “Why was the [Dallas] motorcade longer than any other motorcade on the Texas trip?” (ibid, p. 144) Unfortunately, the HSCA never answered these pointed and crucial questions in anywhere near a satisfactory manner.

    From here Palamara now segues to violations of Secret Service protocol according to various manuals. A prime example was the overpass over Elm Street . It should have been cleared of bystanders. It was not. (ibid, p. 144) Buildings were not checked. Even on the dogleg through the Plaza. Buildings should have been checked in the dogleg onto Houston Street. They were not. (ibid, p. 146)According to inspector Michael Torina, agents and police officers should have been standing atop tall buildings. (p. 147) There should have been policemen facing the crowds. As they had been in Fort Worth. There also should have been military officers on hand, as they had been in San Antonio the day before. (p. 150)

    And, of course, there was the incident at the late night bar called The Cellar. This is where several agents spent the night before drinking hard alcohol. The agents stayed there until at least 3:00 AM. Some stayed even later than that. This was an obvious violation of rules of conduct since the morning call was at seven. But further, the Secret Service then hired local firemen to protect the president while they were partying. In a high-risk city like Dallas. Yet, no one was punished for this clear violation. As many have asked, how can agents react quickly and smoothly with so much alcohol in them. (pgs. 150) Palamara compares the reaction time of Johnson’s Secret Service protector, Rufus Youngblood, which was almost instant, with JFK’s which was very slow. Perhaps fatally slow. Or as former Secret Service officer John Norris stated in colorful language, “Except for George Hickey and Clint Hill, everybody else just basically sat there with their thumbs up their butts while the president was gunned down in front of them.” (Palamara, p. 152) Making this violation even worse was Hill’s comments on the later Secret Service sex scandal in Cartagena Columbia. Hill said, “There’s no tolerance at all , no room for any misbehavior in the Secret Service. There’s no loose chain. You are on the clock from the time you leave, until the time you return home.” As many know, Rowley deliberately chose not to punish anyone even though he knew about the incident.

    As the author then notes, what makes all this malfeasance even more suspicious is that there seems to be an institutional memory about it. For as Palamara notes in the book, in January of 1995, the Secret Service destroyed some records, including presidential protection survey reports for some of Kennedy’s visits in the fall of 1963. (p. 161) This was after the formation of the Assassination Records Review Board. Further, it was discovered that agent James Mostrovito did destroy documents, but he also got rid of a vial containing a portion of Kennedy’s brain. He then went on to a career in the CIA.

    The author concludes this section of the book with a look at the behavior of agent Bill Greer, the driver of Kennedy’s car. He first notes that ordinarily, the Secret Service liked to maintain speeds of at least 20-30 MPH. Which was much faster than what Dealey Plaza allowed. He also adds that, at the first shot, Greer slowed the car down. He then turned around. Kellerman shouted, “Let’s get out of here!” But Greer did not. He disobeyed a superior and turned around again. (p. 188)

    Later on, Greer and Kellerman said there was bullet expelled from the president’s body through cardiac massage. (p. 195) Further, even though agent Richard Johnsen was an important witness to the chain of possession of CE 399, he was not interviewed by the FBI or the WC. The author then makes an error in his discussion of the provenance of CE 399. He writes that Elmer Lee Todd initialed CE 399. Not so. Hoover said this happened. But his initials are not on the bullet today. Which is utterly bizarre. Palamara recovers a bit when he then writes that Dr. Robert Shaw announced that CE 399 was still in Connally’s leg, when in fact, according to the Commission it was being carried on a plane to Washington. And secondly, as Robert Harris has noted, Connally wrote that a bullet fell out of his body after CE 399 was discovered. (Palamara pgs. 197-98)

    Palamara goes on with Secret Service malfeasance in the wake of Kennedy’s murder. The Secret Service did not produce the clothing of the president when the doctors asked for it at Bethesda. A roll of 120 film was destroyed by a Secret Service agent that night. (ibid, p. 199) Admiral David Osborne sated that an intact bullet fell out of Kennedy’s clothing at Bethesda. Osborne added, “Several people had it. I know the Secret Service had it…” And Palamara also notes the role of the infamous Secret Service agent Elmer Moore in altering the first day testimony of the Parkland doctors about the direction of the bullet that pierced Kennedy’s throat. Originally reported as being an entrance wound, after Moore was done massaging the testimony of the doctors and nurses at Parkland, the Commission had enough leeway to make this an exit wound for the SBT.

    V

    The above constitutes what I believe to be the contributions of (considerable) value in this book. From about page 210 on, that is approximately the second half, the quality of the work drops off. And the approach changes. As does the level of the analysis. For instance, at around this point, Palamara begins to rely upon witnesses like Gerry Patrick Hemming, a man who the late, great Gaeton Fonzi warned us all about. Recall, Hemming is the guy who confirmed the Marita Lorenz assassination caravan. Palamara interviewed him twice. (pgs. 213-14) As if that is not enough, the author now brings in DNC advance man Martin Underwood in a big way. (p. 214) Underwood is the guy who the lamentable Gus Russo dug up to try and say that Fabian Escalante and the Cuban G-2 were actually in on the Kennedy murder plot. When Underwood testified before the ARRB, as they revealed in their report, it turned out his so-called contemporaneous notes on official stationary were neither contemporaneous nor official. This was such a blatant Russo ploy, even Max Holland saw through it. I mean when one Oswald did it zealot goes after another zealot, you know the witness has problems. As Underwood does.

    Underwood tells the author that CIA station chief Win Scott told him things he never told anyone. Including his wives and son. Underwood was on a mission for LBJ. LBJ wanted to know what really happened with the JFK case. So Marty goes to talk to Scott in Mexico. Scott tells this low level flunky that the CIA, FBI and the Mob all knew Kennedy was going to be hit. But not just that. They all knew it was going to be on 11/22/63 in Dallas! But eve that it not good enough for Underwood, who here actually goes beyond his flights of fancy for Russo. Let me quote what Underwood tells Palamara: “His number was on the board. I found out later, if they missed him in Dallas, they were thinking of getting him at the LBJ ranch.” (p. 215) This is Alex Jones stuff. But now, good ole Marty goes to see Sam Giancana. Sam tells him to tell Johnson that the Mafia had him on their hit list also.

    But Underwood now tells the author that 18 hours before the landing at Love Field, they were getting all sorts of solid reports about Kennedy being assassinated in Texas. Well, Underwood now goes to the president and tells him about this. What does JFK say? According to Underwood, he replies with “Marty, you worry about me to much.” (ibid)

    Enough about Underwood.

    From here, Palamara now begins a long section of the book which he would have been well advised to forsake. For literally scores of pages, he catalogues the names of dozens of Secret Service agents and what their performance was like in relation to the JFK assassination. I did not understand why he did this. In the fine opening 200 pages of the book, Palamara clearly named the agents he felt should have been seriously investigated, and why. Further, many of the people he names here had little or nothing to do with the assassination. So this gets both superfluous and boring. It’s not all like that of course. But the author would have been much better off trimming this section down by at least 50%. It goes on for more than a hundred pages.

    At the end, Palamara concludes with a couple of more dubious chapters. In Chapter 15, where he talks about a motive for the Secret Service to go along with a plot, he actually brings up Sy Hersh’s excremental book, The Dark Side of Camelot. In other words because Kennedy was having affairs, the Secret Service looked askance at him as being of low character. (p. 385) I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry at this. These are the same guys who Abe Bolden said were heavy drinkers and also serial womanizers. But yet, they could not stomach Kennedy’s philandering? Which we know through many good sources was exaggerated. In fact, by these same Secret Service agents who Hersh enlisted in his cause.

    The author gets back on track a bit by mentioning Elmer Moore’s rightwing politics and his outburst against Kennedy for selling out the country to the Reds. This seems much more realistic as a motive for complicity.

    At the end, Palamara lists a very good chronicle of failures by the Secret Service in Dallas. (p. 387) It goes on for three pages. It is very provocative and even disturbing. The author uses it to crystallize the argument he has been making without being explicit about it. That is, after explaining all these serious lapses in protection which enabled the murder to take place, he concludes that the Secret Service was not just negligent, but culpable in the assassination. With the amount of evidence in the first half of the book, it’s hard to disagree with him.

    In sum, I feel about this work as I do about Doug Horne’s multi- volume set. Palamara needed an editor to control his excesses. If he had done that a book worth reading would have been sterling.

  • Slick Propaganda: A Review of The Discovery Channel documentary, The Kennedy Detail (based on the 2010 Gerald Blaine book of the same title)


    Before I even begin to discuss this two-hour program, it is necessary for one to have read my lengthy review of the book of the same name, The Kennedy Detail.1 This Discovery Channel documentary originally aired—twice—on 12/2/10 and, again, on 12/4/10 (It was originally supposed to debut on the 47th anniversary of the assassination on 11/22/10 but, for some reason or reasons unknown, the show aired a week and a half later. Like the release of the book on 11/2/10, Election Day, the marketing strategy of Blaine’s work was a tad suspect, in my opinion, but I digress). As one who has interviewed and corresponded with most of the Secret Service agents who served under JFK2, I was most looking forward to this documentary, as there can be an appeal to an audio/visual format of one’s point-of-view that can get lost in translation in strict black and white writings. That said, as with the book of the same name, there are some things to commend in The Kennedy Detail television special, while there are also several noteworthy items to condemn or, at the very least, tread cautiously on.

    I must give credit where credit is due: I was most impressed with many of the visuals—the many sundry films and photographs used—in this documentary. In addition, I was also heartened to see then-and–now photographs of the agents and some of their wives, as well. For the record, the JFK Secret Service agents involved in the production were (naturally) Gerald Blaine (in Austin on 11/22/63), Clint Hill (in Dallas on 11/22/63), Paul Landis (same), Winston Lawson (same), David Grant (same, albeit at the Trade Mart), Ron Pontius (the 11/21/63 Houston lead advance agent), and, oddly enough, Toby Chandler (attending Secret Service school in Washington, D.C. on 11/22/63), “as well as Tom Wells (with Caroline Kennedy at the White House on 11/22/63).”. The non-assassination aspects of this program were, by and large, entertaining and somewhat riveting at times; in this regard, I don’t have much of a problem with these areas of the production, per se, except with the almost too saccharine “Camelot” portrayal of the Kennedys and the “choir-boy,” near angelic image that was portrayed of the agents themselves, traits also to be found in the book, as well. Then again, regarding the latter image portrayal, one would think it would be in Blaine’s best interest to put the best foot forward, so to speak, and present the agents in the finest light possible, especially in light of their miserable failings on 11/22/63, the day President Kennedy was assassinated under their watch.

    There is an old saying: “The devil is in the details.” It is with this in mind that a look at some of those details, mentioned in the program or avoided, as they pertain to the Secret Service and the assassination of JFK, is in order now.

    • In a curious and ironic program note, the 2009 Discovery Channel documentary Secrets of the Secret Service aired right before both initial airings of The Kennedy Detail program and, in this show, an official Secret Service documentary, the narrator, as well as a couple former agents, Joseph Funk and Joe Petro, briefly mention the mistakes the agents made with regard to the assassination that go directly against what is being espoused in the Blaine production; quite a noticeable contrast, to say the least, and one that many people, myself included, noticed immediately.3 In general, the “blame-the-victim” (i.e., JFK) notion that is such part and parcel of both the Blaine book and documentary is largely replaced by rightfully noting the mistakes made by the agency: taking the president through Dealey Plaza, in particular, as well as the equally false “blame-the-staff” idea, a notion Blaine does not even mention in his book and is, for the record—like blaming JFK for the security deficiencies—false. Specifically, the most alarming contrast with The Kennedy Detail program is what The Secrets of the Secret Service decided to deal with that the Blaine show strangely avoided.
    • Although it is mentioned in his book4: the infamous WFAA/ABC black and white video of an agent being recalled at Love Field during the start of the motorcade in Dallas was not included in The Kennedy Detail program. The Secrets program did show the clip of an agent complaining for being left behind at Love Field, which is quite an endorsement considering that, once again, this is an official Secret Service documentary made with agency input. (As mentioned in my review of the book, many other people agreed with my opinion of what is being shown in this footage, including, notably, former JFK agent Larry Newman, the Henry Rybka family, and countless authors and researchers who have viewed the video, not to mention the 3 million plus people who have viewed this controversial video, popularized by myself, on YouTube.5) It is strange that Blaine’s program chose not to show this footage even to debunk it. Equally disturbing is the aforementioned contrast between his views, as espoused only in his book, and my views, as displayed on the very same network on the very same night of Blaine’s documentary! To his “credit”, Blaine and Hill both endorse their book point-of-view regarding the Love Field agent recall video during their joint appearance on C-SPAN on 11/28/10.6
    • Ironically, my view that my letter to Mr. Hill was the catalyst for the Blaine book was discussed by the agents and host Brian Lamb on the show (I was also noted in a major review of the book in the Vancouver Sun7 ). For her part, co-author Lisa McCubbin posted the following on 11/24/10 on the official Facebook edition of The Kennedy Detail:

    Contrary to Vince Palamara’s claims, the book was absolutely NOT written to counteract his letter to Clint Hill. Mr. Hill never read Palamara’s letter—it went straight into the trash. Gerald Blaine wrote this book on his volition, and Mr. Hill contributed after much deliberation.8 (emphasis added)

    For his part, Hill told Brian Lamb on the aforementioned C-SPAN program four days later:

    I recall receiving a letter which I sent back to him. I didn’t bother with it…he called me and I said ”Hello” but that was about it. But he alleges that because he sent me a letter 22 pages in length apparently, and that I discussed [it] with Jerry. I forgot that I ever got a 22-page letter from this particular individual until I heard him say it on TV and I never discussed it with Jerry or anybody else because it wasn’t important to me.9 (emphasis added)

    Yet, in the biggest contradiction of all, Blaine quoted from my letter to Hill when I spoke to him on 6/10/05 and mentioned his deep friendship with Hill, as well, extending back to the late 1950’s. For the record, I received Hill’s signed receipt for the letter and it was never returned to me.10 For his part, Blaine stated on the very same C-SPAN program: “I have never talked to any author of a book”. Another blatant falsehood that went unchallenged: Blaine was interviewed on 5/12/65 for Manchester’s massive best-selling The Death of a President (Blaine is thanked in Manchester’s One Brief Shining Moment, as well) and he was interviewed 2/7/04 and 6/10/05, not to mention e-mail correspondence, by myself for my book Survivor’s Guilt: The Secret Service & The Failure To Protect The President.11

    Bear with this seeming digression just a tad more, for it does indeed bear directly on both Blaine’s book and on the documentary under specific discussion herein. On the C-SPAN appearance with Hill, regarding myself, Blaine stated: “I am familiar with him, I don’t know him… My assessment of Mr. Palamara is that he called probably all of the agents [true], and what agent who answers a phone is going to answer a question ”Was President Kennedy easy to protect?” [many of them did, and, like Blaine, told me that JFK was a very nice man, never interfered with the actions of the Secret Service at all, nor did President Kennedy ever order the agents off his limousine] Well, probably he was too easy to protect because he was assassinated [what?]. But the fact that the agents aren’t going to tell him anything [many told me information of much value, Blaine included] and he alludes to the fact that when I wrote the book, most of these people were dead. Well, I worked with these people, I knew them like brothers and I knew exactly what was going on and always respected Jim Rowley because he stood up to the issue and said ”Look, we can’t say the President invited himself to be killed so let’s squash this.” So that was the word throughout the Secret Service and he—Mr. Palamara is—there are a number of things that had happened [sic] that he has no credibility [your opinion, Mr. Blaine], he is a self-described expert in his area which I don’t know what it is, he was born after the assassination [as was your co-author, Lisa McCubbin!] and he keeps creating solutions to the assassination until they are proven wrong [again, your opinion, Mr. Blaine].”

    • But Blaine wasn’t finished with me just yet: “The Zapruder film, when the Zapruder film was run at normal speed, another theme that Palamara throws out is that Bill Greer stopped the car, when it’s run at its normal speed, you will notice the car absolutely does not stop at all. This happened in less than six seconds after the President was hit in the throat and moving along.” (emphasis added) Oh, so you agree with my “theory” that JFK was shot in the neck from the FRONT, do you, Mr. Blaine? And there were close to sixty witnesses to the limousine slowing or stopping, including seven Secret Service agents and Jacqueline Kennedy—not my theory, just the facts.12
    • Returning directly to The Kennedy Detail documentary, Ron Pontius specifically refers to one of my articles13 (also a part of a chapter in my book14) without naming me.15 As the narrator, Martin Sheen, notes: “The most painful theories point fingers at the agents themselves.” To his credit, Pontius mentioned earlier in the program how the threats to Kennedy’s life increased dramatically over those directed toward Eisenhower when JFK took office.16 That said, the same narrator later mentioned that “Dallas worried the men on the detail,”17 a notion seemingly not made manifest in the security preparations for the fateful Dallas trip.
    • Keeping all of these points into focus, as with the book itself, it is the fraudulent allegations that JFK ordered the agents off the limousine in Tampa, Florida on 11/18/63, which allegedly were made into standing orders for Kennedy’s trip to Texas four days later, that is given a spotlight herein. Blaine’s words are simply incredible (literally, not credible) and deserve to be quoted, verbatim, here: “President Kennedy made a decision, and he politely told everybody, ‘You know, we’re starting the campaign now, and the people are my asset,’” said agent Jerry Blaine. “And so, we all of a sudden understood. It left a firm command to stay off the back of the car.”18

    Huh? “Everybody”? THAT alleged statement “left a firm command”? As I stated in the review for Blaine’s book, not only do many films and photos depict the agents (still) riding on (or walking/ jogging very near) the rear of the limousine in Tampa19, including a few shown in this documentary, Congressman Sam Gibbons, who actually rode a mere foot away in the presidential limo with JFK, wrote to me in a letter dated 1/15/04: “I rode with Kennedy every time he rode. I heard no such order. As I remember it the agents rode on the rear bumper all the way. Kennedy was very happy during his visit to Tampa. Sam Gibbons.” Also, photographer Tony Zappone, then a 16-year-old witness to the motorcade in Tampa (one of whose photos for this motorcade was ironically used in The Kennedy Detail!), told me that the agents were “definitely on the back of the car for most of the day until they started back for MacDill AFB at the end of the day.”20 Agent Hill fibs and blames the entering of the freeway via Dealey Plaza as the reason agents weren’t on the back of the car during the shooting21, neglecting to mention the fact that, during prior trips, the agents rode on the rear of the car at fast highway speeds, including in Tampa four days before, as well as in Berlin and Bogota, Columbia, to name just a couple others.22 Again, please see my detailed review of The Kennedy Detail book for much more on this.23

    While it is nice to see Toby Chandler and David Grant talk about JFK, they add little or nothing to the assassination debate itself (and neither Grant nor Hill mention the fact that Grant is Clint Hill’s brother in-law, a fact revealed to myself when I spoke to Gerald Blaine on 6/10/05). For his part, Paul Landis lambastes researchers for “having a field day” with conspiracy theories, yet doesn’t mention that he, himself, tremendously helped these “theorists” via his reports (plural) describing a shot to JFK from the front.24 Hill further confirms that the back of JFK’s head was gone.25 Finally, Agent Lawson says that there were only three shots, yet fails to mention that, around the very same time as the filming of this documentary, he also stated that he “saw a huge hole in the back of the president’s head.”26

    Is it any wonder, then, why I refer to The Kennedy Detail Discovery Channel documentary as being slick propaganda, designed to blame President Kennedy for his own assassination by falsely stating that he ordered the agents off his limousine, as well as propagating the whole Oswald-acted-alone mantra?

    Viewer beware.


    End Notes

     

    1. http://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/blaine-gerald-the-kennedy-detail

    2. http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/ see also: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1.html

    3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIds-nFn-0M

    4. See especially pages 359-360. See also my video rebuttals to Blaine’s take on what is being depicted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gB8WmbvmTw and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDhvGHrM_dQ&feature=related

    5. http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8; see also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsQOwdd8pAE&feature=related

    6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xZwHAy60WE

    7. http://www.vancouversun.com/Kennedy+keepers+reveal/3858819/story.html; see also: http://www.bloggernews.net/125523 and http://justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com/2010/11/rapid-dogs-of-internet-alert-how-many.html

    8. http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/The-Kennedy-Detail/150789108290554

    9. Hill, referring to myself, added: “And so far as him being an expert, I don’t know where the expert part came from. I spent a long time in the Secret Service in protection and I’m not an expert, but apparently he became an expert somewhere up in Pennsylvania, I don’t know where.” See also 1:08 of: http://news.discovery.com/videos/history-kennedy-detail-confronting-conspiracies.html

    10. http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-letter-to-clint-hill.html

    11. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter13.pdf

    12. http://www.jfk-info.com/palam1.htm; see also: 12. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter08.pdf

    13. http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/vincedual.html

    14. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter09.pdf

    15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUxHLo_dcM

    16. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fUOBCBJLs8

    17. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IClo3DbmyuQ

    18. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oOWGMQvbUs

    19. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMAq5kgU6YI; http://thekennedydetailsecretservicejfk.blogspot.com/

    20. E-mail to Vince Palamara from Tony Zappone dated 10/20/10

    21. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUxHLo_dcM

    22. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter01.pdf

    23. http://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/blaine-gerald-the-kennedy-detail

    24. Landis’s report dated November 27, 1963: 18 H 758–9; Landis’s detailed report dated November 30, 1963: 18 H 751–7; HSCA Report, pp. 89, 606 (referencing Landis’s interview, February 17, 1979 outside contact report, JFK Document 014571)

    25. Hill’s November 30, 1963 report: 18 H 740–5. (See also the 2004 National Geographic documentary, Inside the U.S. Secret Service.)

