Vince Palamara's main SECRET SERVICE blog: JFK, The Kennedy Detail, and more

JFK DID NOT ORDER THE AGENTS OFF HIS LIMOUSINE (WITH VIDEO/ AUDIO/ LETTER confirmations)

2012-02-13T15:06:00.000-08:00

CE 1025, the 5 Secret Service reports submitted by Chief James J. Rowley on 4/22/64 (exactly 5 months to the day after the assassination) to the Warren Commission's General Counsel, J. Lee Rankin, ONLY because Rankin asked via a letter dated 4/3/64, were supposed to specifically address, quote, "expressions by President Kennedy regarding the placement of Secret Service agents on or near his car during the motorcade," obviously meaning THE fateful motorcade in Dallas on 11/22/63 when JFK was assassinated. However, not one of the five reports even addresses the DALLAS motorcade; only the Tampa, FL motorcade of 11/18/63 (and a few earlier motorcades) are addressed. Out of roughly 36 agents of the White House Detail (the number slightly fluctuates if you include "the brass"), Rowley chose to obtain written statements from just five: SAIC Gerald Behn (not in Dallas or Tampa; on leave during this time), ASAIC Floyd Boring (not in Dallas; in Tampa), ATSAIC Emory Roberts (in Tampa and Dallas), SA John Ready (not in Tampa but in Dallas), and Clint Hill (like Ready, not in Tampa but in Dallas). Why Roy Kellerman, the agent nominally in charge of the Texas trip, nor Winston Lawson, the lead advance agent, nor even the other 5 agents in the follow up car in Dallas (McIntyre, Kinney, Landis, Bennett, and Hickey), were not asked their thoughts on the matter raises suspicion (all the other agents on the Dallas trip, and prior trips, for that matter, could have participated). Importantly, NO MENTION is made of JFK's staff (Ken O'Donnell, Dave Powers, Larry O'Brien) being involved in this issue in any way whatsoever---the same goes for the Warren Report (and accompanying testimony of the JFK agents they spoke to---Kellerman, Hill, & Greer), Jim Bishop's book, and William Manchester's tome. With that said, a look at each report is warranted.

SAIC Behn's two-page report, dated 4/16/64 (the fourth report submitted to Rowley, and on blank paper, to boot; not official treasury Department stationary), first mentions the Mexico trip of 1962 and the trip to Berlin in 1963---both trips involved agents on and near the rear of the limo, as the film/ photo record exhaustively proves, so whatever JFK allegedly said on the matter, one way or the other, is moot. As for the other trips he mentions on page two of his report (Seattle, Phoenix, Bonham, TX, and "other stops" [no specifics]), two points must be made. These all occured in November of 1961, a whopping two years before the assassination! So, if there was not a standing order for the agents to stay off the car by order of JFK (which the film/ photo record, just by viewing the aforementioned Mexico and Berlin trips, proves), these alleged statements by JFK are not really germane to a trip two years after the (alleged) fact, to put it mildly. The second point is a recent discovery: the Bonham, TX stop was for the funeral of former Speaker Sam Rayburn and it involved a HARDTOP car without handholds for the agents to begin with: JFK was well protected, so mentioning this trip isn't germane, either. Keep in mind a valuable point in looking at all these reports: this was before the internet and before many of these films and photos were somewhat accessible to the lay person. Back in 1964, it was very easy to believe the pronouncements of official government employees, especially with JFK dead and not able to defend himself by stating HIS real views on the matter.

Quite surprisingly, when I asked Behn about this on 9/27/92, he told me: "I don't remember Kennedy ever saying that he didn't want anybody on the back of his car." Behn further stated: “I think if you watch the newsreel pictures you’ll find agents on there from time to time.” Since Behn's report is "signed" by a stamp-pad signature, one wonders if he actually even wrote this. If he did, his statements to myself (a total stranger on the phone [now a You Tube video]) tell me that, late in life, he told me the REAL story, NOT the one he was force-fed to state for the record to his boss to collectively cover the ass of the Secret Service, as the agency was rightfully worried about their future.

Behn ended his report by stating: "As late as November 18, of last year [1963], he [JFK] told ASAIC Boring the same thing. He [Boring or JFK?] gave me no reason for this." With this in mind, we will take an even more detailed look at Boring's report, as well as the major ramifications of his report via the effect it had on several major books and so forth.

ASAIC Boring's one-page report, dated 4/8/64 (the very first report submitted to Rowley and, once again, on blank paper), deals mainly with the Tampa, FL trip of 11/18/63, while also mentioning the Italy trip of 7/2/63. Boring claims in this report that JFK told him to have the agents remove themselves from the rear of the limousine. However, films/ photos exhaustively prove that the agents rode on or near the rear of the car either the entire motorcade, or, at the very least, the vast majority of the trek, in Tampa, so, once again, whatever JFK allegedly said to Boring is moot. What's more, as the author discovered via research at the JFK Library, films and photos depict agents on and near the rear of the limo in Italy, as well! Regarding the Tampa trip, the author wrote to former Florida Congressman Samuel Melville Gibbons. Gibbons response in full, 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.” Furthermore, an amazing document was released in the 1990’s concerning, among many other related topics, the issue of the agents’ presence (or lack thereof) on the limousine. This is a 28-page “Sensitive”memorandum from Belford Lawson, the attorney in charge of the Secret Service area for the HSCA, addressed to Gary Cornwell & Ken Klein dated 5/31/77 and revised 8/15/77. Apparently, Attorney Lawson was suspicious of Mr. Boring, for he wrote on the final page of this lengthy memorandum: “Subject: Florida Motorcades in November 1963…Was Floyd Boring, the Senior SS Agent on the White House detail, lying to SS Agent Hill when he told Hill that JFK had said in Tampa…that he wanted no agents riding upright on the rear bumper step of the JFK limousine? Did JFK actually say this? Did Boring know when he told this to Hill that Hill would be riding outboard on the JFK follow-up car in Dallas on November 22, 1963? Did Boring say this to Ready or Roberts? [Lawson’s emphasis]” On page 27 of the same memo, Lawson wrote: “Why did only one Agent, Hill, run forward to the JFK limousine?”

As or even more surprising than the shocking comments by Behn, Floyd Boring told the author, in reference to JFK's alleged "desires" mentioned by Jim Bishop, Manchester (“quoting” Boring), and himself in his own report: "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" (emphasis added)! The author reiterated the point - Mr. Boring was still adamant that JFK never issued any orders to the agents; he even refuted Manchester's book. Floyd Boring (and quite a few of his colleagues) categorically denied to the author what William Manchester reports in his acclaimed massive best-seller “The Death of a President”: "Kennedy grew weary of seeing bodyguards roosting behind him every time he turned