    26. See article in The Virginian-Pilot ,June 17, 2010, by Bill Bartel: http://hamptonroads.com/2010/06/do-you-remember-where-you-were-he-does-jfk#rfq

  • Mark Lane, Last Word: My Indictment Of The CIA In The Murder of JFK

    Mark Lane, Last Word: My Indictment Of The CIA In The Murder of JFK


    I want to begin this review by stating that I have a huge a mount of respect for Mark Lane. As a lawyer of over fifty years Lane has an undeniable history of looking out for the little guy. He represented numerous African Americans in civil rights cases in the south and was arrested for opposing segregation as a “Freedom rider”. He has been a dedicated antiwar protester and during his term as a New York State Legislator he worked to abolish capital punishment. Lane represented the American Indian Movement at the Wounded Knee Trial and helped establish the rights of women to bring actions for sexual harassment. Even Vincent Bugliosi admitted that Lane’s “bona fides as a skilled and dedicated soldier in the fight for civil liberties” are “unquestioned”. (Reclaiming History, p. 1011)

    Perhaps more relevant to this review, Lane was one of very few prominent citizens speaking out on Lee Harvey Oswald’s behalf in 1963, and within weeks of Oswald’s murder at Dallas Police HQ he had the courage to pen a defense brief for the alleged assassin. At Marguerite Oswald’s request he attempted to represent her son’s interests before the Warren Commission and after the request was denied he testified before the commission and shared details he had uncovered during his own investigation of the assassination. His first book on the subject, Rush to Judgement, was a devastating critique of the Warren report that undermined all of the commission’s central conclusions. Lane gave numerous lectures on the assassination, and assisted New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison during his much maligned investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw. He played a key role in establishing the House Select Committee on Assassinations and faced E. Howard Hunt in court where he presented evidence of CIA complicity in the assassination before the jury.

    By any standards, Lane’s resume is impressive, and as I stated above, I have a great deal of respect for the man. So it is with heavy heart that I must say his latest and most likely his last book on the murder of JFK, Last Word, is—for me at least—a little disappointing. In nearly 300 pages he presents little that is really new. And he gives the impression of being largely unaware of some of the more interesting research published in the years since the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) pried open thousands of crucial documents from the hands of US intelligence agencies. Somewhat surprisingly the book is, at times, awkwardly written and poorly edited; there are numerous typographical errors, there is no index, and worst of all, the book is poorly sourced. In fact, there are times when the author makes controversial statements for which he offers no citation at all. In no way do I mean to suggest the book is without merit; Lane offers many interesting facts, insights and anecdotes; and his ultra sharp wit is very much in evidence throughout the text. But if this is truly to be his “Last word” on the subject, I can’t help wishing it had been a little more substantial.

    I

    Last Word is divided into five books; the most interesting of which is, for my money, book two: “The Media Response”. Part of what makes it interesting is that Lane takes the opportunity to hit back at some of his critics and exposes some of the lies that have been spread about him and his work on the assassination. Mark lane is, after all, the man Warren Commission apologists love to hate and with the exception of the late great Jim Garrison, no commission critic has suffered as many baseless personal attacks as Lane. For example, in his mammoth waste of paper, Reclaiming History, Vincent Bugliosi spends an entire chapter attempting to undermine and discredit Lane and his brilliant book, Rush To Judgement. But despite spending twelve fun-filled pages employing every smear tactic available, Bugliosi never actually gets around to pointing out any of the “distortions or outright fabrications” he claims are in the book. The closest he comes is this:

    Lane was so bold and blatant in distorting the truth that he even gives citations to the Warren Commission volumes that he knows directly contradict his own arguments. For instance, he states that the Warren Commission’s firearms experts were unable to duplicate on the range what Oswald had done. “none of them,” he says, “struck the enlarged head or neck on the target even once.” But an examination of the citations given by Lane himself (Commission Exhibit Nos. 582 to 584, Warren Commission volume 17, pages 261 to 262) shows two hits were scored on the head. (Reclaiming History, p. 1005)

    But the distortion of truth is Bugliosi’s not Lane’s.

    Knowing that Oswald was a poor shot, the Warren Commission made it clear that it believed he had been able to pull off the assassination by utilizing the telescopic sight on his cheap mail-ordered rifle. In that regard and under the heading “The Nature of the Shots”, the commission’s report quotes FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier as stating that “when you shoot at 175 feet or 260 feet, which is less than 100 yards, with a telescopic sight, you should not have any difficulty in hitting your target…I mean it requires no training at all to shoot a weapon with a telescopic sight once you know that you must put the crosshairs on the target and that is all that is necessary” [my emphasis](Warren Report p. 190) The above passage and subsequent ones make it clear that the commission attributed to Oswald the use of the scope. In fact, the report even goes as far as to suggest that a defect in the scope “was one which would have assisted the assassin aiming at a target which was moving away”! (p. 194) With this in mind, the reader is invited to check Commission Exhibits 582 and 584 for themselves. They will see that the two head shots were scored by using the iron sights and not the defective scope, which means that Lane was correct; none of the expert riflemen had duplicated Oswald’s alleged feat.

    Lane turns the tables on Bugliosi, writing that his “book, page after page, swarms with hundreds of demonstrably inaccurate assurances”, (Last Word, p. 143) and unlike Bugliosi he actually provides instances that support his contention. For example, Bugliosi claims that in a taped telephone conversation with Helen Markham, the Warren Commission’s star witness to the murder of J.D. Tippit, Lane had identified himself “as Captain Fritz of the Dallas Police Department” before making a “blatant attempt to improperly influence, almost force an uneducated and unsophisticated witness to say what he wanted her to say.” (Reclaiming History, pgs. 1006 & 1009) As Lane makes clear, this is simply not true, and Bugliosi had to know it. Firstly, the transcript of the telephone conversation to which Bugliosi makes reference begins, “My name is Mr. Lane. I’m an attorney investigating the Oswald case.” And secondly, “The statement that I tried to put words into Markham’s mouth, an original Bugliosi fabrication, is belied by a review of the facts. Since Markham had told reporters, long before I had spoken with her, that the man she had seen shoot Tippit was ‘short’ (Oswald was not short) that he was “stocky” (Oswald was thin) and that he had “bushy hair” (Oswald had thinning hair and a receding hairline), I called her to discuss her original description. She in part conceded the accuracy of her original assessment of the shooter and in part rejected it. The original words were hers, not mine, as Bugliosi knew but declined to reveal.” (Lane p. 148) Bugliosi also omitted the fact that this description of Tippit’s killer is similar to the initial description given to Dallas police officer Gerald Hill: “5’8”, 160 pounds, wearing a jacket, a light shirt, dark trousers, and sort of bushy brown hair [my emphasis]. (7H47)

    Lane also defends himself against the unscrupulous attacks made by another high profile defender of the official fairy tale, Max Holland. Back in 2006, Holland took us all back in time when he attempted to undermine Lane’s research in the pages of The Nation by dragging out the tried and true (and slightly outdated) “commie smear” tactic. Holland as we all know, and as Lane points out, is little more than a mouthpiece for the CIA who regularly writes articles for the official CIA website “supporting and defending the CIA and attacking those who dare to disagree”. (Lane p. 112) For his 2006 piece titled “The JFK Lawyers’ Conspiracy”, Holland stated that the KGB was secretly funding Lane when he researched and lectured on the assassination and wrote his best-selling book, Rush to Judgment. As Lane wrote in a letter to The Nation, “It was secret all right. It never happened…No one ever made a sizeable contribution with the exception of Corliss Lamont who contributed enough for me to fly one time from New York to Dallas to interview an eyewitness. The second largest contribution was $50.00 given to me by Woody Allen.” (p. 111) When Lane made it clear that he had kept records of all contributions, Holland suggested, somewhat desperately, that the money could have been given in very small amounts. “Perhaps”, Lane sardonically replies, “when I was discussing the case each night for months from the stage of a small theater in New York, a couple of hundred Russian agents, wearing long leather coats, slipped in unnoticed and each paid a dollar for admission.” (p. 94)

    Holland comes under additional fire in a chapter contributed by Oliver Stone in which the film maker responds to Holland’s claim that the KGB was behind the 1967 Paese Sera story naming Clay Shaw as a board member of Centro Mondiale Comerciale—an organization that had been booted out of Italy amid charges that it was front for the CIA. Holland argues laughably in his article, The Lie that Linked the CIA to the Kennedy Assassination, that it was the Paese Sera articles that led Jim Garrison to believe the CIA was behind the assassination and that the whole thing was the result of a KGB disinformation scheme. But Holland’s silly story falls flat on both counts. Firstly, the entire claim that the KGB was behind it all rests on one handwritten note by KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin referring to a disinformation scheme that resulted in the publication of a false story in New York. “The note”, Stone writes, “supposedly summarizing a KGB document that Holland has never seen, does not mention Clay Shaw, Centro Mondiale Comerciale, Jim Garrison, or any specific New York publication.” And secondly, “Garrison’s book On the Trail of the Assassins describes in detail how his uncovering of various pieces of evidence actually led him to the conclusion that the CIA was involved.” His suspicions of Agency involvement began when he investigated—among other things—Oswald’s background, his associations with CIA-connected people like David Ferrie and George De Mohrenschildt, and discovered “the fact that Oswald was working out of an office that was running the CIA’s local training camp for Operation Mongoose…No doubt the Paese Sera series was another piece of the puzzle for Garrison, but it was not the centerpiece of his thinking that Holland makes it out to be.”(pgs. 73-75)

    On the subject of Jim Garrison, Lane relates an intriguing story that seriously undermines the conventional view that Bobby Kennedy saw no value in Garrison’s investigation. It is usually said that once Garrison’s probe became public, RFK had dispatched Walter Sheridan to New Orleans to see if there was any substance to his charges and that Sheridan had quickly reported back that Garrison was a “fraud.” We are usually told that Kennedy accepted Sheridan’s assessment and author Joan Mellen even goes so far as to charge that “Bobby Kennedy did everything he could to stop Jim Garrison” and that “Destroying Garrison’s investigation became Bobby’s obsession.” (A Farewell to Justice, pgs. 259, 382) However, Lane writes that one evening in 1968 over drinks in New Orleans’ famous French quarter Garrison confided that Kennedy had sent him a message through a mutual friend. “He said ‘Keep up the good work. I support you and when I’m president I am going to blow the whole thing wide open.’” (Lane, p. 42) Garrison had expressed concern that by telling people in private what he planned to do, RFK was putting his life in danger and reasoned that he would be safer if he announced his intentions publicly. Two days later the mutual friend relayed that Bobby had thought it over and decided that if he won the California primary he would go public with his doubts about the official verdict. Kennedy did, of course, win the primary, but he did not live long enough to call for a new investigation.

    II

    As someone who has long found the official investigations of the Kennedy assassination almost as interesting as the assassination itself, I very much enjoyed reading Lane’s somewhat egocentric recollection of the formation and early days of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). In contrast to the Warren Commission, which we all know by now began with its lone assassin/no conspiracy conclusion already firmly in place, the HSCA had the potential to conduct a genuine investigation that might well have uncovered the true facts of the case. But powerful forces in Washington stood in its way.

    In 1975, Lane writes, he moved to Washington, D.C., to organize 180 chapters of the “Citizen’s Commission of Inquiry” whose purpose was to urge congress to conduct a new investigation of the assassination and its subsequent cover-up. Whilst continuing to lecture on the subject he prepared a resolution calling for the establishment of a Select Committee and began calling upon members of the House of Representatives for their support. A year later, with over one hundred congressional sponsors and over a million letters, telegrams and signatures on petitions sent to members of congress, the resolution was set for a vote. According to Lane, when the bill passed, Representative Don Edwards looked at him and remarked, “This should be called the Mark lane resolution.” (Last Word, p. 215) Once the HSCA was authorized and given a down payment for its budget, members of the committee suggested he take the job of Chief Counsel. “I said that even I would object”, Lane writes, “since my objectivity had long since evaporated in view of the undeniable evidence.” (p. 216)

    Eventually, a brilliant and respected Philadelphia prosecutor named Richard Sprague was chosen for the job. As committee investigator Gaeton Fonzi writes, “Sprague had run up a record of 69 homicide convictions out of 70 prosecutions, and he was known as tough, tenacious and independent. There was absolutely no doubt in my mind when I heard of Sprague’s appointment that the Kennedy assassination would finally get what it needed: a no-holds barred, honest investigation. Which just goes to show how ignorant of the ways of Washington both Sprague and I were.” (The Last Investigation, p. 176) Sprague chose as his Deputy Chief Counsel a veteran homicide attorney from the New York District Attorney’s Office named Robert K. Tanenbaum who was, according to Fonzi, “the epitome of the quick-thinking, fast-talking prosecutor.” (p. 179) As Lane puts it, “he had a fine reputation…Both Sprague and Tanenbaum were honest, intelligent and skillful lawyers committed to learning the truth.” (Last Word, pgs. 220-221) Indeed it was the skill, integrity and dedication of both men that would put them off the committee before its work had truly begun.

    Sprague had made it obvious that he wanted to conduct an honest and independent investigation that would uncover the truth—whatever that may be. He knew that he could not rely on the same agencies that the Warren Commission had (i.e. the FBI and the CIA) as his investigators, since those very agencies might themselves be under suspicion. So he insisted on hiring his own investigators. Pretty quickly the CIA began stonewalling the Committee’s requests for information—especially those relating to Lee Harvey Oswald’s alleged Mexico City sojourn—and insisting that Sprague sign a secrecy agreement which he refused to do, asking how he could “possibly sign an agreement with an agency I’m supposed to be investigating.” (p. 217) Instead, Sprague responded that he would subpoena the CIA for all relevant materials. What followed, predictably enough, was a media smear-campaign led by Agency assets that essentially resulted in congress refusing to reauthorize the committee until Sprague was removed. As Fonzi writes, “Sprague had early on offered to resign if it meant the difference in keeping the Committee alive” and near midnight of the evening before the House vote, “Sprague realized that…the ground was being shoveled out from beneath him.” Thinking it was the only way to save the committee, he called his secretary and dictated a two-sentence letter of resignation. (Fonzi, p. 194) Tanenbaum followed shortly after.

    Sprague’s replacement as Committee Chief Counsel, G. Robert Blakey, was fairly contrary to him. A 41-year-old law professor who, as he admitted to Tanenbaum, had never tried a case, Blakey knew exactly what was expected of him in Washington, since he had worked on previous Congressional committees. In his first address to the Committee staff, Blakey made it clear that their top priority was not to conduct a criminal investigation, it was to produce a report on time and within budget. Blakey had promised that the Committee would produce a report by December 31, 1978, and he informed the staff that there was no chance the committee would be extended beyond that deadline. As Fonzi recalled, “with that pronouncement, I got a revealing insight into Bob Blakey’s character…He saw nothing incongruous in accepting a basic and crucial limitation to conducting ‘a full and complete investigation’ of one of the most important events in this country’s history.” (Ibid, p. 210) Blakey also had no problem with signing (and insisting that staff members sign) a secrecy agreement before being given access to CIA documents. Nor with sealing the Committee’s voluminous files so that they would be kept from public scrutiny for 50 years. As Lane puts it, “Blakey relied upon the judgment of the CIA and the FBI, who placed their operatives on his staff and who provided only those documents that they wanted the Congress to see. The congressional committee had been captured.” (Lane, p. 232)

    In composing his report, Blakey placed a great deal of importance on the scientific evidence—trajectory analysis, ballistics comparison, medical studies etc.— and insisted that it proved Oswald’s guilt. But the linchpin of his case, the Neutron Activation Analysis of the ballistics evidence, has since been proven to be so unreliable that the FBI has abandoned its usage in court. In fact, even Blakey now refers to the HSCA’s NAA analysis as “junk science”. But perhaps his biggest folly was trusting the CIA and allowing it to appoint career Agency man George Joannides as its liaison to the Committee. In 1978, when he was assigned to the HSCA, Joannides was allegedly retired. But in November of 1963 he was serving as chief of psychological warfare operations in the CIA’s Miami station and his main job was to provide funds and support for to the anti-Castro group “Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil” (DRE). As journalist Jefferson Morley explains, by 1962, “the DRE was perhaps the single biggest and most active organization opposing Fidel Castro’s regime. In Miami, Joannides was giving the leaders of the group up to $25,000 a month in cash for what he described as ‘intelligence collection’ and ‘propaganda.’” (Morley, The Man Who Didn’t Talk and Other Tales from the New Kennedy Assassination Files) In August 1963, the New Orleans chapter of the DRE had a number of very public run-ins with Lee Harvey Oswald. After Oswald offered to help train DRE commandos, “the DRE boys saw him on a street corner passing out pamphlets for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC), a notoriously pro-Castro group”. (ibid.) DRE spokesman Carlos Bringuier rushed to the scene to confront him in what a police officer would later describe as a “staged event”, and later visited Oswald’s home before debating him on a local radio program.

    As Lane explains, “Almost immediately after the shots were fired in Dallas, the Joannides-guided group launched a media campaign to connect Fidel Castro to the murder…One DRE leader called Clair Booth Luce and assured her that the directorate knew Oswald was part of a Cuban hit team organized by Castro…Thus it was the CIA and Joannides that paid for, organized and published the very first conspiracy theory about the assassination”. (Lane, p. 234) When documents released by the ARRB in 1998 revealed Joannides’ secret activities with the DRE, Blakey claimed to be outraged stating that had he known of Joannides’ role he would have been “interrogated under oath by the staff or the committee”. But, in light of his past actions, Lane finds this more than a little hard to swallow. He also poses the question of whether or not Blakey is merely playing dumb. Did he know all along who he was dealing with? Or was Blakey “so inept an investigator that he could not even discover who was his own main source?” The HSCA reported that it had not have been able to identify the second gunman or “the extent of the conspiracy” but as Lane points out Blakey was somehow “able to state with absolute authority that he knew who” was not involved when he “declared that the CIA and the FBI were innocent.” As Lane concludes, it appears that Blakey “met his commitment to those who hired him”. (p. 235)

    III

    When it comes time to address Oswald’s alleged visit to Mexico City in September, 1963, I believe Lane ultimately drops the ball. He correctly points to many crucial holes in the official story and casts understandable doubt on the notion that Oswald ever made the trip. But he seems to misunderstand the motivations of those who engineered the whole episode and mischaracterizes the effect it had in Washington and how it ultimately led to a cover-up.

    The official version of events, as laid out in the Warren Report, has Oswald leaving New Orleans for Mexico City on September 25, 1963, and arriving on September 27, 1963. Soon after his arrival, the Commission said, he visited the Cuban Embassy to apply for a visa to visit Cuba on his way to Russia. But he was told that the he could not get a Cuban visa until he had received one from the Soviets and this would take several months. At that point, “Oswald became greatly agitated, and although he later unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a Soviet visa at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, he insisted that he was entitled to the Cuban visa because of his background, partisanship, and personal activities on behalf of the Cuban movement.” Oswald got into a loud and memorable argument with the consul who continued to refuse him a visa and remarked that far from helping the Cuban Revolution, Oswald “was doing it harm.” “Disillusioned”, Oswald left Mexico City and made his way back to Texas. At least, that was the version Earl Warren put in his report. Behind closed doors, a different story was being told.

    On the very weekend of assassination, the White House was receiving reports from the CIA’s Mexico City station about Oswald’s activities in Mexico City. In this version of events, when Oswald had called the Russian embassy, he had asked to speak to “comrade Kostin,” a codename for Valery V. Kostikov who, according to the CIA, was a KGB officer responsible for carrying out assassinations in the Western Hemisphere. This was quickly followed on Monday, November 25, by a cablegram asserting that CIA station chief Winston Scott had uncovered evidence that Castro, with possible Soviet support, had paid Oswald to assassinate President Kennedy. (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, p. 24) At the same time, as noted above, George Joannides’ DRE group was informing the press that Oswald was part of a hit team organized by Castro. The CIA was trying to place the blame for the assassination at Castro’s feet, and President Johnson’s later remarks would reveal that he fell for it.

    The CIA was the initial source of all information placing Oswald in Mexico City, and Lane contends that “The entire story about Oswald being in the Cuban embassy was a fiction created by the CIA. Oswald had never been to Mexico City.” (Lane, p. 205) The legend was dependent on Sylvia Duran, the Cuban consul with whom Oswald allegedly spoke, but the Commission never saw fit to call her as a witness. Why? Because when she was first questioned Duran denied ever seeing him there. The CIA wasted no time in directing its assets in the Mexico City police department to place her under arrest, put her in isolation, and keep the arrest a secret. “After a period of solitary confinement, Duran agreed to sign a statement prepared by the CIA that identified Oswald as the person in the Cuban embassy” (p. 204) When she was released from prison, Duran was understandably outraged and began speaking out against the Mexican police, unaware that the Agency was behind it all. The CIA then ordered her rearrested, and in a cable marked “priority”ordered the Mexican authorities “to take responsibility for the whole affair.” (ibid.) By not calling her to give testimony, the Commission avoided having these inconvenient facts cluttering up their report.

    The CIA also claimed to have photographs of Oswald entering the Soviet embassy and a tape recording of a phone call but neither turned out to be true. When the photo materialized, it showed a middle-aged man who did not resemble Oswald in the slightest. The tape recording of the man identifying himself as “Lee Oswald” was listened to by the seven different FBI agents who interviewed Oswald on November 22 and 23, and all agreed, according to a memo written by J.Edgar Hoover himself, that the voice on the tape “Was NOT Lee Harvey Oswald.” (p. 206) When David Phillips, who ran the CIA’s Mexico City Cuban desk in 1963—and was largely responsible for the Mexico city legend—was called to testify in the early days of the HSCA, he swore that he was unable to provide the tape recordings because they had been destroyed before the assassination as a matter of routine. Upon hearing this, Lane went to the committee offices to see Bob Tanenbaum. He handed him an envelope containing a copy of the Hoover memo, and told him that, once he read it, he would know what to do. And he did. Phillips was called back for further questioning and asked again to explain why he could no longer provide the tapes, to which he restated his previous testimony: that they were routinely destroyed before November 22. At that point, Tanenbaum pulled out the Hoover memo proving this to be a lie and handed it to Phillips. Phillips read the document, folded it up, put it in his pocket, then silently stood and walked out of the room. “At that moment”, Lane notes, Phillips was “guilty of obstructing Congress and numerous counts of perjury and uttering false statements.” (p. 228)

    Phillips had clearly lied to the HSCA. But, according to Lane, he was ready to tell the truth some years later during a debate at the University of Southern California. At one point, when Phillips was claiming to regret the CIA attempts to destroy Lane and opining on the difficulties of being an employee of the Agency, a student in the audience yelled out, “Mexico City, Mr. Phillips. What is the truth about Mexico City?” Phillips replied, “…I will tell you this, that when the record comes out, we will find that there was never a photograph taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City…let me put it, that is a categorical statement, there, there, we will find out there is no evidence, first of all no proof of that. Second there is no evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald ever visited the Soviet embassy.” (p. 229) Curiously, although Lane first reported this exchange in his 1991 book Plausible Denial, this seeming confession has gone largely ignored by both defenders of the official story and those critical of it.

    Unfortunately, although Lane does a good job of showing that the CIA fabricated the Mexico City legend, he doesn’t seem to know what to do with that revelation. In fact, he admits to being “puzzled” about why the CIA seemingly told two different stories; one in which Oswald was the lone assassin and one in which he acted at the behest of Castro. But the confusion stems from Lane’s misunderstanding of the original intent of the Mexico City escapade, his belief that they were giving the two differing accounts simultaneously, and his desire to place the blame for the Warren Commission cover-up squarely on the CIA.

    Lane writes incorrectly that a memo of a January 20, 1964, Warren Commission staff meeting, authored by assistant counsel Melvin Eisenberg, is the “most relevant report about a meeting at which the CIA presented its carefully constructed legend to Warren”. (p. 200) In fact, despite the impression Lane attempts to convey, the Eisenberg memo does not even mention the CIA at all. What it actually reveals is that Earl Warren initially declined chairmanship of the Commission but gave in under pressure from President Johnson:

    The President stated that rumors of the most exagerrated [sic] kind were circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the government wishing to see the Presidency assumed by President Johnson. Others, if not quenched, could conceivably lead the country into a war which could cost 40 million lives. The President convinced him that this was an occasion on which actual conditions had to override general principles.”

    It is well documented that Johnson went to his grave believing JFK’s assassination was the result of a conspiracy and although he seemingly went back and forth on who he felt was behind it, immediately after the assassination he was convinced that Castro had masterminded the plot. He apparently still gave credence to this notion in 1970 when he told CBS newsman Walter Cronkite that Kennedy had died in retaliation for the numerous American efforts to assassinate the Cuban leader. The source of Johnson’s belief was undoubtedly the aforementioned false reports the CIA was feeding the White House in the days following the assassination. As the “40 million lives” remark reveals, Johnson believed that if the American people knew what the CIA was telling him, there would be a public outcry demanding a confrontation with Cuba. But following the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the secret assurances Kennedy had given Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschev, any action taken against Cuba could well lead to nuclear war with the USSR, and LBJ was unwilling to take that risk. When Johnson and FBI director Hoover made it clear that, as far as they were concerned, the buck was going to stop with Oswald, the CIA backed off. It stuck to its story that Oswald had been in Mexico City but it stopped relating false allegations about Oswald’s Soviet and Cuban contacts.

    Johnson’s fear of a nuclear exchange had put a halter to the ultimate goal of those responsible for orchestrating the Mexico City charade—the very reason it was staged in the first place—an invasion of Cuba and the downfall of Castro’s government. It is well documented that many of the militant Cuban exile groups and their sponsors in the CIA felt betrayed by President Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs and blamed him for the failed invasion. After the Cuban Missile Crisis their violent hatred of Kennedy grew as they began to believe he had no intention, despite his assurances, of unseating Castro and liberating the island. And when word got around that Kennedy had taken part in back channel communications with Castro, seeking to make peace with the Cuban leader, their worst fears were realized. Mexico City was the perfect way to precipitate the invasion that the CIA and the Cuban exiles so desperately craved. Which is precisely why David Phillips and the CIA’s Mexico City station engineered the whole thing two months before the assassination. If Lane had accepted the record as it stood, and not let his eagerness to find the CIA entirely responsible for the cover-up cloud his judgment, he may have been a little less “puzzled” over the CIA’s actions after November 22.

    IV

    I was somewhat disheartened to find that 18 years after the publication of his second JFK book, Plausible Denial, Lane is still touting the saga of Marita Lorenz. When Lane defended Liberty Lobby against a defamation suit brought by CIA officer E. Howard Hunt, he attempted to prove that Hunt was involved in the assassination. Lorenz, a former girlfriend of Fidel Castro who was involved in a CIA-led attempt to assassinate him, was Lane’s star-witness. Under oath, Lorenz claimed that in November 1963 she traveled to Dallas in a two-car caravan that included Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming and two brothers named Novo and Pedro Diaz Lanz. Unbeknownst to Lorenz, of course, the purpose of the trip was to kill Kennedy, and Hunt was the paymaster. They arrived in Dallas on November 21 but, having a bad feeling about the whole thing, Lorenz left the others at a motel and flew back to Miami. Sometime later, Sturgis told her that if she hadn’t gotten cold feet she could have been “part of history.” They had, after all, “killed the president that day.” (Lane, p. 62)

    It’s a fancy little story, but Lorenz has serious credibility issues and it is not to his credit that Lane chose not to divulge them here, or in his book written largely about the trial, Plausible Denial. Respected HSCA investigator Edwin Lopez told author Gerald Posner that “Mark Lane was taken in by Marita Lorenz. Oh God, we spent a lot of time on Marita…It was hard to ignore her because she gave us so much crap, and we tried to verify it, but let me tell you—she is full of shit. Between her and Frank Sturgis, we must have wasted over one hundred hours. They were dead ends…Marita is not credible.” (Case Closed, p. 467) In The Last Investigation Gaeton Fonzi chronicles his time investigating the assassination for both the Schweiker Subcommittee and the HSCA. He goes into some detail about many of the leads he was fed that ultimately appeared as if they were designed simply to waste the time and resources of both committees. In the end, Fonzi placed Lorenz’s various stories in that category.

    In 1977, before she claimed knowledge of the assassination, Lorenz was giving Fonzi details about her anti-Castro activities in Miami with Frank Sturgis. She related a story about heading down to the Florida keys in a two-car caravan that included Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Alex Rorke, and “Rafael Del Pino or Orlando Bosch” to launch a gun-running mission to Cuba. When Sturgis realized he had forgotten something, “We turned all the way around and went back” to Miami. (Fonzi, p. 90) A year and a half later, she was telling the HSCA the same story about two cars, full of the same people, this time heading to Dallas to kill Kennedy. By the time of the Liberty Lobby trial, she had bumped Del Pino and Bosch in favour of Novo and Pedro Diaz Lanz.

    Whether Lane was “taken in” by Lorenz or simply used her testimony as a means to an end, he nonetheless withheld important details about her account from his readers. When the gun running trip morphed into an assassination story, she added Lee Harvey Oswald into the mix. According to her testimony at the Liberty Lobby trial Oswald—whom she knew as “Ozzie”—traveled in “the other car, back-up car” during their two-day trip from Miami to Dallas. Of course, as any first year student of the assassination knows, this simply cannot be because Oswald’s actual whereabouts during this time are fully accounted for. He was working his job filling book orders at the depository during both days and he spent the entire evening and night of November 21 by his wife’s side at the Paine residence in Irving.

    The capper is Lorenz’s claim that she first met Oswald in a safehouse in Miami in late 1960 and again in the Everglades in early 1961 when they were both training for the Bay of Pigs. The failed Bay of Pigs invasion, of course, occurred in April 1961—over one year before Oswald returned from nearly 18 months living in the Soviet Union. Not only was Oswald not in Miami in late 1960 or the Everglades in early 1961, he wasn’t even in the United States! When she tried to feed this garbage to the HSCA they confronted her with the facts and forced her to recant her fraudulent testimony. Yet she again told the same stories under oath at the Liberty Lobby trial. Knowing full well, as Lane must, that these details discredit her story, he hides them from his readers by carefully excising all references to Oswald when he quotes from her testimony. As I noted above, this is not to his credit.

    V

    The fifth and final book of Last Word is titled “The Indictment” and, although I make no claim to be expert in legal matters, I remain unconvinced that Lane has presented evidence of CIA complicity that would lead to an indictment. He details prior acts of assassination by the Agency which I’m sure are perfectly relevant and presents a motive via JFK’s stated intention of “dismantling” the CIA, as well as his intention to pull out of Vietnam, and his efforts at rapprochement with Castro. But he also wastes 16 pages discussing the CIA’s MKULTRA program, without explaining how it could be directly relevant to the assassination.

    One of the more interesting facts that Lane relies upon was first revealed by Jim Douglass in his excellent book JFK and the Unspeakable. It is widely accepted that moments after a bullet tore through President Kennedy’s head, Dallas policeman Joe Marshall Smith confronted a fake Secret Service agent behind the picket fence atop the grassy knoll. As Smith stated in his Warren Commission testimony, after he heard the shots, “…this woman came up to me and she was just in hysterics. She told me, ‘They are shooting the President from the bushes.’ So I immediately proceeded up there…I looked in all the cars and checked around the bushes.Of course, I wasn’t alone. There was some deputy sheriff with me, and I believe one Secret Service man when I got there. I got to make this statement, too. I felt awfully silly, but after the shot and this woman, I pulled my pistol from my holster, and I thought, this is silly, I don’t know who I am looking for, and I put it back. Just as I did, he showed me that he was a Secret Service agent…he saw me coming with my pistol and right away he showed me who he was.” (7H535) Commission lawyer Wesley Liebeler, who took Smith’s deposition, did not ask for a description of the man with the Secret Service credentials because, as Liebeler well knew, there were no genuine Secret Service personnel on foot in Dealey Plaza. Although Commission apologists like Vincent Bugliosi have attempted to blunt Smith’s testimony by asserting that he “doesn’t say how the person showed him who he was” and therefore he could have been mistaken because he probably just saw a badge and “assumed it was a Secret Service badge” (Bugliosi, p. 865), this ignores what Smith told author Anthony Summers: “The man, this character, produces credentials from his hip pocket which showed him to be Secret Service. I have seen those credentials before, and they satisfied me and the deputy sheriff.” (Summers, italics added, Conspiracy, p. 37)

    There is no doubt that the man on the grassy knoll seconds after the shooting was brandishing fake Secret Service credentials. The question is, who in 1963 had the know-how to create them? The answer, as Douglass reveals, is the CIA. Douglass quotes from a document written by Stanley Gottlieb, chief of the CIA’s Technical Services Division, that was finally declassified in 2007 in response to a 15-year-old Freedom of Information Act lawsuit: “…over the years” the TSD “furnished this [Secret] Service” with “gate passes, security passes, passes for presidential campaign, emblems for presidential vehicles; a secure ID photo system.” (JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 266) This is a remarkable revelation, and could be said to show that the CIA and its Cuban exile guerrillas not only had the motive, but had the means to pull off the assassination in broad daylight, and then to escape unhindered. But for me, the Mexico City legend aside, this as good as Lane gets when it comes to filling in the details and connecting the CIA to the assassination.

    In his indictment, Lane makes no mention of Oswald’s associations with Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw—three men who were up to their eyeballs in CIA connections, or Oswald’s campaign to discredit the FPCC, or his trips to Clinton and Jackson—all of which put Oswald at the very center of intelligence intrigue. He does not note that Oswald “defected” to the Soviet Union at the very time the CIA was running a fake defector program, nor the unbelievable ease with which Oswald returned home accompanied by a Russian wife. And although she was responsible for securing Oswald the job at the Texas School Book Depository, which put him in place to take the fall for Kennedy’s murder, he does not make even a passing reference to Ruth Paine, let alone to the fact that Marina Oswald was advised by the Secret Service to sever contact with Ruth because she was “sympathizing with the CIA.” (Douglass, p. 173)

    It may be that Lane felt much of this was too circumstantial. Or it may be that he simply does not feel it is relevant to his case, but it is because of the wealth of information that Lane leaves out that I feel he ultimately fails to provide a convincing indictment against the CIA in the murder of Jack Kennedy.

    So, all things considered, Lane’s new book is a decidedly mixed bag.

  • Clint Hill, Mrs. Kennedy and Me

    Clint Hill, Mrs. Kennedy and Me


    MRS. KENNEDY & ME: A Very Good Book with a Few pages of Trouble


    I. Introduction: Bad precedent

    I so wanted to dislike this book. As the leading civilian literary expert on the Secret Service, I had previously—-and rightfully—lambasted Lisa McCubbin’s prior effort entitled The Kennedy Detail for its rewriting of history, blaming JFK for his own death and putting words in the late president’s mouth that he never once uttered, as verified by the prior accounts of numerous top agents and White House aides, many of whom WERE there in Dallas (unlike former agent Gerald Blaine). As previously stated, it was my 22-page letter to former agent Clint Hill that angered him and his best friend to whom I had also spoken to, the aforementioned Blaine, that directly led to the writing of The Kennedy Detail and, by extension, the need to write a follow-up tome, Mrs. Kennedy & Me (whenever a book is even a mild best-seller, which their first effort was, it is almost a guarantee that, if there is any gas left in the tank, so to speak, a further literary work will be forthcoming). In fact, both agents Blaine and Hill debated the merits of my research on television and, if that weren’t enough, I was mentioned on pages 359-360 of The Kennedy Detail (without naming me, of course). One could argue several other pages refer to my work, directly or indirectly, but I digress from the matter at hand.

    II. My initial review: honesty prevails

    Simply put, Mrs. Kennedy & Me is excellent: a literary home run, second only to another brand new work, the outstanding 2012 book Within Arm’s Length by former agent Dan Emmett, as attaining the mantle of being the best book on the Secret Service by a former agent ever to date (1865-2012 and counting). I have to say in all honesty: Mr. Hill and Ms. McCubbin have a lot to be proud of in this book. it is consistently everything The Kennedy Detail is not: truthful, honest, no axe to grind, not dry or boring, well written, and coming from the perspective of a brave and dedicated public servant who WAS truly there. (To be fair, even The Kennedy Detail,and certainly the documentary it was based on, had its moments, although my judgment is rightfully clouded by what I and others feel are the purposeful untruths and propaganda contained throughout, as well as the exasperating third-person narrative interwoven throughout the book, making it hard to pin down exactly WHO was responsible for specific passages. President Kennedy did NOT order the agents off his limousine in Tampa, in Dallas, or anywhere else, for that matter- SAIC Behn, ASAIC Boring, ATSAIC Godfrey, many of their colleagues, and several prominent White House aides said so).

    Do I still have misgivings about some of the agents on the Kennedy detail? Sure; that will never change. Am I also an ardent admirer of the Secret Service? You bet: the agency has a whole lot to be proud of. Clint Hill at least TRIED to do something that fateful day in Dallas and carried much guilt and depression over the sad events of that time and place. That is a whole lot more than several of his colleagues can lay claim to.

    That aside, Mrs. Kennedy & Me is highly recommended to everyone for its honesty and rich body of true, first-hand accounts of guarding First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy. Too bad this book wasn’t even longer and The Kennedy Detail did not exist, but one cannot ask for everything.

    III. On second thought

    The assassination-related part of this book aside, I obviously quite liked this book- there are no if’s, and’s, or but’s about it. However, upon reflection, there are several items in the assassination-related section (and elsewhere) that should be duly noted. (Indeed, I later added a disclaimer to my online review noting this dissent). On pages 55-56, Hill talks about the benefits of Jackie Kennedy keeping a low profile during her trip to New York as beneficial to security: “The fewer people who know your intended destination or route, the better. A police escort would have just drawn attention to us, so we kept the motorcade to as few vehicles as possible.” Indeed, on yet another trip to New York in early 1963, this one involving both Jackie and JFK, Hill records Jackie as stating: “We want to keep it private…No police escorts, no motorcades, no official functions. We just want to enjoy the city like we used to.” However, this very same situation for President Kennedy in New York, the very same city, in mid-November 1963 was viewed not as a virtue but as a detriment to his safety and welfare by several writers after his assassination.[1] Today, these kinds of trips are known by the Secret Service as “OTR”s, or “off the records”, and they are quite effective, now as then, in their element of surprise from potential assassins. Indeed, Hill writes: “It was a real challenge for the Secret Service agents to keep these presidential movements private yet still maintain an adequate amount of protection, without police escorts or blocking the streets, but we managed.” That was their job and they did it well…until November 22, 1963.

    In addition, this book vividly demonstrates that Jackie DID indeed travel with JFK on many trips other than the fateful Texas venture in November 1963: New York, Florida, Boston, Mexico, Costa Rica, Canada, Germany, etc.

    Page 136 has an item of much interest to those contrasting the measures used in Dallas: “The lead vehicle in the motorcade was a press truck—an open flatbed truck with rails around the outside—filled with about a dozen photographers. This was typical when you expected large crowds along a motorcade route for a president, but I’d never seen it, prior to this trip [Pakistan], for a first lady (Hill’s emphasis).” Dallas Morning News reporter Tom Dillard testified to the Warren Commission:

    “We lost our position at the airport. I understood we were to have been quite a bit closer. We were assigned as the prime photographic car which, as you probably know, normally a truck precedes the President on these things [motorcades] and certain representatives of the photographic press ride with the truck. In this case, as you know, we didn’t have any and this car that I was in was to take photographs which was of spot-news nature.”[2] (Emphasis added)

    On page 202, there is a photo of the agents surrounding the presidential limousine at the Orange Bowl in Miami in December 1962: agents Gerald Blaine (of Kennedy Detail infamy), Ken Giannoules, Clint Hill, Paul Landis, Frank Yeager (uncredited), Ron Pontius (uncredited), and Bob Lilley (also uncredited). Hill writes: “I and the other agents jogged alongside the car, constantly scanning the crowd for any sign of disturbance or disruption, as we headed toward the waiting helicopter outside the arena.” On page 212, Hill says: “There would always be at least five or six Secret Service agents around the president, and trailing close behind the president’s limousine was the not so unobtrusive follow-up car.”

    IV. Déjà vu All Over Again

    Still, all things considered, pretty smooth sailing so far- a good book about Jackie Kennedy and Clint Hill; great human interest anecdotes and dialogue. However, the party ends briefly on pages 270-271, wherein Hill does his best Gerald Blaine “imitation” and seeks to rewrite a little history to suit his own ends. Hill states that it was November 20, 1963, when he saw ASAIC Floyd Boring (the planner of the Texas trip[3]) and, conveniently[4], fellow ASAIC Roy Kellerman (the agent nominally in charge of the Dallas trip) by the Secret Service office in the White House, as he correctly notes that SAIC Gerald Behn was on vacation at the time. It was here that Boring—with Kellerman strangely silent by his side—conveyed to Hill that JFK allegedly ordered the agents off the limousine in Tampa on 11/18/63, something this author is adamant, based on years of research and interviews with Boring, Behn, and many of their colleagues, never happened.

    When asked if Hill was aware of what allegedly went down in Tampa, Hill states: “I didn’t recall anything out of the ordinary [on the radio].” Hill, “quoting” Boring (who passed away 2/1/08), writes: “(as Boring) We had a long motorcade in Tampa, and it was decided that we should keep two guys on the back of the car for the entire route—just for added precaution.” Hill further writes (as himself): “I nodded. That wasn’t all that unusual.” Then, in a little jumbled thought/ sentence, Hill (once again as Boring), adds: “So, we had Chuck Zboril and Don Lawton on the back of the car the ENTIRE way,” Floyd said. “But PARTWAY through the motorcade, in an area where the crowds had thinned, the president requested we remove the agents from the back of the car (emphasis added).” On page 271, Hill writes: “Really? I asked. I had NEVER heard the president ever question procedural recommendations by his Secret Service detail (emphasis added).”

    Hill writes: “What was the reason?” Writing “as” Floyd Boring again (with, again, a strangely silent Roy Kellerman, assuming he was really there and this really took place as written): “He said now that we’re heading into the campaign, he doesn’t want it to look like we’re crowding him. And the word is [FROM WHOM?], from now on, you don’t get on the back of the car unless the situation absolutely warrants it.” “Okay,” I said. “Understood.” Nothing is in writing, Kellerman is silent, Behn is on vacation, and we are to just take Hill at his word that this 2012 reconstruction is the gospel.

    Congressman Sam Gibbons, who actually rode a mere foot away in the car with JFK, wrote to me in a letter dated 1/15/04: ““I rode with Kennedy every time he rode. I heard no such order. As I remember it the agents rode on the rear bumper all the way. Kennedy was very happy during his visit to Tampa. Sam Gibbons.” Also, photographer Tony Zappone, then a 16-year-old witness to the motorcade in Tampa (one of whose photos for this motorcade was ironically used in The Kennedy Detail!), told me that the agents were “definitely on the back of the car for most of the day until they started back for MacDill AFB at the end of the day.” (Emphasis added) Win Lawson wrote to this reviewer on 1/12/04, before this book was even a thought, and said: “I do not know of any standing orders for the agents to stay off the back of the car. After all, foot holds and handholds were built into that particular vehicle… it never came to my attention as such.” (emphasis added). FLOYD BORING himself told me “[JFK] was a very easy-going guy … he didn’t interfere with our actions at all.” In a later interview, Boring expounded further: “Well that’s not true. That’s not true. He was a very nice man; he never interfered with us at all.” If that weren’t enough, Boring also wrote the author: “He [JFK] was very cooperative with the Secret Service.”

    As for ASAIC Floyd Boring, this reviewer has no doubt that Boring DID INDEED CONVEY the fraudulent notion that JFK had asked that the agents remove themselves from the limo between 11/18-11/19/63, but that the former agent was telling the TRUTH of the matter when he spoke to me years later. You see, Clint Hill wrote in his report:

    I … never personally was requested by President John F. Kennedy not to ride on the rear of the Presidential automobile. I did receive information passed verbally from the administrative offices of the White House Detail of the Secret Service to Agents assigned to that Detail that President Kennedy had made such requests. I do not know from whom I received this information … No written instructions regarding this were ever distributed … [I] received this information after the President’s return to Washington, D.C. This would have been between November 19, 1963 and November 21, 1963 [note the time frame!]. I do not know specifically who advised me of this request by the President. (emphasis added)

    Mr. Hill’s undated report was presumably written in April 1964, as the other four reports submitted to the Warren Commission were written at that time.[5] Why Mr. Hill could not “remember” the specific name of the agent who gave him JFK’s alleged desires is very troubling. He revealed it on March 9, 1964, presumably before his report was written, in his (obviously pre-rehearsed) testimony under oath to the future Senator Arlen Specter, then a lawyer with the Warren Commission[6]:

    Specter: Did you have any other occasion en route from Love Field to downtown Dallas to leave the follow-up car and mount that portion of the President’s car [rear portion of limousine]?

    Hill: I did the same thing approximately four times.

    Specter: What are the standard regulations and practices, if any, governing such an action on your part?

    Hill: It is left to the agent’s discretion more or less to move to that particular position when he feels that there is a danger to the President: to place himself as close to the President or the First Lady as my case was, as possible, which I did.

    Specter: Are those practices specified in any written documents of the Secret Service?

    Hill: No, they are not.

    Specter: Now, had there been any instruction or comment about your performance of that type of a duty with respect to anything President Kennedy himself had said in the period immediately preceding the trip to Texas?

    Hill: Yes, sir; there was. The preceding Monday, the President was on a trip to Tampa, Florida, and he requested that the agents not ride on either of those two steps.

    Specter: And to whom did the President make that request?

    Hill: Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring.

    Specter: Was Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring the individual in charge of that trip to Florida?

    Hill: He was riding in the Presidential automobile on that trip in Florida, and I presume that he was. I was not along.

    Specter: Well, on that occasion would he have been in a position comparable to that occupied by Special Agent Kellerman on this trip to Texas?

    Hill: Yes sir; the same position.

    Specter: And Special Agent Boring informed you of that instruction by President Kennedy?

    Hill: Yes sir, he did.

    Specter: Did he make it a point to inform other special agents of that same instruction?

    Hill: I believe that he did, sir.

    Specter: And, as a result of what President Kennedy said to him, did he instruct you to observe that Presidential admonition?

    Hill: Yes, sir.

    Specter: How, if at all, did that instruction of President Kennedy affect your action and—your action in safeguarding him on this trip to Dallas?

    Hill: We did not ride on the rear portions of the automobile. I did on those four occasions because the motorcycles had to drop back and there was no protection on the left-hand side of the car. (Emphasis added throughout)

    However, keeping in mind what Boring told this reviewer, the ARRB’s Doug Horne—by request of this author—interviewed Mr. Boring regarding this matter on 9/18/96. Horne wrote: “Mr. Boring was asked to read pages 136–137 of Clint Hill’s Warren Commission testimony, in which Clint Hill recounted that Floyd Boring had told him just days prior to the assassination that during the President’s Tampa trip on Monday, November 18, 1963, JFK had requested that agents not ride on the rear steps of the limousine, and that Boring had also so informed other agents of the White House detail, and that as a result, agents in Dallas (except Clint Hill, on brief occasions) did not ride on the rear steps of the limousine. Mr. Boring affirmed that he did make these statements to Clint Hill, but stated that he was not relaying a policy change, but rather simply telling an anecdote about the President’s kindness and consideration in Tampa in not wanting agents to have to ride on the rear of the Lincoln limousine when it was not necessary to do so because of a lack of crowds along the street.” (emphasis added)

     

    Hill on limo
    SS Agent Clint Hill rides on the rear of the Presidential
    limousine during the Dallas motorcade, 11/22/1963.

     

    This reviewer finds this admission startling, especially because the one agent who decided to ride on the rear of the limousine in Dallas anyway—and on at least four different occasions—was none other than Clint Hill himself.

    Returning to Hill’s book, Hill writes on pages 276-277: “What was most useful, from the Secret Service standpoint, were the special handles on the trunk and the steps on the rear bumper area where two additional agents could ride, and have immediate access to the occupants, should the need arise.” Then, in an awkward sentence, Hill continues: “But, as I’d been told the day before, the president did not want us there, on the back of the car.” Lisa McCubbin was also the co-author of Gerald Blaine’s The Kennedy Detail : boy, does this stuff sound familiar—the mantra of JFK-is-to-blame.

    V. Other items of interest

    After noting that President Kennedy trusted Kellerman “completely” (page 274) and wrongly noting that the SS-100-X was in service since March 1961 (page 276; it was actually in service since June 1961, 3 months later), Hill totally gleans over the infamous drinking incident of 11/21-11/22/63 involving NINE agents of the Secret Service, including Clint Hill himself, Paul Landis, Glen Bennett, and Jack Ready! Interestingly, they were all from Shift Leader Emory Roberts’ particular shift. Significantly, none of the agents from the V.P. LBJ detail were involved in the drinking incident.[7]

    Regarding the issue of the bubbletop, although Hill states (on page 284) that agent Lawson conveyed to Sam Kinney, the driver of the follow-up car, that the bubbletop was to be removed in Dallas, Sam told this reviewer on 10/19/92 and, again, on 3/4/94 and 4/15/94: “It was my fault the top was off [the limousine in Dallas]—I am the sole responsibility of that.”[8] In addition, Kinney’s oft-ignored report dated November 30, 1963 confirms this fact[9], as does the former agent’s recently-released February 26, 1978 HSCA interview:

    “… SA Kinney indicated that he felt that his was the responsibility for making the final decision about whether to use the bubble-top.”[10]

    Hill, in his zeal to show how “normal” it was for JFK not to use the bubbletop, makes an error, as well as many omissions- he writes:

    “It was the same whether he was in Berlin, Dublin [wrong-JFK used the top on part of this trip, in bad AND good weather!], Honolulu, Tampa, San Antonio, or San Jose, Costa Rica.”

    What Hill omits are the many times JFK used a PARTIAL top (just the front and back with the middle open) OR the FULL top (New York Spring 1963, several motorcades in D.C., Venezuela, and many other trips). [11]

    On page 286, Hill states that Bill Greer, the driver of JFK’s car, was “a Catholic”, yet his own son Richard told me on two occasions that his father was a Methodist. (When asked, “What did your father think of JFK?”, Richard did not respond the first time. When this author asked him a second time, Greer responded: “Well, we’re Methodists … and JFK was Catholic.”)![12] In addition, Hill states that Greer “spoke with a bit of a brogue”, something not in evidence on his lengthy 1970 interview available on my You Tube Channel.[13]

    VI. VERY interesting

    On page 287, Hill describes the makeup of the follow-up car and writes: “Glen Bennett from the Protective Research Section, handling intelligence (emphasis added).” Oh, really? Thanks for the confirmation, Clint. Officially-speaking, he was NOT acting as an active PRS agent that day…well, at least according to your own colleagues who spoke to me.[14] For his part, former WHD agent J. Walter Coughlin, who assisted fellow agent Dennis R. Halterman on the advance for the San Antonio part of the Texas trip (November 21, 1963), wrote the author: “I can only add the following—I was not in Dallas so my knowledge is hearsay from good friends who were there.” Glen Bennett was on all these trips [second New York, Florida, and Texas] not as a member of PRS but as a temporary shift agent in that so many of us (shift agents) were out on advance. “This I do know to be a fact and read nothing more into it.”

    Furthermore, the author must have touched a nerve in Coughlin. Winston Lawson wrote the author:

    I understand from my friend Walt Coughlin that you wondered why Glen Bennett from PRS was on the trip [note: the author did not tell Coughlin, who lives in Texas, about the author’s contact with Lawson, who lives in Virginia, regarding this or any other question]. Nothing sinister about it and had nothing to do with threats or intelligence. There were so many trips, MD and FL, just prior to TX and so many stops in TX that the small WH Detail was decimated supplying advance people. A number of temporarily assigned agents were on all 3 shifts in TX … I believe Walt had been on an advance before he went to his stop in TX.”

    Clearly, we have a conflict: the written record, my research, and Clint Hill’s account versus Walt Coughlin’s and Win Lawson’s statements to myself.

    Was PRS Agent Glen Bennett monitoring mortal threats to JFK’s life, made in the month of November, and was this covered up afterwards? Is this the reason for the conflicting accounts—and the timing—of Bennett’s participation in the second New York trip, the Florida trip, and the Texas trip?

    Did Bennett ride in the follow-up car and participate on these trips for this purpose? I strongly believe this to be the case. Thanks again, Clint, for the confirmation.

    VII. And another thing (or two)

    On pages 288-289, Hill mentions that JFK looked back at him on two different occasions during the fateful Dallas motorcade–when Hill briefly rode on the rear of the car on Main St, as depicted in the photo on page 289– yet did not say anything. JFK not saying anything speaks volumes, in and of itself. Mainly, that he did not care, one way or the other, if the agents were there doing their duty or not. But what is most troubling is the fact that no films or photos this author has ever seen reveal JFK allegedly turning to look at Hill in the first place! Hmmm…

    Just to reiterate the point of SAIC Behn’s absence from the Texas trip and its importance further, Hill writes (on page 297): “Jerry Behn…was with the president all the time, just like I was with Mrs. Kennedy. They had a great relationship. The president loved him, trusted him…Jerry decided to take a week off…His first annual leave in three years.” Kind of convenient.

    VIII. Another mantra: the back of the head

    On pages 290, 291, 305, and 306, Clint Hill states firmly, as he has many times in the past[15], that the BACK of JFK’s head was gone, thus indicating that President Kennedy was shot from the front, as entrance wounds leave small holes, while exit wounds leave large holes. Page 290: “…blood, brain matter, and bone fragments exploded from the back of the president’s head. The president’s blood, parts of his skull, bits of his brain were splattered all over me—on my face, my clothes, in my hair.” Page 291: “His eyes were fixed, and I could see inside the back of his head. I could see inside the back of the president’s head.” Page 305: (at the autopsy) “the wound in the upper-right rear of the head.” Page 306: “It looked like somebody had flipped open the back of his head, stuck in an ice-cream scoop and removed a portion of the brain…”

    IX. In the final analysis

    Unlike The Kennedy Detail, Clint Hill has written (again, with Lisa McCubbin) a fine book. That said, it is best to take some of his pre-assassination “reenactments” of statements made by others (“faction”?) with a huge grain of salt, while also noting—with interest—those assassination and post-assassination revelations and statements that do ring true and are of interest to all.

    POST SCRIPT

    It was recently announced that the first book Clint Hill was involved with, Lisa McCubbin’s and Gerald Blaine’s The Kennedy Detail, will be made into a movie, set for release in 2013, the 50th anniversary of the assassination.[16] The movie should be about Abe Bolden.  That is a great story and a truthful one. That said, Mark Lane’s movie, that will include former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden, is set to be released soon.[17] That should even out the playing field a little more. Lane’s movie with Bolden will hopefully fill in the blanks left by the Secret Service destruction of records.

    According to Ch. 8 of the ARRB’s Final Report (1998):

    Congress passed the JFK Act of 1992. One month later, the Secret Service began its compliance efforts. However, in January 1995, the Secret Service destroyed presidential protection survey reports for some of President Kennedy’s trips in the fall of 1963. The Review Board learned of the destruction approximately one week after the Secret Service destroyed them, when the Board was drafting its request for additional information. The Board believed that the Secret Service files on the President’s travel in the weeks preceding his murder would be relevant.

    As the ARRB’s Doug Horne wrote in a memo dated April 16, 1996: “The ‘final decision’ to approve the Texas trip made ‘late Tuesday night’ indicates that decision came on September 24, 1963 … the Secret Service Protective Survey Reports … which were destroyed in 1995 commence with trip files starting on this same date: September 24, 1963.”

    In addition, the ARRB’s Joan Zimmerman noted in a May 1, 1997 Memorandum To File:

    “Thus far, the US Secret Service collection is in 6 gray archive boxes for documents, 7 large, flat gray boxes with newspapers and clippings, and 1 small box with a tape cassette … In Box 5 there are three folders marked “trip file”. All are empty.” The chairman of the ARRB, Judge Jack Tunheim, stated: “The Secret Service destroyed records after we were on the job and working. They claimed it was a mistake that it was just by the normal progression of records destruction.”[18]

    More important are the Florida/Chicago Secret Service Advance reports that the Secret Service intentionally destroyed after being asked for them by the ARRB, and that, according to The Kennedy Detail, Gerald Blaine has copies of and preserved.[19] The largest number of known destroyed JFK documents for the U.S. Secret Service was implemented by James Mastrovito, publicly recorded in the ARRB Collection, Joan Zimmerman Correspondence File, Created 04/01/97 CALL REPORT/PUBLIC. USSS Records.

    Mastrovito destroyed a vial containing a portion of JFK’s brain, along with 5 or 6 file cabinets of material, according to the two page document.[20]

    JAMES MASTROVITO WENT ON TO A CAREER IN THE CIA AND HE WAS A FORMER MEMBER OF JFK’S WHITE HOUSE DETAIL![21] (emphasis added)


    NOTES

    [2] 6 H 163. As the author presented at the COPA ’96 and JFK Lancer ’97 conferences, the press photographers frequently rode in a flatbed truck in front of the motorcade pro-cession [films courtesy JFK Library; see also John F. Kennedy: A Life in Pictures, pp. 178–180, 183, 231]. Photographer Tony Zappone confirmed to the author on December 18, 2003 that a flatbed truck was used for the photographers in Tampa, Florida, on November 18, 1963.

    [3] See my review of “The Kennedy Detail”

    [4] Ibid; Kellerman was conveniently absent from Blaine’s alleged 11/25/63 meeting

    [6] 2 H 136-137

    [9] 18 H 730

    [10] RIF#180–10078–10493

    [11] See the images on my blog and on my You Tube channel videos. See also http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter03.pdf

    [15] Hill’s November 30, 1963 report: 18 H 740–5. WC testimony: 2 H 141, 143 (See also the 2004 National Geographic documentary, Inside the U.S. Secret Service). See also “The Kennedy Detail”, pages 216-217, 266+ media appearances

    [18] CBS News, December 13, 1999.

    [19] E-mail from researcher Bill Kelly 4/18/12

  • Gerald Blaine, The Kennedy Detail


    The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly:

    A Review of The Kennedy Detail, a Compelling but Dangerous Mix of Fact, Faction, and Fiction


    EDITOR’S NOTE: In advance of the Discovery Channel’s latest annual attempt to bolster the flagging Lone Gunman Myth – via their production of The Kennedy Detail – CTKA welcomes Vincent Palamara’s review of former Secret Service Agent Gerald Blaine’s recently published book of the same title, on which the Discovery Channel production has been based. Without question, the JFK research community is heavily indebted to Vince for his decades-long diligence in his pursuit and collection of first-hand accounts from Secret Service Agents in regard to procedures, directives, and actual eye-witness testimony surrounding the fateful events of November 22, 1963.

    While reading through Palamara’s own account of the testimonies that he has collected over the years in refutation of Gerald Blaine’s own personal remembrances, CKTA readers should keep in mind the controversial nature of sources such as Sy Hersh (The Dark Side of Camelot) and Peter Jennings (Dangerous World: The Kennedy Years) which Palamara references in this review. For the purpose of a balanced perspective, readers would do well to read an excerpt of an article by Jim DiEugenio: The Posthumous Assassination of JFK, Part II Sy Hersh and the Monroe/JFK Papers: The History of a Thirty-Year Hoax. (The complete essay may be found in The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X, edited by Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease.)

    Finally, and most importantly, CTKA readers should bear in mind that both Blaine’s book The Kennedy Detail and the Discovery Channel production on which it is based find “big picture” questions “radioactive.” In other words, Blaine and the Discovery Channel keep a very safe distance from the most important questions involving the Secret Service’s performance surrounding the events of November 22, 1963:

    1. Who in the Secret Service approved the motorcade route that resulted in the dogleg 120-degree turn, which slowed the limousine considerably beside a seven-story high-rise building and in front of an inclined and protected knoll, which together provided the cover for a virtual ambushed assault on the president they were sworn to protect?
    2. What of the “Chicago plot” of early November ’63? To what extent did the Secret Service’s involvement with the events in Chicago foreshadow those of a few weeks later in Dallas? And how much of its Chicago investigation has the Secret Service either altered or purged from the record for the purpose of – as former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden alleges (page down for Agent Bolden’s amazon.com review) – “cya”?
    3. Who in the Secret Service is to be held responsible for authorizing the initial bucket-sponging of the “crime scene on wheels” – i.e., the presidential limousine, followed by its all-too-quick restoration? – a blatant destruction of evidence.
    4. What about the Secret Service’s “stealing of the body” from Parkland Hospital, arguably the cornerstone for the resulting vagaries and obfuscations of the Bethesda “autopsy?”

    It’s “big picture” questions such as these that hold the key to either the exoneration or culpability of the Secret Service in regard to JFK’s assassination. To that extent, as Blaine and the Discovery Channel skate around these issues, it seems Palamara does indeed have his finger on the pulse: Ultimately, as regards the Secret Service, it all does appear to become a question of “Survivor’s Guilt.”

    As for any survivor’s guilt on his part, Agent Abraham Bolden tells us: “I sleep well at night knowing that I did everything that I could do to save the life of President Kennedy. Can the agents standing on the running board of the follow-up car in Dallas, Texas and watching the president’s head blown to pieces, say the same thing?”


    I: Ruffled Feathers

    On June 1, 2005, I sent a 22-page registered letter, signed receipt required, to former Secret Service agent Clint Hill1 (infamous for his leap onto the back of the limousine during the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963). My letter was, in essence, a “Cliff Notes” version of my own book “Survivor’s Guilt: The Secret Service & The Failure To Protect The President”2, focusing mainly on the issue of the agents’ presence – or lack thereof – on the rear of the presidential limousine on 11/22/63, as well as the actions and inactions of three specific agents I have many misgivings about: Floyd Boring (the number two agent on the Kennedy Detail and the Secret Service planner of the Texas trip), Shift Leader Emory Roberts (the commander of the agents in the follow-up car in Dallas), and William Greer (the driver of JFK’s limousine). When I phoned the gentleman on June 13, 2005, I received a very cantankerous “non-reply”, so to speak: “[Referring to my letter:] About what? Yeah, I’m here. I’m just not interested in talking to you.” I did not really expect much, but it was worth a try (having received an unexpected recommendation to talk to Mr. Hill from former agent Lynn Meredith, who was gracious enough to provide Mr. Hill’s unlisted address and phone number).

    On June 10, 2005, I phoned fellow former agent Gerald Blaine (having previously spoken to the gentleman on 2/7/04). Blaine confirmed his deep friendship with Hill and, much to my surprise, seemingly out of nowhere, said: “Don’t be too hard on Emory Roberts. He was a double, even a triple-checker. He probably took Jack Ready’s life into consideration.” It was at that moment that I realized that Clint Hill shared the contents of my letter to Blaine; probably with a good dose of anger and indignation, as well. When I received word that Blaine was coming out with a book called The Kennedy Detail AND that Clint Hill was writing the Foreword, I KNEW that I was responsible, as a catalyst, for their endeavors! Blaine and Hill are now on a book tour together, as well as appearing jointly on several news and media outlets, including an upcoming Discovery Channel documentary, based on the book.

    In fact, Blaine even admitted to Grand Junction Sentinel reporter Bob Silbernagel that it was during this exact time that he “began contacting all he could of the 38 agents who were in the Kennedy Detail on Nov. 22, 1963,” adding further that once “he began seeing all the misinformation and outright deceit about the assassination on the Internet, as well as in books and films, he decided, “Essentially, it was a book that had to be written.”3

    There was no question in my mind that I ruffled feathers with Blaine and Hill. If all this weren’t enough, Blaine’s attorney even sent me a certified letter in November 2009, a year before his book was to appear, asking me to take down a blog that Blaine noticed on my main Secret Service blog4 that merely announced their forthcoming book. Blaine thought I was trying to say that I was the co-author, which was the furthest thing from the truth – I was innocently telling my readers of a book they might find of interest. In any event, after writing back to Blaine and his lawyer, I decided to take that specific blog down… but this incident let me know, in no uncertain terms: Blaine and Hill were men on a mission.

    This is further evidenced by what Blaine himself wrote on his blog5: “At the annual conference of the 2,500 member former Secret Service Agents Association [AFAUSSS] last week (8/26-8/28/10) in New York City, Lisa McCubbin and I [Gerald Blaine] presented an overview of the book at the business meeting to ensure the agents that the publication was “Worthy of Trust and Confidence.”; “At the conference opening reception Clint Hill, Lisa McCubbin and I [Gerald Blaine] met with Secret Service Director Sullivan and discussed the book from the perspective of today’s operations. Clint Hill, who lives in the Washington DC area, had previously briefed the Director on the accuracy and purpose of writing the book.”; “I [Gerald Blaine] am the sole surviving charter member and a past president of the organization. The association was conceived by Floyd Boring and Jerry Behn with the assistance of fifteen charter members. Jerry Behn was the Special Agent in Charge of the Kennedy Detail and Floyd Boring was an Assistant Agent in Charge. The organization’s mission is to maintain social and professional relationships, to liaison with the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies” (emphasis added)

    To quote from a popular commercial, “Can you hear me now?”

    I knew their “mission” was to circle the wagons, so to speak, and attempt to counter my prolific research on the failings of the Secret Service on November 22, 1963, specifically, the statements by many of their colleagues – including BLAINE himself – that President Kennedy was a very nice man, never interfered with the actions of the Secret Service and, to the point, did NOT order the agents off his limousine… ever! These men, as well as several important non-agency personnel (such as Dave Powers, Congressman Sam Gibbons, and Cecil Stoughton, among others), provided information, on the phone and/ or in writing, to a total stranger – myself – with no trepidation whatsoever. “Official” history – the Warren Report, the HSCA Report, William Manchester’s “The Death of a President”, and Jim Bishop’s “The Day Kennedy Was Shot” – espouses a decidedly different verdict: President Kennedy was reckless with his security and did order the agents off his limousine-not in Dallas, but during the major trip before, in Tampa, FL, on 11/18/63, which allegedly had grave consequences for JFK’s protection on the day he was assassinated.

    First, a detailed look at the contents of The Kennedy Detail is in order.

    II: A Major Myth Demolished

    The book gets off on the wrong foot with myself and others right away with the bold pronouncement: “JFK’s Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence” (which is also the subtitle of the book). This is hogwash: not only did several agents, including Clint Hill, testify to the Warren Commission, many of the agents spoke to the aforementioned William Manchester (including Blaine and Hill6), Jim Bishop, and the HSCA, as well as to, among others, Prof. Philip Melanson (for his book The Secret Service: The Hidden History of an Enigmatic Agency), several prominent Secret Service television documentaries between 1995 and 2004 (Hill was involved in all of these productions that made their way to VHS and/ or DVD, as well), and, last but certainly not least, to myself, Vince Palamara, between 1992 and 2006 (again, including Blaine and Hill)! Things only get worse once one gets to the inside flap jacket: Blaine writes that JFK “banned agents from his car”, which is patently false – as Winston Lawson, the lead advance agent for the fateful Dallas trip, wrote to me in a letter dated 1/12/04: “I do not know of any standing orders for the agents to stay off the back of the car. After all, foot holds and handholds were built into that particular vehicle… it never came to my attention as such. I am certain agents were on the back on certain occasions.” For his part, ATSAIC (Shift Leader) Art Godfrey told this reviewer on May 30, 1996, regarding the notion that JFK ordered the agents not to do certain things which included removing themselves from the rear of the limousine: “That’s a bunch of baloney; that’s not true. He never ordered us to do anything. He was a very nice man … cooperative.” Godfrey reiterated this on June 7, 1996. In a letter dated November 24, 1997, Godfrey stated the following: “All I can speak for is myself. When I was working [with] President Kennedy he never ask[ed] me to have my shift leave the limo when we [were] working it,” thus confirming what he had also told the author telephonically on two prior occasions. As we shall see, Blaine makes much ado about this issue… for obvious reasons (Thou Protest Too Much).

    Although very well written and containing some nice photographs, The Kennedy Detail provides the reader a generous dose of fact, “faction” (playing hard and loose with alleged ‘facts’ and encompassing reconstructed dialogue and supposed meetings that allegedly occurred without documentation) and fiction. In fact, there are no footnotes, endnotes, sources, or a bibliography to be found (although, to his credit, Blaine did include an impressive index). It is important to note that many important former agents and officials, such as “the brass” – Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon, Asst Sec. G. d’Andelot Belin, Chief James Rowley, Aide to the Chief Walter Blaschak, Deputy Chief Paul Paterni, Assistant Chief Russell Daniels, Assistant Chief Ed Wildy, Chief U.E. Baughman, Special Agent In Charge (SAIC) Gerald Behn, ASAIC Floyd Boring (the planner of the Texas trip), ASAIC Roy Kellerman (rode in JFK’s limo), ASAIC John Campion, ATSAIC (Shift Leader) Emory Roberts (rode in follow up car), ATSAIC Stu Stout (on Texas trip), ATSAIC Art Godfrey (on Texas trip), SAIC of Personnel Howard Anderson, SAIC of PRS Robert Bouck, ASAIC of LBJ Detail (and former JFK agent) Rufus Youngblood, Head Inspector of PRS Elliot Thacker, Chief Inspector Jackson Krill, Inspector Thomas Kelley, Inspector Gerard McCann, & Inspector Burrill Peterson – and many “privates”, such as Bill Bacherman, Glen Bennett (of PRS; rode in motorcade), Andy Berger (on the Texas trip), Bert deFreese (on the Texas trip), Jerry Dolan, Paul Doster, PRS Dick Flohr, Morgan Gies, William Greer (the driver of JFK’s limo), Dennis Halterman (on the Texas trip), Ned Hall II (on the Texas trip), Harvey Henderson, George Hickey (rode in the follow-up car), Andy Hutch, Jim Jeffries, Sam Kinney (drove the follow-up car), PRS Elmer Lawrence, James Mastrovito, John “Muggsy” O’Leary (on the Texas trip), Bill Payne (on the Texas trip), PRS Walter Pine, Wade Rodham7, Henry Rybka (on the Texas trip), Thomas Shipman (deceased 10/14/63!), PRS Frank Stoner, & PRS Walter Young – not to mention countless agents from field offices (such as the SAIC of the Dallas Office Forrest Sorrels and his assistant Robert Steuart AND Charlie Kunkel), DIED YEARS BEFORE THIS BOOK WAS EVEN A THOUGHT. In addition, since there are no specific references, it is hard to know exactly WHO among the living WAS interviewed, as Blaine recently admitted that “three agents still cannot discuss the emotional aspects of that day in Dallas” and he was unable “to contact three other agents who served.”8 In addition, several OTHER agents (such as Lynn Meredith, Bob Foster, Paul Burns, Jerry Kivett and Stu Knight) passed away during the time Blaine was writing his book, so we are unable to know if they were contacted, as well.

    That said, it is most telling that Blaine admitted that three agents – Larry Newman, Tony Sherman, and Tim McIntyre (rode in the follow-up car) – were not contacted because they had “responded to Seymour Hirsch’s [sic] book, The Dark Side of Camelot, which violated the code of silence.”9 Yet, the fourth agent, Joe Paolella, apparently WAS interviewed for Blaine’s volume. Why wasn’t he banished from his work, as well? Using this “code of silence” criteria, several (perhaps many) of the agents who spoke to myself and others should have been ignored, as well (example: former agent Walt Coughlin told me that LBJ was “a first-class prick”10). It was obvious why Blaine ignored former agent Abraham Bolden: the controversial nature of Bolden’s beliefs and so forth.11 So, it appears a little selectivity, necessary and otherwise, was used regarding former agent interviews for The Kennedy Detail.12

    As for the aforementioned Newman, Sherman, McIntyre, and Paolella, they waxed on to Seymour Hersh (and others, including the December 1997 ABC/ Peter Jennings special Dangerous World: The Kennedy Years) about their anger and disgust over JFK’s private lives. Incredibly, even Emory Roberts’ concerns over these issues was voiced by McIntyre. This is very disturbing because it shows a MOTIVE FOR INACTION on 11/22/63. For his part, McIntyre told ABC News, regarding JFK’s private life: “Prostitution – that’s illegal. A procurement is illegal. And if you have a procurer with prostitutes paraded in front of you, then, as a sworn law enforcement officer, you’re asking yourself, ‘Well, what do they think of us?’ ” McIntyre felt this way after having only spent a very brief time with JFK before the assassination: he joined the White House Detail in the fall of 1963.13 McIntyre also told Hersh: “His shift supervisor, the highly respected Emory Roberts, took him aside and warned … that ‘you’re going to see a lot of shit around here. Stuff with the President. Just forget about it. Keep it to yourself. Don’t even talk to your wife.’ … Roberts was nervous about it. Emory would say, McIntyre recalled with a laugh, ‘How in the hell do you know what’s going on? He could be hurt in there. What if one bites him’ in a sensitive area? Roberts ‘talked about it a lot’, McIntyre said. ‘Bites’ … In McIntyre’s view, a public scandal about Kennedy’s incessant womanizing was inevitable. ‘It would have had to come out in the next year or so. In the campaign, maybe.’ McIntyre said he and some of his colleagues … felt abused by their service on behalf of President Kennedy … McIntyre said he eventually realized that he had compromised his law enforcement beliefs to the point where he wondered whether it was ‘time to get out of there. I was disappointed by what I saw.’ ” (emphasis added)14 Blaine chose to ignore these men and this issue entirely in his book: is this good history? I think not. It might not be pleasant, but these men said what they said – to ignore this matter speaks of a cover up of guilty knowledge. I did not ignore it.

    From the first photo section and page 19 of his book (and, later, on pages 240 and 288), we learn something I had already reported years before: that SAIC Gerald Behn “always traveled with the president. In the three years since Kennedy had been elected, Jerry Behn had not taken one day of vacation…He took his first vacation in four years the week JFK was assassinated.” Quirk of fate or convenient absence? You decide. I have.

    Also on page 19, Blaine begins to (using a lawyer’s term) “lay the foundation,” as it were, for blaming the victim (JFK) and, in the process, makes a real whopper: Blaine writes, “the Secret Service was not authorized to override a presidential decision.” Wrong! Ample proof to the contrary abounds. Chief James J. Rowley testified under oath to the Warren Commission: “No President will tell the Secret Service what they can or cannot do.”15 In fact, Rowley’s predecessor, former Chief U. E. Baughman, who had served under JFK from Election Night 1960 until September 1961, had written in his 1962 book Secret Service Chief : “Now the Chief of the Secret Service is legally empowered to countermand a decision made by anybody in this country if it might endanger the life or limb of the Chief Executive. This means I could veto a decision of the President himself if I decided it would be dangerous not to. The President of course knew this fact.”16 Indeed, an Associated Press story from November 15, 1963 stated: “The (Secret) Service can overrule even the President where his personal security is involved.” Even President Truman agreed, stating, “The Secret Service was the only boss that the President of the United States really had.”17 Finally, In an 11/23/63 UPI story written by Robert J. Serling from Washington entitled “Secret Service Men Wary of Motorcade,” based in part on “private conversations” with unnamed agents: “An agent is the only man in the world who can order a President of the United States around if the latter’s safety is believed at stake … in certain situations an agent outranks even a President.” (emphasis added)

    One major myth down, one major one left to demolish.

    III: Standing Orders & “Ivy League Charlatans”

    Peppered throughout the book, but starting on page 74, Blaine begins to bring up the issue of the agents’ presence (or lack thereof) on the back of JFK’s limousine (in Tampa on 11/18/63, in Dallas on 11/22/63, and elsewhere – further “laying the foundation” for his false premise of blaming the victim), accurately stating for the record, AFTER revealing his knowledge of the Joseph Milteer threat received via the Miami Police Department before JFK’s trip to Florida: “… the only way to have a chance at protecting the president against a shooter from a tall building would be to have agents posted on the back of the car.” Indeed, on pages 81-84, as various films and photos confirm, Blaine tells of his having ridden on the rear of President Kennedy’s limousine in Rome and Naples, Italy (7/2/63). In addition, his first photo section depicts Blaine and his colleagues on or near the rear of JFK’s car in Costa Rica (March 1963), Berlin, Germany (June, 1963) and Ireland (also in June 1963), while his second photo section depicts yet another photo of the agents on the car in Ireland, as well as in Tampa, Florida (11/18/63) and even agent Clint Hill on the rear of the car in Dallas, Texas on 11/22/63, albeit before the motorcade reached Dealey Plaza.

    It is on pages 100-101, in his zeal to set up his premise, that Blaine makes a costly error. Blaine writes: “Fortunately, they’d have SS100X [JFK’s special 1961 Lincoln Continental] in Dallas, which had the rear steps and handholds so two agents could be perched directly behind the president and could react quickly. He’d [Win Lawson would] be sure to tell Roy Kellerman, the Special Agent in Charge for the Texas trip, that when the motorcade was driving through downtown, agents would need to be on the back of the car.” However, as we have seen, and it bears repeating, Win Lawson wrote to this reviewer on 1/12/04, before this book was even a thought, and said: “I do not know of any standing orders for the agents to stay off the back of the car. After all, foot holds and handholds were built into that particular vehicle… it never came to my attention as such.” (emphasis added) Needless to say, this is in direct contradiction to these statements, attributed to Lawson by Blaine, in The Kennedy Detail.

    Blaine makes much of the 11/18/63 trip JFK took to Tampa as ‘evidence’ that President Kennedy ordered the agents off the car (as did the Secret Service, exactly five months after the assassination, via five reports submitted to the Warren Commission by Chief Rowley18). As with SAIC Behn’s first-time absence, we now supposedly have another instance of a brand new notion, as Blaine writes on page 148: “In the three years he’d been with JFK, he’d never heard the president call the agents off the back of the car in the middle of a motorcade.” Indeed, on page 162, Blaine reports that agent Ron Pontius stated: “I’ve never heard the president say anything about agents on the back of the car,” registering his astonishment based on allegedly hearing this, for the first time, on 11/21/63 from long-deceased agent Bert deFreese (in a 47-year-old reconstructed conversation – faction? fiction? – that Blaine makes in the book). Blaine is alleging that JFK ordered the agents (specifically, agents Don Lawton and Chuck Zboril) off the back of the car in Tampa, allegedly using the phrase made infamous by William Manchester19: “Floyd [Boring], have the Ivy League charlatans drop back to the follow-up car.” Blaine later adds, on page 184: “None of the agents understood why he [JFK] was willing to be so reckless.” If that weren’t enough, Blaine also stated (on the upcoming Discovery Channel documentary airing on 11/22/10): “President Kennedy made a decision, and he politely told everybody, ‘You know, we’re starting the campaign now, and the people are my asset,’” said agent Jerry Blaine. “And so, we all of a sudden understood. It left a firm command to stay off the back of the car.”20 Huh? “Everybody”? THAT alleged statement “left a firm command”? In any event, once again, we have a major conflict with reality – not only do many films and photos depict the agents (still) riding on (or walking/ jogging very near) the rear of the limousine in Tampa21 22, Congressman Sam Gibbons, who actually rode a mere foot away IN the car with JFK, wrote to me in a letter dated 1/15/04: “”I rode with Kennedy every time he rode. I heard no such order. As I remember it the agents rode on the rear bumper all the way. Kennedy was very happy during his visit to Tampa. Sam Gibbons.” Also, photographer Tony Zappone, then a 16-year-old witness to the motorcade in Tampa (one of whose photos for this motorcade was ironically used in The Kennedy Detail!), told me that the agents were “definitely on the back of the car for most of the day until they started back for MacDill AFB at the end of the day.”23 (emphasis added)

    As for the “Ivy League Charlatans” remark JFK allegedly uttered to ASAIC Floyd Boring and, again, first made famous by Manchester, Boring told this author, “I never told him [Manchester] that.” As for the merit of the quote itself, as previously mentioned, Boring said, “No, no, no – that’s not true,” thus contradicting his own report in the process, stating further: “He actually – No, I told them … He didn’t tell them anything … He just – I looked at the back and I seen these fellahs were hanging on the limousine – I told them to return to the car … [JFK] was a very easy-going guy … he didn’t interfere with our actions at all.”24 In a later interview, Boring expounded further: “Well that’s not true. That’s not true. He was a very nice man; he never interfered with us at all.”25 If that weren’t enough, Boring also wrote the author: “He [JFK] was very cooperative with the Secret Service.”26 Incredibly, Boring was not even interviewed for Manchester’s book! We may never know Mr. Manchester’s source for this curious statement: he told the author on August 23, 1993 that “… all that material is under seal and won’t be released in my lifetime” and denied the author access to his notes (Manchester has since passed away). Interestingly, Manchester did interview the late Emory Roberts – an agent this reviewer is most suspicious of27 – and GERALD BLAINE, Manchester’s probable “source(s)”.28 29

    As for Blaine, this is what he told this reviewer: On February 7, 2004 Blaine said that President Kennedy was “very cooperative. He didn’t interfere with our actions. President Kennedy was very likeable – he never had a harsh word for anyone. He never interfered with our actions.” (emphasis added) When I asked Blaine how often the agents rode on the back of JFK’s limousine, the former agent said it was a “fairly common” occurrence that depended on the crowd and the speed of the cars. In fact, just as one example, Blaine rode on the rear of JFK’s limousine in Germany in June 1963, along with fellow Texas trip veterans Paul A. Burns and Samuel E. Sulliman. Blaine added, in specific reference to the agents on the follow-up car in Dallas: “You have to remember, they were fairly young agents,” seeming to imply that their youth was a disadvantage, or perhaps this was seen as an excuse for their poor performance on November 22, 1963. Surprisingly, Blaine, the WHD advance agent for the Tampa trip of November 18, 1963, said that JFK did make the comment “I don’t need Ivy League charlatans back there,” but emphasized this was a “low-key remark” said “kiddingly” and demonstrating Kennedy’s “Irish sense of humor.” However, according to the “official” story, President Kennedy allegedly made these remarks only to Boring while traveling in the presidential limousine in Tampa: Blaine was nowhere near the vehicle at the time, so Boring, despite what he conveyed to this reviewer, had to be his source for this story!30 In addition to Emory Roberts, one now wonders, as mentioned previously, if Blaine was a source (or perhaps the source) for Manchester’s exaggerated “quote” attributed to Boring, as Agent Blaine was also interviewed by Manchester. Blaine would not respond to a follow-up letter on this subject. However, when the author phoned Blaine on June 10, 2005, the former agent said the remark “Ivy League charlatans” came “from the guys … I can’t remember who [said it] … I can’t remember.” (emphasis added) Thus, Blaine confirms that he did not hear the remark from JFK. That said, Blaine’s memory got a whole lot “better” 5 years later: he writes on page 148: “The message came though loud and clear on Blaine’s walkie-talkie.” Incredible.

    IV: Startling Admissions

    As for ASAIC Floyd Boring, this reviewer has no doubt that Boring DID INDEED CONVEY the fraudulent notion that JFK had asked that the agents remove themselves from the limo between 11/18-11/19/63, but that the former agent was telling the TRUTH of the matter when he spoke to me years later. You see, Clint Hill wrote in his report:

    I … never personally was requested by President John F. Kennedy not to ride on the rear of the Presidential automobile. I did receive information passed verbally from the administrative offices of the White House Detail of the Secret Service to Agents assigned to that Detail that President Kennedy had made such requests. I do not know from whom I received this information … No written instructions regarding this were ever distributed … [I] received this information after the President’s return to Washington, D.C. This would have been between November 19, 1963 and November 21, 1963 [note the time frame!]. I do not know specifically who advised me of this request by the President. (emphasis added)

    Mr. Hill’s undated report was presumably written in April 1964, as the other four reports were written at that time. Why Mr. Hill could not “remember” the specific name of the agent who gave him JFK’s alleged desires is very troubling – he revealed it on March 9, 1964, presumably before his report was written, in his (obviously pre-rehearsed) testimony under oath to the future Senator Arlen Specter, then a lawyer with the Warren Commission31:

    Specter: “Did you have any other occasion en route from Love Field to downtown Dallas to leave the follow-up car and mount that portion of the President’s car [rear portion of limousine]?” Hill:I did the same thing approximately four times.” Specter: “What are the standard regulations and practices, if any, governing such an action on your part?” Hill: “It is left to the agent’s discretion more or less to move to that particular position when he feels that there is a danger to the President: to place himself as close to the President or the First Lady as my case was, as possible, which I did.” Specter: “Are those practices specified in any written documents of the Secret Service?” Hill:No, they are not.” Specter: “Now, had there been any instruction or comment about your performance of that type of a duty with respect to anything President Kennedy himself had said in the period immediately preceding the trip to Texas?” Hill: “Yes, sir; there was. The preceding Monday, the President was on a trip to Tampa, Florida, and he requested that the agents not ride on either of those two steps.” Specter: “And to whom did the President make that request?” Hill:Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring.” Specter: “Was Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring the individual in charge of that trip to Florida?” Hill: “He was riding in the Presidential automobile on that trip in Florida, and I presume that he was. I was not along.” Specter: “Well, on that occasion would he have been in a position comparable to that occupied by Special Agent Kellerman on this trip to Texas?” Hill: “Yes sir; the same position.” Specter:And Special Agent Boring informed you of that instruction by President Kennedy?Hill:Yes sir, he did.” Specter:Did he make it a point to inform other special agents of that same instruction?Hill:I believe that he did, sir.Specter: “And, as a result of what President Kennedy said to him, did he instruct you to observe that Presidential admonition?Hill:Yes, sir.” Specter: “How, if at all, did that instruction of President Kennedy affect your action and – your action in safeguarding him on this trip to Dallas?” Hill:We did not ride on the rear portions of the automobile. I did on those four occasions because the motorcycles had to drop back and there was no protection on the left-hand side of the car.” (emphasis added)

    However, keeping in mind what Boring told this reviewer, the ARRB’s Doug Horne – by request of this reviewer – interviewed Mr. Boring regarding this matter on 9/18/96. Horne wrote: “Mr. Boring was asked to read pages 136–137 of Clint Hill’s Warren Commission testimony, in which Clint Hill recounted that Floyd Boring had told him just days prior to the assassination that during the President’s Tampa trip on Monday, November 18, 1963, JFK had requested that agents not ride on the rear steps of the limousine, and that Boring had also so informed other agents of the White House detail, and that as a result, agents in Dallas (except Clint Hill, on brief occasions) did not ride on the rear steps of the limousine. Mr. Boring affirmed that he did make these statements to Clint Hill, but stated that he was not relaying a policy change, but rather simply telling an anecdote about the President’s kindness and consideration in Tampa in not wanting agents to have to ride on the rear of the Lincoln limousine when it was not necessary to do so because of a lack of crowds along the street.” (emphasis added)

    This reviewer finds this admission startling, especially because the one agent who decided to ride on the rear of the limousine in Dallas anyway – and on at least four different occasions – was none other than Clint Hill himself.

    This also does not address what the agents were to do when the crowds were heavier, or even what exactly constituted a “crowd”, as agents did ride on the rear steps of the limousine in Tampa on November 18, 1963 anyway! (agents Donald J. Lawton, Andrew E. Berger, and Charles T. Zboril, to be exact. Perhaps this is why Blaine felt the need to caption a photo of Boring with the following: “[Boring] was highly respected by all the agents, as well as by JFK.”)

    “Presidential admonition” (as Specter said to Hill)? Simply an “anecdote” of “the President’s kindness” (what Boring said to Horne)? “Not true” (what Boring said to this reviewer)? You decide. I have… and so has Blaine: twice, in fact – what he told this reviewer and what he now claims in The Kennedy Detail (see the flapjacket, pages 148-150, 162, 183-184, 206, 208, 209, 232).”

    On page 162, Blaine alleges that SAIC Gerald Behn, from his office in the White House, told agent Ron Pontius on 11/21/63: “[JFK] wanted the agents off the back of the car [in Tampa and Dallas] in order for the people to get an unobstructed view.” However, in a contradiction Blaine doesn’t even notice (although he previously mentioned it on page 19 and in the first photo section), BEHN WAS ON VACATION DURING THIS TIME! Perhaps most importantly, Behn told this reviewer on 9/27/92: “I don’t remember Kennedy ever saying that he didn’t want anybody on the back of his car. I think if you watch the newsreel pictures you’ll find agents on there from time to time.”32 In fact, MANY former agents and White House aides told this reviewer the same thing Lawson, Boring, and Behn all said!33

    And yet, despite all of this defensive posturing, faction, and fabricating, Blaine states, with regard to the agents’ not being on the rear of the car in Dealey Plaza (on page 209): “It was standard procedure – regardless of the president’s request – for all agents to fall back to the follow-up car in this situation.” (see also page 289) But Blaine wasn’t done just yet.

    V: Reconstructing History

    In what this reviewer regards as a clever fabrication with “faction” (reconstructing alleged dialogue, 47 years later, from long-dead colleagues), Blaine claims (on pages 285-289 & 360) that there was a meeting at 8 a.m. on 11/25/63, the morning of JFK’s funeral, in which the issue of JFK’s alleged orders to remove the agents from the car in Tampa (and Dallas) was allegedly covered up so the public would not blame the president for his own death… SOMETHING THIS BOOK, AND ESPECIALLY THIS “TALE”, DOES WITH VIGOR! Blaine claims that this meeting was attended by himself, Chief James Rowley (deceased 11/1/92), Rowley’s secretary Walter Blaschak (long deceased) , ASAIC Floyd Boring (deceased 2/1/08 and in ill heath long beforehand), SAIC Jerry Behn (as noted previously, deceased 4/21/93), ATSAIC Stu Stout (deceased December 1974), and ATSAIC Emory Roberts (deceased 10/8/73). ASAIC Roy Kellerman (deceased 3/22/84) allegedly did NOT attend and, while Blaine mentions that “every supervising agent” was in attendance, he does not mention ATSAIC Art Godfrey (deceased 5/12/2002) by name, although it is ‘inferred’ that he was there, as well.

    It must be said forcefully: There is NO documentation whatsoever that this alleged meeting occurred and all the participants, save Blaine (imagine that), are long dead AND many of them said and wrote things to this reviewer contradictory to the substance of this alleged meeting. On page 288, Blaine writes, speaking for SAIC Behn: “Jim, after Floyd told me about the incident [the alleged JFK orders to remove the agents 11/18/63 in Tampa], I told him to relay the information to the shift leaders – Emory Roberts, Art Godfrey, and Stu Stout – and I know that he did that. They in turn told the men on their shift, which included the agents out on advances.” Incredible.

    We already know what Behn, Boring, Blaine, Godfrey, and Lawson said to this reviewer; Stout34 and Kellerman never said anything officially, one way or the other on the matter. Roberts’ report confirms nothing except that ASAIC Boring told him to remove the agents from the car on 11/18/63; nothing about JFK or anything else. What about the other “agents out on advances?” Frank Yeager, Blaine’s advance partner in Tampa, in a letter to this reviewer dated December 29, 2003, Yeager wrote: “I did not think that President Kennedy was particularly ‘difficult’ to protect. In fact, I thought that his personality made it easier than some because he was easy to get along with … .” (emphasis added) With regard to the author’s question “Did President Kennedy ever order the agents off the rear of his limousine?” Yeager responded: “I know of no ‘order’ directly from President Kennedy. I think that after we got back from Tampa, Florida where I did the advance for the President, a few days before Dallas, Kenny O’Donnell, Chief of Staff, requested that the Secret Service agents not ride the rear running board of the Presidential car during parades involving political events so that the president would not be screened by an agent. I don’t know what form or detail that this request was made to the Secret Service who worked closely with O’Donnell. I also do not know who actually made the final decision, but we did not have agents on the rear of the President’s car in Dallas.” (emphasis added)

    Like Hill’s report mentioned above, please note the timing. Further, regarding the notion of JFK’s staff having a hand in this matter, in a letter to the author dated January 15, 2004, former agent Gerald O’Rourke, who was on Blaine’s shift on the Texas trip, wrote: “Did President Kennedy order us (agents) off the steps of the limo? To my knowledge President Kennedy never ordered us to leave the limo. You must remember at times we had to deal with the Chief of Staff.” (emphasis added) The agent added: “President Kennedy was easy to protect as he completely trusted the agents of the Secret Service. We always had to be entirely honest with him and up front so we did not lose his trust.” So, while both agents say JFK was easy to protect and that no order came from JFK, they imply, or seem to imply, that the Chief of Staff – O’Donnell – had something to do with this. More on this crucially important matter in a moment, as we shall look at the other advance agents and what they conveyed to this reviewer.

    J. Walter Coughlin, who helped do the San Antonio advance with the late Dennis Halterman (deceased 1988), wrote this reviewer: “In almost all parade situations that I was involved w[ith] we rode or walked the limo.” (emphasis added) Coughlin later wrote: “We often rode on the back of the car.” (For the record, Ned Hall II, who helped with the advance in Fort Worth, passed away in 1998; his son, Ned Hall III, had no comment to make on the matter. The other agent on the Fort Worth advance, Bill Duncan, never has said a thing regarding this issue, officially or otherwise, and it is not apparent if he was even contacted for Blaine’s book or not). Ronald Pontius, who helped advance the Houston stop with the late Bert deFreese (died sometime in the 1980’s), wrote this reviewer that JFK DID convey these alleged orders “through his staff,” (emphasis added) and here is why this “staff” notion is so important: This is a notion that Blaine doesn’t even touch in the book! For the record, Presidential Aide (Chief of Staff / Appointments Secretary) Kenneth P. O’Donnell does not mention anything with regard to telling the agents to remove themselves from the limousine (based on JFK’s alleged “desires”) during his lengthy Warren Commission testimony (nor to author William Manchester, nor even in his or his daughter’s books, for that matter); the same is true for the other two Presidential aides: Larry O’Brien and Dave Powers. In fact, Powers refutes this whole idea – he wrote this reviewer in a letter dated 9/10/93 that “they never had to be told to ‘get off’ the limousine.”

    JFK’s staff is not mentioned as a factor during any of the agents’ Warren Commission testimony, nor in the aforementioned five reports submitted in April 1964. Furthermore, Helen O’Donnell wrote this reviewer on 10/11/10: “Suffice to say that you are correct; JFK did not order anybody off the car, he never interfered with my dad’s direction on the Secret Service, and this is much backed up by my Dad’s tapes. I think and know from the tapes Dallas always haunted him because of the might-have-beens – but they involved the motorcade route [only].” In addition, former agents Art Godfrey and Kinney denounced the “staff/O’Donnell” notion to this reviewer, despite what a small minority of the agents I contacted – Yeager, O’Rourke, and Pontius – suggested (although, again, Yeager and O’Rourke agreed that JFK was easy to protect and that no order came from him).

    Just WHY are these seemingly contradictory accounts of this minority of agents’ Yeager, O’Rourke, and Pontius (seemingly contradictory, that is, to this reviewer AND definitely contradictory to Blaine) so very important? Because Blaine’s alleged 11/25/63 “meeting” mentions not a thing about staff interference or input, his BOOK mentions not a thing about staff interference or input, and, in fact, on page 352, Blaine even writes: “If ever asked about whether JFK had ordered them [the former agents] off the back of his car, the answer was always, “Oh, no. President Kennedy was wonderful. He was very easy to protect. No, I don’t remember him ever ordering agents off the back of his car.” (emphasis added) This is simply false. In addition to the aforementioned three agents (Yeager, O’Rourke, and Pontius), several agents contacted by the author would not comment, several would claim not to remember, and three (one, contacted by myself, the other two, via the HSCA) gave hazy second-hand information (of dubious quality) seeming to blame JFK after all!35 If that weren’t enough, Rufus Youngblood in his book36 and Emory Roberts in his report37, claimed it was THE MOTORCYCLES that got in the way of the agents (Ready especially) getting onto the rear of the car… geez.

    Finally, in addition to Blaine, former agents Lynn Meredith, Larry Newman, and Don Lawton mentioned the “Ivy League Charlatan” remark to myself, although none claimed to have heard it from JFK (Meredith told me: “I must admit that I was not along on the trip and was back at the White House with Caroline and John, Jr. .. I do not know first-hand if President Kennedy ordered agents off the back end of his limousine.” The former agent said that “No Secret Service agents riding on the rear of the limousine” was the number one reason JFK was killed! Newman, not interviewed for Blaine’s book, said “supposedly, I didn’t hear this directly” and that Manchester’s book was “part of myth, part of truth”. Newman added: “There was not a directive, per se” from President Kennedy to remove the agents from their positions on the back of his limousine. For his part, Lawton told me: “I didn’t hear the President say it, no. The word was relayed to us – I forget who told us now – you know, ‘come back to the follow-up car.’ ” Lawton also added: “Everyone felt bad. It was our job to protect the President. You still have regrets, remorse. Who knows, if they had left guys on the back of the car … you can hindsight yourself to death.”38)

    You see, almost none of these former agents were contacted by anyone other than this reviewer, as the agents had unlisted addresses and phone numbers; only the hospitality of a couple former agents led me to these men. Blaine’s comment on page 352 (and, indeed, his whole book) were aimed squarely at myself and my 22-page letter mentioned at the beginning of this review. After calling me a “self-described “Secret Service expert” – without actually naming me – on page 359 (guilty as charged; that said, The History Channel, Vince Bugliosi, the Assassination Records Review Board, and many authors and researchers have given me this tag), Blaine saves his special ire for me on page 360: “This same “expert” who had been interviewed for many conspiracy theory books relentlessly blamed the Secret Service for JFK’s death by using their own statements against them [no theories, just facts – it is what it is: they said what they said, they wrote what they wrote, and to a total stranger, to boot]. In many cases he called agents and recorded their conversations without their knowledge [not “in many cases”: only in a very few instances many years ago and these agents are now deceased. That said, thank God I did: WHO would choose to believe my word NOW, especially with Blaine’s book out now for public consumption?]” And HERE is the kicker, in the context of the aforementioned alleged “meeting” Blaine detailed on pages 285-289 (and on page 352), Blaine continues (still on page 360): “When asked whether President Kennedy had ever ordered the agents off the back of his car, the agents gave him the standard line that Chief Rowley requested they give. And as the agents upheld their code, Rowley’s words from the day of President Kennedy’s funeral resonating in their minds, the Secret Service “expert” turned around and used their words to stab them – and their brothers – in the back with baseless accusations.” Incredible.

    There was NO morning-of-JFK’s-funeral-meeting to cover for the dead president so he wouldn’t be blamed for ordering the agents off his car – this was used as a clever device to diffuse and cast aside the damning evidence of just what all these men (including BLAINE himself!) said and wrote to me, many of whom died years before this book – and this alleged meeting – was even a figment of Blaine’s imagination. Again, there is no documentation for this 47-year-old meeting – we have to take Blaine, the “sole survivor” of this alleged meeting, at his word. And, what – all these men are LIARS now for what they said and wrote to myself? In the context of my 22-page letter, I believe this “meeting” to be a total fabrication. But it IS clever for another reason: I am sure there WAS most likely a meeting regarding the security detail’s coverage of all the dignitaries and their walk with Jackie to St. Matthew’s Cathedral and so forth; a clever cover story, indeed.

    VI: Agent Boring Is Not

    That said, there are two major reasons why Blaine’s 47-year-old cover story is patently false: first, several important non-Secret Service agents (Dave Powers, Congressman Sam Gibbons, Marty Underwood, Helen O’Donnell, and Pierre Salinger, among others, such as various newsmen on 11/22/63, etc.39) ALSO told this reviewer that JFK did NOT interfere with the Secret Service or order the agents off his car – what “code” would THEY have been following, Mr. Blaine? Why would they be “lying” to me? (Yes, I am being facetious.) Perhaps this is why Blaine chose to ignore the other cover story of blaming the staff: He had no control over THEIR refutations.

    The second reason also reveals an embarrassing error on Blaine’s part – he writes on page 360: “If these “experts” [me!] and “researchers” had only read some of the documents that were released in 1992 and available online, they would have found a letter from Chief James J. Rowley written in response to J. Lee Rankin, general counsel on the Warren Commission, in which Rowley admitted what he so desperately did not want to become public. He did not want it to look as if the Secret Service was in any way blaming President Kennedy for his own death. ” (emphasis added; see also page 289 of Blaine’s book) Epic Fail – not only does this book achieve Rowley’s “non-goal” of blaming JFK for the security inefficiencies in Dallas, but these “documents” were released in 1964 in the Warren Commission Volumes: 18 H 803–9, to be exact! In addition, Rowley’s alleged “desperation” to ‘hide’ JFK’s own alleged culpability in his own death was a monster failure of epic proportions: as we know, Clint Hill testified to the Warren Commission40 and this testimony was mentioned in the Warren Report, a massive best-seller which was also quoted by many major newspapers and magazines the world over and, if that weren’t enough, the five reports were mentioned by Jim Bishop in his own massive best-seller The Day Kennedy Was Shot. Many other books mention these reports (and/or Hill’s testimony). And just WHY would Rowley even NEED these five after-the-fact reports? Why didn’t he just tell Rankin, in “confidence,” about the meeting they all supposedly had on the matter on 11/25/63?

    Why, indeed. For what it’s worth, Blaine (on pages 360-363) proceeds to quote from the five reports but does NOT state what they each say in verbatim fashion. Interestingly, nothing is mentioned specifically about JFK’s alleged desires regarding THE motorcade of November 22, 1963, as was requested by the Commission. And, of the five Secret Service reports, four have as their primary source for JFK’s alleged request Agent Boring, including one by Boring himself, while the remaining report, written by SAIC Behn, mentions the same November 18, 1963 trip with Mr. Boring as the others do (Boring’s report was the first one written, then came one each from Roberts, Ready, Behn, and Hill, respectively). Again, both Behn and Boring totally contradicted the contents of their reports at different times, independent of each other, to the author, while Roberts report is nothing more than his having heard BORING telling him to have the agents removed from the car on 11/18/63; Ready and Hill freely admit they weren’t even ON the Tampa trip in the first place in these reports (and, as Blaine omits), Hill wrote “I do not know from whom I received this information … I do not know specifically who advised me of this request by the President.” (emphasis added) In addition, agents did ride on the rear of the limousine on July 2, 1963 and November 18, 1963 anyway, despite these alleged Presidential requests, as the film and photo record proves.41 Needless to say, with Boring joining Behn in refuting the substance of their reports, the official Secret Service ‘explanation’ falls like a house of cards.

    All these reports are supposedly evidence of JFK expressing his desire to keep Secret Service agents off the limousine, particularly in Tampa, Florida on November 18, 1963.

    Importantly, no mention is made of any alleged orders via President Kennedy’s staff.

    And, again, there is nothing about what JFK said or “requested” on November 22, 1963, the critical day in question!

    As a “postscript” to Blaine’s cover stories about the agents removal from the car, on page 343 of his book, Blaine makes yet another embarrassing error: “When it came to the agents and whether they should or should not have been on the back of the car, the [Warren ] report stated that “the configuration of the presidential car and the seating arrangements of the Secret Service agents in the car did not afford the Secret Service agents the opportunity they should have had to be of immediate assistance to the president at the first sign of danger,” but this was in reference to AGENT ROY KELLERMAN’S position in the front seat and the obstacles he may have faced, NOT the agents who should have been on or near the REAR of the car using the UNOBSTRUCTED grab-handles!

    VII: Uniquely Insecure

    Regarding the issue of the bubbletop, although Blaine (on page 188) states that agent Lawson conveyed to Sam Kinney, the driver of the follow-up car, that the bubbletop was to be removed in Dallas, Sam told this reviewer on 10/19/92 and, again, on 3/4/94 and 4/15/94: “It was my fault the top was off [the limousine in Dallas] – I am the sole responsibility of that.”42 In addition, Kinney’s oft-ignored report dated November 30, 1963 confirms this fact43, as does the former agent’s recently-released February 26, 1978 HSCA interview: “… SA Kinney indicated that he felt that his was the responsibility for making the final decision about whether to use the bubble-top.”44 Blaine later states, on page 244, that the bubbletop “was meant to shield the passengers from the weather – he [agent Sam Kinney] could count on one hand how many times it had been used,” but this is simply untrue on two counts: the bubbletop was often used in nice weather conditions and was used more frequently that Blaine, speaking for the long-deceased Kinney (died 7/21/97), admits.45 On page 193, Blaine states that agent Henry J. Rybka “never worked [the] follow-up [car], other than driving,” yet the record indicates otherwise.46

    Predictably, on pages 306-307 & 312-313, Blaine covers up the infamous drinking incident involving NINE agents of the Secret Service, including Clint Hill, Paul Landis, Glen Bennett, and Jack Ready! Interestingly, they were all from Shift Leader Emory Roberts’ particular shift. Significantly, none of the agents from the V.P. LBJ detail were involved in the drinking incident.47

    Blaine doesn’t even touch the issue of the Secret Service and their involvement of removing motorcycle coverage for JFK on 11/22/63. During a November 19, 1963 security meeting in Dallas, with no Secret Service men present, it was agreed that eighteen motorcycles would be used, some positioned along side the limousine, similar to the plan used in the prior Texas cities of San Antonio, Houston, and Fort Worth.48 However, there was another meeting on November 21, 1963 in which those plans were changed.49 Captain Perdue Lawrence of the Dallas Police testified to the Warren Commission: “I heard one of the Secret Service men say that President Kennedy did not desire any motorcycle officer directly on each side of him, between him and the crowd, but he would want the officers to the rear.”

    And yet:

    Mr. Dulles: “… do you recall that any orders were given by or on behalf of the President with regard to the location of those motorcycles that were particularly attached to his car?”

    Mr. Lawson: Not specifically at this instance orders from him.” (emphasis added)50

    The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) summed up the situation best:

    The Secret Service’s alteration of the original Dallas Police Department motorcycle deployment plan prevented the use of maximum possible security precautions … Surprisingly, the security measure used in the prior motorcades during the same Texas visit shows that the deployment of motorcycles in Dallas by the Secret Service may have been uniquely insecure.51

    Blaine ALSO does not deal with the issue of the press and photographer’s displacement from the motorcade. Dallas Morning News reporter Tom Dillard testified to the Warren Commission:

    We lost our position at the airport. I understood we were to have been quite a bit closer. We were assigned as the prime photographic car which, as you probably know, normally a truck precedes the President on these things [motorcades] and certain representatives of the photographic press ride with the truck. In this case, as you know, we didn’t have any and this car that I was in was to take photographs which was of spot-news nature.52

    On pages 221-222, Blaine, referring to the president’s physician, Admiral George Burkley, writes:

    Normally the admiral rode in a staff car in the motorcade, or in the rear seat of the follow-up car, but he and the president’s secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, had misjudged the timing of the motorcade’s departure from Love Field and wound up scurrying to the VIP bus. He was furious for not having been in his normal seat but had nobody to blame but himself. His sole purpose for being in the motorcade was to be close to the president in case anything happened, but who could have predicted this?” (emphasis added)

    Again, the record indicates otherwise: “Dr. George Burkley … felt that he should be close to the President at all times … Dr. Burkley was unhappy … this time the admiral protested. He could be of no assistance to the President if a doctor was needed quickly.”53 Burkley also said: “It’s not right … the President’s personal physician should be much closer to him,” even to the extent of “… sitting on an agent’s lap”.54 Burkley stated a few years after the assassination:

    I accompanied President Kennedy on every trip that he took during his time as President … I went on all trips … we had a regular setup … all the possible angles were covered by cooperation with the Secret Service, in that we knew the areas of most likely danger. We knew where additional medical aid would be available, and things of that nature … When we were in Fort Worth, Mrs. [Evelyn] Lincoln and I were in the second car in the motorcade … [in Dallas] I complained to the Secret Service that I should be either in the follow up car or the lead car … this was brought to their [the Secret Service’s] attention very strongly at the foot of the stairway from the airplane [Air Force One] … Most of the time, however, I was within one or two cars of the President. This was one of the few times that this did not occur. (emphasis added)55

    In fact, Burkley rode in the lead car in Miami on November 18, 1963.56 “The only other time that it did not occur, to my direct recollection, is when we were in Rome [July 2, 1963]”57 (emphasis added), which was a model of very good security in every other respect.

    Evelyn Lincoln, JFK’s secretary, confirmed Burkley’s feelings on the matter to the HSCA:

    Mrs. Lincoln also mentioned what she thought was a curious incident in Dallas prior to the assassination. She said she was with Dr. Burkley … when they left Love Field for the beginning of the motorcade. She said they were somewhat surprised at being ‘shoved’ back in the motorcade into a bus. She said they usually rode in an automobile a few cars behind the car carrying the President.58

    It appears even Jackie Kennedy and, by extension, Dave Powers, were wondering about this situation regarding Burkley: On the weekend after President Kennedy’s funeral, Powers showed Mrs. Kennedy the color still frames from the Zapruder film as displayed in that week’s Life magazine. The pictures, of course, depict Jackie leaving the rear seat to crawl onto the back of the car. “Dave, what do you think I was trying to do?” she asked. Dave could only suggest that maybe she was searching for the President’s doctor, Rear Admiral George G. Burkley, who was in a bus at the rear of the motorcade.”59

    Incredibly, as documented in agent Andy Berger’s report60, Blaine writes on page 233, with regard to Parkland Hospital: “A representative of the CIA appeared a while later.” Also, as Blaine never even mentions, JFK’s Military Aide, General Godfrey McHugh, a devout Kennedy loyalist was relegated to the distant VIP car in the Dallas motorcade61, stated that he was asked by the Secret Service “for the first time” to “ride in a car in the back [of the motorcade], instead, as normally I would do, between the driver and the Secret Service agent in charge of the trip.”62

    Indeed, McHugh had just occupied this very spot on JFK’s previous trip to Florida, not to mention countless other times beforehand when either he or fellow military aide, General Ted Clifton, rode in this position. (Greer admitted that many times an aide rode in the front seat of the limo with the driver and the supervisor63, as the film and photo record bears out.) McHugh admitted that this was “unusual”: “That’s exactly what I thought.” The reason? “To give the President full exposure … they told me it would be helpful politically to the President.”64 (emphasis added)

    There’s that qualifier again: “politically.” The HSCA’s Mark Flanagan, who interviewed McHugh, reported: “Ordinarily McHugh rode in the Presidential limousine in the front seat. This was the first time he was instructed not to ride in the car so that all attention would be focused on the President to accentuate full exposure.”65

    In yet another matter Blaine chose to ignore, Dallas Sheriff Bill Decker, who rode in the lead car with Lawson and Sorrels, told his men to in no way participate in the security of the motorcade.66 As verified in several films and photos, Decker’s men were standing idle at the corner of Main and Houston as mere spectators, nothing more. Indeed, Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney told author Larry Sneed: “I was merely a spectator with a number of other plain clothes officers on Main Street just north of the Old Red Court House. We in the sheriff’s department had nothing to do with security.”67

    Decker had given this unusual order to his men after telling Forrest Sorrels the previous day that he had agreed to incorporate additional personnel for security purposes, and even offered his full support to the agent: Decker had agreed to furnishing fifteen of his men for duty!68 Incredibly, the Dallas Morning News on October 26, 1963 reported the following, based on an interview with DPD Chief Jesse Curry: “LARGE POLICE GUARD PLANNED FOR KENNEDY – Signs Friday pointed to the greatest concentration of Dallas police ever for the protection of a high-ranking dignitary when President Kennedy visits Dallas next month … The deployment of the special force, he [Curry] said, is yet to be worked out with the U.S. Secret Service.”69 Yet Homicide Detective Gus Rose said: “I didn’t hear of any extraordinary security measures being set up thus we continued our normal rotation.”70

    Blaine also is seemingly unaware of the following, as noted by reporter Seth Kantor: “Will Fritz’s men called off nite before by SS. Had planned to ride closed car w/ machine guns in car behind Pres.” (Which could mean someplace behind JFK’s car, as was the case in Chicago, IL, on 3/23/6371 & New York on 11/15/63.)72

    Furthermore, Milton Wright, a Texas Highway Patrolman who was the driver of Mayor Cabell’s car, wrote this reviewer: “As I recall, prior to the President arriving at the airport we were already staged on the tarmac. I do not recall what position I was in at that time but it was not #1[the number taped to his car’s windshield]. At the last minute there was a lot of shuffling and I ended up in the 5th vehicle. My vehicle was the last to leave downtown after the shooting because the police set up a road block behind my car.”73

    On page 224, Blaine writes: “It was very rare for both the president and vice president to be together at the same time in the same place.” This is an understatement – being in the same MOTORCADE was unique!74 Agent Youngblood later wrote: “It is strictly taboo, from the security standpoint, for the President and the Vice President to ride together in the same car, boat, plane, wagon, or anything else.”75 As J. F. terHorst (from the White House Press Corps), a man who covered every major presidential trip – including November 22, 1963 – both at home and abroad, and Colonel Ralph Albertazzie (Nixon’s Air Force One pilot) observed in their book: Beyond the Environs of Washington, the Vice President rarely accompanies the President. The reason is not only a matter of physical security but one of politics … But Texas was a special case, the exception that proved the rule.”76 As HSCA attorney Belford Lawson succinctly put it: “Why for the first time in American history were the President and Vice-President together in the same motorcade?”77

    Blaine ALSO ignores the fact that the roofs along the route were not manned or checked. SAIC of the Nashville office Paul Doster told the Nashville Banner back on May 18, 1963 that “a complete check of the entire motorcade route” was done for JFK’s trip to Nashville. In addition, Doster stated: “Other [police] officers were assigned atop the municipal terminal and other buildings along the route. These men took their posts at 8 a.m. and remained at their rooftop stations until the president and his party passed.” The roofs of buildings were also guarded on November 18, 196378, four short days before Dallas, in addition to San Antonio on November 21, 196379, just the day before, as well as in Fort Worth on the morning of the assassination.80

    VIII: Driving Questions

    On page 201, regarding agent Bill Greer, the driver of JFK’s car in Dallas, Blaine writes: “And, God forbid, if he [Greer] ever did have to make a sudden getaway, he knew the 7,500-pound car with its 300-horsepower engine just didn’t gather speed as quickly as he would like.” If that wasn’t enough, Blaine adds, on page 212: “[Greer, after the shooting commenced] quickly tapped on the brake to see how the car would respond.” Finally, on page 356, Blaine delivers the coup de grace: “Yes, Bill Greer put his foot on the brake after the first shot. But for God’s sake, it had nothing to do with a conspiracy, or negligence – he was merely responding as any professionally trained driver would respond.”

    Oh, really? Sixty witnesses (ten police officers, seven Secret Service agents, thirty-eight spectators, two Presidential aides, one Senator, Governor Connally, and Jackie Kennedy) and the Zapruder film document Secret Service agent William R. Greer’s deceleration of the presidential limousine, as well as his two separate looks back at JFK during the assassination81 (Greer denied all of this to the Warren Commission82). By decelerating from an already slow 11.2 mph, Greer greatly endangered the President’s life, and, as even Gerald Posner admitted, Greer contributed greatly to the success of the assassination. When we consider that Greer disobeyed a direct order from his superior, Roy Kellerman, to get out of line before the fatal shot struck the President’s head, it is hard to give Agent Greer the benefit of the doubt. As ASAIC Roy H. Kellerman said: “Greer then looked in the back of the car. Maybe he didn’t believe me.”83 Ken O’Donnell stated: “Greer had been remorseful all day, feeling that he could have saved President Kennedy’s life by swerving the car or speeding suddenly after the first shots.”84 In addition, Greer told Jackie the following on November 22, 1963 at Parkland Hospital, shortly after the murder: “Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, oh my God, oh my God. I didn’t mean to do it, I didn’t hear, I should have swerved the car, I couldn’t help it. Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it I swerved. If only I’d seen it in time! Oh!”85 Finally, Dave Powers confirmed Greer’s guilt to CBS newsman Charles Kuralt on November 22, 1988, also adding that if Greer would have sped up before the fatal headshot, JFK might still be alive today.86

    When this reviewer asked Richard Greer, the surviving son of Bill Greer, on 9/17/91: “What did your father think of JFK?” Richard did not respond the first time. When this author asked him a second time, Greer responded: “Well, we’re Methodists … and JFK was Catholic.” Bill Greer was born and raised in County Tyrone, Ireland, coming to America in February 1930 and, if that weren’t enough, “worked one summer on the estate of Henry Cabot Lodge,”87 JFK’s two-time political opponent (a staunch Republican defeated twice by Kennedy) and Ambassador to Saigon during the CIA and U.S. government–sponsored assassination of President Diem of Vietnam on November 2, 1963 (Lodge was principally involved88). Obviously, Greer, just from his association with Lodge, as well as his work in and around Boston, had to have known about Kennedy, as well as his rich family, Ambassador father Joe, and their controversial heritage of alleged bootlegging, Nazi sympathizing, and political history in Boston.89

    The sequence is crucial:

    1. First shot (or shots) rings out: the car slows.
    2. Greer turns around once.
    3. Kellerman orders Greer to “get out of line; we’ve been hit!”
    4. Greer disobeys his superior’s order and turns around to stare at JFK for the second time, until after the fatal headshot finds its mark!

    As stated before, Greer was responsible, at fault, and felt remorse. In short, Greer had survivor’s guilt.

    But, then, stories and feelings changed.

    Agent Greer to the FBI, November 22, 1963: “Greer stated that he first heard what he thought was possibly a motorcycle backfire and glanced around and noticed that the President had evidently been hit [notice that, early on, Greer admits seeing JFK, which the Zapruder proves he did two times before the fatal head shot occurred]. He thereafter got on the radio and communicated with the other vehicles, stating that they desired to get the President to the hospital immediately [in reality, Greer did not talk on the radio, and Greer went on to deny ever saying this during his Warren Commission testimony] … Greer stated that they (the Secret Service) have always been instructed to keep the motorcade moving at a considerable speed inasmuch as a moving car offers a much more difficult target than a vehicle traveling at a very slow speed. He pointed out that on numerous occasions he has attempted to keep the car moving at a rather fast rate, but in view of the President’s popularity and desire to maintain close liaison with the people, he has, on occasion, been instructed by the President to ‘slow down’.90 Greer stated that he has been asking himself if there was anything he could have done to avoid this incident, but stated that things happened so fast that he could not account for full developments in this matter … .”91 [The “JFK-as-scapegoat” theme – and so much for Greer’s remorse from earlier the same day.]

    Finally, what did Jacqueline Kennedy think of Greer’s performance on 11/22/63? Mary Gallagher reported in her book: “She mentioned one Secret Service man who had not acted during the crucial moment, and said bitterly to me, ‘He might just as well have been Miss Shaw!’ “92 Jackie also told Gallagher: “You should get yourself a good driver so that nothing ever happens to you.”93 Secret Service agent Marty Venker confirmed that the agent Jackie was referring to was Agent Greer: “If the agent had hit the gas before the third shot, she griped, Jack might still be alive.”94 Later, authors C. David Heymann and Edward Klein further corroborated that the agent Mrs. Kennedy was referring to was indeed Greer.95 Manchester wrote: “[Mrs. Kennedy] had heard Kellerman on the radio and had wondered why it had taken the car so long to leave.”96 In addition, Jackie “played the events over and over in her mind … . She did not want to accept Jack’s death as a freak accident, for that meant his life could have been spared – if only the driver in the front seat of the presidential limousine [Agent William R. Greer] had reacted more quickly and stepped on the gas … if only the Secret Service had stationed agents on the rear bumper … .”97 (emphasis added)

    Incredibly, ASAIC Roy Kellerman told the following to FBI agents’ Sibert & O’Neil on the night of the murder: “The advanced security arrangements made for this specific trip were the most stringent and thorough ever employed by the Secret Service for the visit of a President to an American city.”98 Perhaps THIS is why JFK reassured a worried San Antonio Congressman Henry Gonzalez on 11/21/63 by saying: “The Secret Service told me that they had taken care of everything – there’s nothing to worry about.”99 If that weren’t enough, President Kennedy told an equally concerned advance man, Marty Underwood, on 11/21/63: in Houston, “Marty, you worry about me too much.”100

    On pages 230-231, Blaine seeks to pass the blame on to others once again, this time in the form of JFK’s Chief of Staff, Ken O’Donnell: “Ken O’Donnell agreed… that Johnson should return to Washington as soon as possible and that yes, he should leave Dallas on Air Force One.” However, O’Donnell denied this, telling author William Manchester: “The President and I had no conversation regarding Air Force One. If we had known he was going on Air Force One, we would have taken Air Force Two. One plane was like the other.”101 In fact, when Arlen Specter of the Warren Commission asked O’Donnell, “Was there any discussion about his [LBJ] taking the presidential plane, AF–1, as opposed to AF–2?” O’Donnell responded: “There was not.”102 In this regard, O’Donnell later wrote in his book Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye that a Warren Commission attorney – the aforementioned Arlen Specter – asked him to “change his testimony so that it would agree with the President’s”: an offer O’Donnell refused.103 With this in mind, author Jim Bishop reported: “Emory Roberts suggested that Johnson leave at once for Air Force One … Roberts asked Kenny O’Donnell and he said: ‘Yes.’ Johnson refused to move. Roberts returned to O’Donnell and asked again: ‘Is it all right for Mr. Johnson to board Air Force One now?’ ‘Yes,’ O’Donnell said, ‘Yes.’ ” (emphasis added)104

    This author believes O’Donnell when he says he had no part in LBJ going to Air Force One over Air Force Two. This was a Secret Service (Emory Roberts) decision. Presidential aides Ken O’Donnell and Dave Powers best summed up the situation when they wrote: “Roberts, one of President Kennedy’s agents … had decided to switch to Johnson as soon as Kennedy was shot.”105 In addition, four other authors have noted Agent Roberts’ “switch of allegiance”, including Chief Curry.106 Incredibly, Roberts was the President’s receptionist during the Johnson administration while still a member of the Secret Service, receiving a Special Service Award from the Treasury Department for improving communications and services to the public in 1968!107 LBJ thought highly of Roberts, and the feeling was mutual – President Johnson told a gathering that “Emory Roberts, who I am sorry can’t be here today – he greets me every morning and tells me good-bye every night.”108 (For the record, LBJ didn’t think much of Roy Kellerman: “This fellow Kellerman … he was about as loyal a man as you could find. But he was about as dumb as an ox.”109)

    Also predictably, on pages 334-335 & 356-357, Blaine seeks to minimize former agent Abraham Bolden’s claims of Secret Service negligence and conspiracy.110

    Blaine (on pages 350 and 352) seeks to cast away ANY notion that the Secret Service agents believed there was a conspiracy, yet there is the record that says differently:

    From the February 22, 1978 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) interview of Miami SAIC John Marshall, former White House Detail agent who conducted all the advance work on President Kennedy’s frequent trips to Palm Beach: TWICE DURING THE INTERVIEW, MR. MARSHALL MENTIONED THAT, FOR ALL HE KNEW, SOMEONE IN THE SECRET SERVICE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE ASSASSINATION. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME AN AGENT HAS MENTIONED THE POSSIBILITY THAT A CONSPIRACY EXISTED, BUT IT IS THE FIRST TIME THAT AN AGENT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SECRET SERVICE COULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED.

    In addition, former agents Jerry O’Rourke, Sam Kinney, Abraham Bolden, and Maurice Martineau believed there was a conspiracy, as well!111

    IX: Perfect Sense

    The Kennedy Detail, a book firmly rooted in the “Oswald-did-it-alone” camp, also contains contradictory evidence of conspiracy in its pages. On page 216, Blaine describes the shooting sequence in this manner: “… the first shot strikes the president, the second shot strikes Governor Connally, and the third shot strikes JFK in the head … ” There is no acknowledgement of the Warren Commission’s fictional single bullet theory or the known missed shot that struck bystander James Tague! This is a pattern Hill and Blaine repeat on national television.112 On page 217, Blaine writes that agent Clint Hill saw “a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head,” clear evidence that JFK was struck by a shot from the FRONT, as also confirmed by Hill’s report113 and Warren Commission testimony114, not to mention the reports (plural) from fellow agent Paul Landis (whose contents were confirmed by Landis to the HSCA)115, no matter what Landis or Blaine say now (see pages 225 & 352-353), as well as the statements made by agent Sam Kinney to Vince Palamara116 (and, ironically, in Blaine’s own book, pages 216 & 218, regarding blood hitting his windshield!) and agent Win Lawson, who also “saw a huge hole in the back of the president’s head.”117 Blaine also uses this same language later in the book (page 258):

    Now the men who just four and a half hours earlier had seen the back of President Kennedy’s head blown off hauled the casket holding his dead body…” Finally, regarding Hill, Blaine describes his friends’ recollections of the autopsy (page 266): “Six inches down from the neckline, just to the right of the spinal column, there was a small wound, a hole in the skin… All Clint could see was that the right rear portion of President Kennedy’s head was completely gone.

    On page 261, Blaine writes: “[7:55 p.m., 11/22/63] For about twenty minutes [Chief James J] Rowley gave [the agents] what could only be called a pep talk… There was no feeling that he blamed anyone or that the assassination could somehow have been prevented.” On page 275, Blaine says of SAIC Behn (deceased 4/21/93): “From everything Jerry Behn had heard about the tragedy in Dallas, nobody was to blame.” Blaine carries this incredibly dumb statement even further during television interviews for the book – he told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on 11/12/10: “No, there was nothing that could have been done to stop it.”

    On pages 264-265, Blaine related how he almost shot President Johnson on 11/23/63 with his Thompson submachine gun, a tale of dubious merit that garnered much press before the release of the book.

    Blaine seems to be unaware of the following, as reported by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998: “Congress passed the JFK Act of 1992. One month later, the Secret Service began its compliance efforts. However, in January 1995, the Secret Service destroyed presidential protection survey reports for some of President Kennedy’s trips in the fall of 1963. The Review Board learned of the destruction approximately one week after the Secret Service destroyed them, when the Board was drafting its request for additional information. The Board believed that the Secret Service files on the President’s travel in the weeks preceding his murder would be relevant.”118

    On page 359, Blaine identifies the agent recalled at Love Field as SA Don Lawton, the OTHER agent (along with SA Henry Rybka) “ostensibly” left to secure Love Field for the President’s departure, and takes this reviewer to task for his misidentification. In the interest of time, please see this reviewer’s online videos wherein he fully explains himself, his rationale, and his belief that, regardless of WHO the agent is (and he is willing to concede that it was probably Lawton after all), the SUBSTANCE of what is being depicted in the video – the essence – remains the same.119 Suffice to say that many people were “fooled” by this footage – former JFK agent Larry Newman, the ARRB, The History Channel, Rybka’s family, millions of YouTube viewers, countless authors and researchers, and even a December 2009 Discovery Channel Secret Service documentary “Secrets of the Secret Service”!

    Although very well written, along with some nice photographs, as well, The Kennedy Detail is really a thinly veiled attempt to rewrite history (a la Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi, who believe 11/22/63 was the act of a single lone man) and absolve the agents of their collective survivor’s guilt (and to counter the prolific writings of a certain reviewer). In the eyes of those from The Kennedy Detail, the assassination was the act of TWO “lone men”: Oswald, who pulled the trigger, and JFK, who set himself up as the target. Simply put: President Kennedy WAS indeed a very nice man, did not interfere with the actions of the Secret Service, did not order the agents off his limousine (in Tampa, in Dallas, or elsewhere), and did not have his staff convey any anti-security sentiments, either. The sheer force and power of what these men all told me, a complete stranger, in correspondence and on the phone, is all the more strong because, not only did they have a vested interest to protect themselves, the vast majority believe that Oswald acted alone and that all official “stories” are correct.

    In light of the work of this reviewer, future pensions, professional and personal reputations, and so forth, The Kennedy Detail makes perfect sense. After the reviewer’s letter to Clint Hill, it truly WAS “a book that HAD to be written.” A postscript: Gerald Blaine stated on 11/11/10 on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”: “We felt we were 100% failure.”120

    Finally, you said something we can ALL agree on, Mr. Blaine.


    End Notes

    1. http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-letter-to-clint-hill.html

    2. Available in soft cover from 1993-1997 & 1999-2005 (self-published); available 1997-1998 via JFK Lancer Publications; available since 2006 as a free online book here: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1.html

    3. http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/the_kennedy_detail_is_a_story; see also page 364 of Blaine’s book

    4. http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/

    5. http://kennedydetail.blogspot.com/2010/09/association-of-former-agents-of-united.html

    6. For the record, Clint Hill was interviewed by: Warren Commission (March 9, 1964), for Manchester, The Death of a President (November 18, 1964; May 20, 1965), and 60 Minutes (December 7, 1975; November 1993); December 1963 newsreel regarding Treasury award (with C. Douglas Dillon as presenter); Who Killed JFK: The Final Chapter? (CBS, November 19, 1993); The Secret Service and Inside the Secret Service videos (1995); Inside the U.S. Secret Service documentary (2004); Larry King Live (March 22, 2006); and, now, numerous TV shows 2010

    7. Rodham was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s uncle! I received confirmation of this via former agent Don Cox.

    8. http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/newslettersnewsletterbucketbooksmack/887623-439/qa_former_kennedy_secret_service.html.csp

    9. Ibid

    10. “Survivor’s Guilt”, Palamara, Chapter 13, page 9

    11. Bolden is also the author of The Echo From Dealey Plaza (2008)

    12. The agents we DO know were involved in “The Kennedy Detail”, based on the text of the book and Blaine’s online blogs and so forth (and the upcoming Discovery tv documentary), are the following: Gerald Blaine, Clint Hill, Joe Paolella, Chuck Zboril, Robert Faison, Hamilton Brown, Walt Coughlin, Richard Johnsen, Ken Wiesman, Radford Jones, Winston Lawson, Toby Chandler, Ron Pontius, David Grant (Clint Hill’s brother-in-law!), Paul Rundle, Eve Dempsher, Tom Wells and Paul Landis. That leaves, from the Texas trip, Sam Sulliman, John Ready, Warren “Woody” Taylor, Lem Johns, Jerry Bechtle, Donald Bendickson, Jim Goodenough, Bill Duncan, PRS Dale Wunderlich, Mike Howard (Dallas office), John Joe Howlett (Dallas office), Roger Warner, Bob Burke, Frank Yeager, Don Lawton, Ken Giannoules, and Ernest Olsson as still living and eligible to have been interviewed… maybe.

    13. Author’s interview with Gerald Blaine 6/10/05

    14. “The Dark Side Of Camelot” by Seymour Hersh, pages 40-241

    15. 5H 570

    16. U. E. Baughman, Secret Service Chief (New York: Harper & Row, Popular Library edition, January 1963), p. 70.

    17. Rowley oral history, LBJ Library, January 22, 1969, p. 2. See also David Seidman, Extreme Careers – Secret Service Agents: Life Protecting the President (New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., 2003), p. 11. Rowley himself said: “Most Presidents have responded to our requests … .”

    18. CE1025: 18 H 803-809. I have dealt with these reports exhaustively in my own book (Survivor’s Guilt: see Chapter one in entirety) and on my online blog – please see http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2010/10/kennedy-detail.html

    19. The Death of a President by William Manchester, pp. 37-38 (all references to Manchester’s book are from the 1988 Perennial Library edition.)

    20. http://news.discovery.com/history/jfk-assassination-secret-service.html

    21. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMAq5kgU6YI

    22. http://thekennedydetailsecretservicejfk.blogspot.com/

    23. E-mail to Vince Palamara from Tony Zappone dated 10/20/10

    24. Author’s interview with Floyd Boring 9/22/93

    25. Author’s interview with Floyd Boring dated 3/4/94. For the relevant AUDIO portions of this interview, please see:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC9l1AdGJj0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZZ4dnWyu_Q
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMr9-Eg5NvE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaRX37HVx5E

    26. Floyd Boring letter to Vince Palamara dated 11/22/97

    27. See http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1.html

    28. Manchester, p. 667. Of the 21 agents/officials interviewed by Manchester, only Roberts, Greer, Kinney, and Blaine were on the Florida trip. Blaine was the advance agent for Tampa (riding in the lead car), Greer drove JFK’s car, Kinney drove the follow-up car, and Roberts was the commander of the follow-up car. That said, in the author’s opinion, Roberts is still the main suspect of the four as being Manchester’s dubious source for this quote: after all, he was asked to write a report about JFK’s so-called desires, citing Boring as the source for the order via radio transmission. The others – Greer, Kinney, and Blaine – were not asked to write a similar report. In addition, Manchester had access to this report while writing his book (see next footnote). Also, unlike the other three, Roberts was interviewed twice and, while Greer never went on record with his feelings about the matter, one way or the other, Kinney adamantly denied the veracity of Manchester’s information, while Blaine denied the substance of the information, although he did mention the “Ivy league charlatan” remark coming from a secondary source. Finally, of the 21 agents interviewed by Manchester, Blaine is the only agent – save two headquarters Inspectors (see next footnote) – whose interview comments are not to be found in the text or index. Since, in addition to Blaine, three other agents – Lawton, Meredith and Newman – also mentioned the remark to this reviewer strictly as hearsay, in some fashion or another, it is more than likely that Manchester seized upon the remark and greatly exaggerated its significance … and attributed it to Boring, while his actual source was likely Roberts and/or Blaine. Again, since Boring wasn’t interviewed, the comment had to come second-hand from another agent, who, in turn, received the remark second-hand from Boring. Ultimately, the question is: did Boring really give out this order on instructions from JFK?

    29. Interestingly, Manchester, having interviewed 21 different agents/officials for his book (pp. 660–9), chose to include interviews with Secret Service Inspectors Burrill Peterson and Jack Warner. What’s the problem? Well, these men, not even associated with the Texas trip in any way, were interviewed more than any of the other agents: four times each (Peterson: October 9, 1964, November 17, 1964, November 18, 1964, February 5, 1965; Warner: June 2, 1964, November 18, 1964, February 5, 1965, May 12, 1965)! Only Emory Roberts, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, and Forrest Sorrels had two interviews apiece, while all the other agents/officials garnered just one inter-view each. And, more importantly, unlike all the other 19 agents, save one, Gerald Blaine (a Texas trip WHD agent), these two Inspectors are not even mentioned in the actual text or the index; their comments are “invisible” to the reader. It appears, then, that Manchester’s book was truly a sanitized, “official” book, more so than we thought before (as most everyone knows, the book was written with Jackie Kennedy’s approval – it was her idea, in fact [p.ix]. Manchester even had early, exclusive access to the Warren Commission itself: “At the outset of my inquiry the late Chief Justice Earl Warren appointed me an ex officio member of his commission … and provided me with an office in Washington’s VFW building, where the commission met and where copies of reports and depositions were made available to me.” [p. xix]) Inspector Peterson figured prominently in the post-assassination press dealings (or lack thereof) – as Agent Sorrels testified: “… I don’t think at any time you will see that there is any statement made by the newspapers or television that we said anything because Mr. Kelley, the Inspector, told me, ‘Any information that is given out will have to come from Inspector Peterson in Washington.’ ” [7 H 359] Peterson became an Assistant Director for Investigations in 1968 [20 Years in the Secret Service by Rufus Youngblood (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1973), p. 220], while Inspector Warner would go on to become Director of Public Affairs (a position he held until the 1990s), acting as a buffer to critical press questions during the assassination attempts on President Ford and other related matters [The Secret Service: The Hidden History of an Enigmatic Agency (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2003) by Philip Melanson with Peter Stevens, pp. 101, 201, 224, 237]. Warner would also later become a consultant to the 1993 Clint Eastwood movie In The Line of Fire.

    30. Please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4C4mfCp1DY and
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGq9rpuBM1A

    31. 2 H 136–7

    32. See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L17N6OxrBps and
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdM6WXqXjIo

    33. See http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter01.pdf and
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGq9rpuBM1A and
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxaEim-7Zqs

    34. Stout’s son, Stu Stout III, wrote this reviewer on 11/1/10: “Vince. Thought I would mention that one of the influential people that attended the advance planning meetings for the Dallas trip was the Mayor of Dallas in 63 and I think it was Earle Cabell or Eric? Doesn’t really matter. I distinctly …remember during a conversation at the dinner table weeks following (that surreal day), my father telling my mother that “the Mayor thought agents riding on the back of the car (which was common protocol) would send a message and did not want his city to appear dangerous to the world though the media. He asked for subtle security exposure if and where possible.”On that day only two individuals would have been able to direct such an order and that would have been the President himself or Floyd Boring SAIC. In my opinion, and you know about opinions, if you find out who else was in that chain of command “during that moment” you will be able to rationally determine why the agents jumped down for a portion of that politically motivated route through the city. Take care Vince and please don’t give up.”

    35. See pages 30-32 of http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter01.pdf

    36. 20 Years in the Secret Service (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1973), p. 111

    37. 18 H 783

    38. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter01.pdf

    39. See http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter01.pdf

    40. 2 H 136–7

    41. Italy film clip, courtesy Jim Cedrone of the JFK Library; newly discovered still photos from Naples: John Fitzgerald Kennedy: A Life In Pictures by Yann-Brice Dherbier and Pierre-Henri Verlhac (New York: Phaidon Press, 2003), p. 183, 231; Corbis stock pho-tos discovered by the author in 2005 (and also forwarded to former agents Blaine, Coughlin, ad O’Rourke). Regarding Italy: See also Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye by Kenneth P. O’Donnell, David F. Powers, and Joseph McCarthy (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1972), p. 433 [note: all references to this book are from the Pocket Book paperback edition published in 1973]; Tampa Tribune, November 19, 1963 (downtown area picture with agents Lawton and Zboril holding onto the rear handrails); Cecil Stoughton photo, taken from the follow-up car, November 18, 1963 (suburban area picture depicting same); short clip in David Wolper’s 1964 film Four Days In November, depicting the start of the Tampa trip: agent Zboril is running on the left-rear end of the limo, holding onto the handrail, while agent Berger is riding on the opposite side; agent Lawton is seen running along Berger’s side; black and white photos discovered by Ian Griggs and Frank Debenedictis; black and white photos from photographers Tony Zappone and Tommy Eure.

    42. See also http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter03.pdf

    43. 18 H 730

    44. RIF#180–10078–10493

    45. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fJrnxzowSE; http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter03.pdf; see also the many pics at http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/

    46. Advance man Jerry Bruno’s notes from the JFK Library in Boston. Agent Henry Rybka was also on the follow-up car team in San Antonio on November 21, 1963( as had driver agent George Hickey in Tampa and in Dallas). Rybka was not the driver

    47. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter06.pdf

    48. 11 HSCA 527; 7 H 577–580; 21 H 567; RIF#180–10093–10320: May 31, 1977 Memorandum from HSCA’s Belford Lawson to fellow HSCA members Gary Cornwell and Ken Klein (revised August 15, 1977). Please see: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter06.pdf

    49. 7 H 580–1; 11 HSCA 527, 529; RIF#180–10093–10320: May 31, 1977 Memorandum from HSCA’s Belford Lawson to fellow HSCA members Gary Cornwell and Ken Klein (revised August 15, 1977).

    50. 4 H 338

    51. See also RIF#180–10093–10320: May 31, 1977 Memorandum from HSCA’s Belford Lawson to fellow HSCA members Gary Cornwell and Ken Klein (revised August 15, 1977) – the original language used for this passage: “But in comparison with what the SS’s own documents suggest were the security precautions used in prior motorcades during the same Texas visit, the motorcade alteration in Dallas by the SS may have been a unique occurrence.”

    52. 6 H 163. As the author presented at the COPA ’96 and Lancer ’97 conferences, the press photographers frequently rode in a flatbed truck in front of the motorcade pro-cession [films courtesy JFK Library; see also John F. Kennedy: A Life in Pictures, pp. 178–180, 183, 231]. Photographer Tony Zappone confirmed to the author on December 18, 2003 that a flat bed truck was used for the photographers in Tampa, Florida, on November 18, 1963.

    53. Bishop, pp. 109–110, 134

    54. Manchester, pp. 131–2. See also The Flying White House, p. 209 (O’Donnell seems to get the blame for Burkley’s lack of proximity).

    55. Burkley’s October 17, 1967 JFK Library oral history

    56. RIF#154–10002–10422

    57. Burkley’s October 17, 1967 JFK Library oral history

    58. July 5, 1978 HSCA interview of Evelyn Lincoln

    59. Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, p. 31.

    60. 18 H 795 ; See also see Bill Sloan, Breaking the Silence, pp. 181–5; The Man Who Knew Too Much, pp. 570–1; Michael Benson, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination (1993), pp. 40–41

    61. Along with General Ted Clifton, the other military aide who often rode in the front seat of the limousine between the driver and the agent in charge

    62. CFTR radio (Canada) interview 1976 Interview with McHugh conducted late 1975 via phone.

    63. 2 H 129

    64. CFTR radio (Canada) interview 1976 Interview with McHugh conducted late 1975 via phone

    65. May 11, 1978 interview with the HSCA’s Mark Flanagan (RIF#180–10078–10465 [see also 7 HSCA 14])

    66. Roger Craig, Two Men in Dallas video

    67. No More Silence by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 224

    68. 21 H 547, 572: DPD Stevenson Exhibit

    69. 22 H 626

    70. No More Silence, p. 337

    71. 3/23/63 Secret Service Survey Report: RIF#154-10003-10012

    72. 20 H 391; see also 4 H 171-172 (Curry); 11 HSCA 530

    73. 9/3/98 e-mail to the author

    74. Author’s interview with Bolden, September 16, 1993; Lawson: 4 H 336. SA Kinney told the HSCA on February 26, 1978 that it was “unusual for LBJ to be along”

    75. My Life Protecting Five Presidents by Rufus Youngblood, p. 199

    76. The Flying White House, pp. 214–5

    77. RIF#180–10093–10320: May 31, 1977 Memorandum from HSCA’s Belford Lawson to fellow HSCA members Gary Cornwell and Ken Klein (revised August 15, 1977).

    78. RIF#154–10002–10423: Secret Service Final Survey Report, Tampa, FL – underpasses controlled by police and military units; Sheriff’s office secured the roofs of major buildings in the downtown and suburban areas; agents on limo; Salinger with Kilduff; close press and photographers (including Stoughton in follow-up car); McHugh in between Secret Service agents in front seat of limo

    79. RIF#154–10002–10424: Final Survey report, San Antonio – Forty members of the military police from Fort Sam Houston, Texas: traffic control, motorcade route security, and intersection control; police helicopter utilized along route; many flanking motorcycles

    80. See also Constance Kritzberg and Larry Hancock, November Patriots (Colorado, Undercover Press, 1998), p. 423

    81. See http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter08.pdf

    82. 2 H 112–132 (Greer): see his entire testimony.

    83. Manchester, p. 160.

    84. Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye by Dave Powers & Ken O’Donnell w/ Joe McCarthy, p. 44.

    85. Manchester, p. 290 (and 386). See also The Day Kennedy Was Shot (1992 edition) by Jim Bishop, p. 196.

    86. See also Mikita Brottman, Car Crash Culture (New York: Palgrave, 2001), p. 173 (chapter authored by Pamela McElwain-Brown): USPP Motorcycle Officer Nick Prencipe spoke to Greer on the night of the murder and said that the agent was quite distressed that evening.

    87. 2 H 113

    88. See the book by O’Leary and Seymour, Triangle of Death (Nashville, TN: WND Books, 2003)

    89. Crossfire by Jim Marrs (1988), p. 2

    90. Ironically, in former Chief U. E. Baughman’s book, Secret Service Chief, it is written (p. 69): “It is a cardinal principle of Presidential protection never to allow the president to stop his car in a crowd if it can possibly be avoided.”

    91. Sibert and O’Neil Report, November 22, 1963

    92. Mary Barelli Gallagher, My Life With Jacqueline Kennedy (New York: David McKay, 1969), p. 342: Secret Service Agent Marty Venker (Rush, p. 25) and Jackie biographer C. David Heymann [A Woman Called Jackie (New York: Lyle Stuart, 1989), p. 401] confirm that this unnamed agent was indeed Greer. See also Edward Klein, Just Jackie: Her Private Years (Ballantine Books, 1999), pp. 58, 374.

    93. Gallagher, p. 351.

    94. Rush, p. 25.

    95. A Woman Called Jackie (New York: Lyle Stuart, 1989), p. 401; Edward Klein, Just Jackie: Her Private Years (Ballantine Books, 1999), pp. 58, 374

    96. Manchester, p. 163

    97. Edward Klein, Just Jackie: Her Private Years (Ballantine Books, 1999), pp. 58–59, 374, based on an interview Klein had with Kitty Carlisle Hart regarding Hart’s conversation with Jackie.

    98. FBI RIF#124-10012-10239; Kellerman would go on to deny ever saying such a thing: 18 H 707-708

    99. High Treason, page 127; Two Men In Dallas video by Mark Lane, 1976

    100. Evening Magazine video 11/22/88; interview with Marty Underwood 10/9/92

    101. Jim Marrs, Crossfire, pp. 296–7. See also Bishop, p. 259, and Manchester, pp. 234–5.

    102. 7 H 451. See also Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, pp. 35, 38.

    103. Marrs, p. 297. In fact, as noted by researcher David Starks in his 1994 video The Investigations, while Specter’s name appears in the hardcover version of O’Donnell’s book, it was deleted from the mass-market paperback (p. 41)!

    104. Bishop, p. 244

    105. Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, p. 34

    106. Manchester, pp. 165, 175; Curry, pp. 36–37; Hepburn, Farewell America, p. 229; The Flying White House, p. 215

    107. The Washington Post, October 11, 1973.

    108. Remarks of LBJ 11/23/68 – see http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29254

    109. Michael R. Beschloss, Reaching for Glory: Lyndon Johnson’s Secret White House Tapes, 1964–1965 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002), p. 703.

    110. See Bolden’s excellent 2008 book The Echo From Dealey Plaza. See also http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter17.pdf

    111. See http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1.html

    112. Fox News 11/12/10: see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frWYGPZe9YQ

    113. Hill’s November 30, 1963 report: 18 H 740–5. (See also the 2004 National Geographic documentary, Inside the U.S. Secret Service.)

    114. 2 H 141, 143

    115. Landis’s report dated November 27, 1963: 18 H 758–9; Landis’s detailed report dated November 30, 1963: 18 H 751–7; HSCA Report, pp. 89, 606 (referencing Landis’s interview, February 17, 1979 outside contact report, JFK Document 014571)

    116. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfH35258dRA (see all 5 parts)

    117. See article in The Virginian-Pilot ,June 17, 2010, by Bill Bartel: http://hamptonroads.com/2010/06/do-you-remember-where-you-were-he-does-jfk#rfq

    118. ARRB Final Report (1998), p. 149

    119. See also http://palamaravince.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-preliminary-thoughts-on-blaines.html; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gB8WmbvmTw; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDhvGHrM_dQ&feature=related

    120. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqj9D38M_Ko

  • The Impossible One Day Journey of CE 399


    (with a little help from J. Edgar Hoover)

    In 1966, Ray Marcus wrote a very important monograph called The Bastard Bullet. It detailed the journey of the bullet found by hospital attendant Darrell Tomlinson and chief of security O. P. Wright at Parkland Hospital to FBI headquarters on the evening of November 22, 1963. Marcus’ work was exemplary for that time. But since then, and with help from the Assassination Records Review Board, more information has emerged that fills in some of the cracks and crevices in that incredible journey. Specifically this is the work of Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson in the essay entitled “The Magical Bullet of the Kennedy Assassination” (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease) and two essays at the JFK Lancer site by John Hunt: “Phantom Identification of the Magic Bullet” and “The Mystery of the 7:30 Bullet”.

    With this new work in mind, let us update the work of Ray Marcus in regard to the impossible journey of CE 399 on the day President Kenendy was shot. Keeping in mind, that as Dr. Cyril Wecht has noted, the Single Bullet Theory is the “sine que non” of the Warren Commission. Without it, the Commission’s verdict collapses and you hae a conspiracy. And without the Commission’s shiny copper coated, virtually pristine CE 399, there is no Single Bullet Theory.

    1. CE 399 begins its magical journey at Parkland Hospital. A bullet rolls out from under a mat and lodges against the side of the gurney. (Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, p. 79) Question: How did it get under the mat? Remember, the Commission will later say this bullet was in John Connally’s body last. No one has ever answered this question.
    2. Even Vincent Bugliosi admits that the stretcher it originated from is under question. (Reclaiming History, End Notes, p. 426) But Bugliosi understates the problem here. The weight of the evidence says that the gurney it was found on belonged to neither President Kennedy nor Governor John Connally. (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, pgs. 174-176; Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, pgs. 154-64) It would be a physical impossibility for the bullet to somehow jump from Ron Fuller’s stretcher—where Thompson concludes it was found on- to someone else’s.
    3. When hospital attendant Darrell Tomlinson notices it, the bullet has no blood or tissue on it. (Meagher, p. 173) Yet the Commission will say that this bullet went through two men and caused seven wounds.
    4. But yet, it’s even worse than that. Why? Because the Commission will eventually say that the last resting place of this bullet was in the thigh of Governor Connally. How could 1.) The bullet reverse trajectory and work its way out? 2.) How could it emerge out of a wound it already made? Most pathologists will tell you that entry wounds slightly shrink afterwards. 3.) Further, how could it have no blood or tissue on it if it traversed backwards?
    5. Tomlinson picks up the bullet at about 1:45 PM and takes it to security officer O. P. Wright. (Thompson, p. 156) Wright is very familiar with firearms since he was with the sheriff’s office previously. (ibid, p. 175) Wright gets a good look at the bullet, he notes it as a lead colored, pointed nosed, hunting round. (ibid) This is extremely important since this bullet will change shape and color by the end of its journey.
    6. This bullet will be passed through to Secret Service officers Richard Johnsen and Jim Rowley. (Hunt, “The Mystery of the 7:30 Bullet; http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html) Yet neither of them will initial the bullet. (Hunt, “Phantom Identification of the Magic Bullet”; http://jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm) And later, neither positively identified it. (Aguilar, p. 282)
    7. At the White House, Rowley turns a bullet over to FBI agent Elmer Todd. They sign a receipt. The time of the transfer is 8:50 PM on the 22nd. (Hunt, “The Mystery of the 7:30 Bullet”)
    8. Yet as John Hunt shows, agent Robert Frazier at the FBI lab enters the stretcher bullet’s arrival into his notes at 7:30! (ibid) As Hunt notes, if Frazier and Todd can both tell time, something is really wrong here. Frazier has received a bullet that Todd has not given him yet.
    9. But it’s even worse. For in an FBI document it says that Todd’s initials are on the bullet. (CE 2011, at WC Vol. 24, p. 412) Yet as Hunt has amply demonstrated, they are not there. (Hunt, “Phantom Identification of the Magic Bullet”) In other words, no one who carried this bullet in transit for law enforcement purposes–Johnsen, Rowley, Todd–put their initials on it. When that is what they are trained to do.
    10. Later on, J. Edgar Hoover realizes he has a problem. So he writes up a document saying that agent Bardwell Odum visited Parkland, and Wright and Tomlinson did identify the bullet in June of 1964. (Aguilar, p. 282)
    11. But later, when visited by Gary Aguilar and Tink Thompson, this is exposed as another in the long line of Hoover generated lies in this case. For Odum did no such thing, and he says he would have recalled doing so since he and Wright were friends. (ibid, p. 284)
    12. The night of the assassination, the FBI calls Tomlinson about midnight. They tell him to be quiet about what he found that day. Since what he found that day was a lead colored, sharp nosed hunting round, they must not want him to tell anyone about the bullet. (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 365; David Lifton, Best Evidence, p. 591) A natural question to ask is: Why? A natural answer is: Because they have realized that the original bullet will not match the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle now attributed to Oswald.
    13. When Wright composes his affidavit for the WC, incredibly, he leaves out his co-discovery of the bullet and his giving it to the Secret Service. (Lifton, ibid) Even though Johnsen recorded this and its in the volumes. (Thompson, p. 155) Since he was a former law enforcement officer, to leave something like that out, he was probably directed to.
    14. When it comes time to write the Warren Report, Wright’s name is not in it. And there is no evidence Arlen Specter interviewed him.
    15. In late 1966, we find out why Specter avoided him. Thompson interviews him and he rejects CE 399 as the bullet he gave Johnsen. Twice. (Thompson, p.175) Interestingly, in Reclaiming History, Vincent Bugliosi leaves this powerful incident out of his discussion of the issue. (Bugliosi, End Notes, pgs. 426-27, 544-45)

    To say that the chain of evidence rule has been violated in this case is a monumental understatement. Former Chief of Homicide in New York, attorney Bob Tanenbaum once said that it would be embarrassing to present this material to a jury for the prosecution. For me, the most incriminating elements is the evidence that the FBI knew that CE 399 was not the original bullet i.e. the call to Tomlinson, the fake Odum document, possibly the influence over Wright to leave it out of his affidavit, Specter avoiding Wright in the Commission inquiry.

    So from the beginning, with its reverse trajectory out of the thigh of Connally, to its incredible tunneling under a mat, to its leaping out of Ron Fuller’s stretcher and magically knowing it has to be on the governor’s, to its shocking ability to alter its form and color, and then to actually crack the time barrier and be in Frazier’s office before Todd gives it to him, the Impossible Journey of CE 399 is even more magical than anyone ever could imagine.

    What is truly incredible about the above demonstration is that I have left all the other arguments about the Magic Bullet out i.e. weight and trajectory etc. To me, in the face of the above, they are irrelevant. The CE 399 we know was not found at Parkland. And that ends this argument.

    Everything else—the computer simulations, the drawings etc.—is irrelevant. As Shakespeare said, it is sound and fury signifying nothing. At the time of the assassination, CE 399 as we know it today, did not exist.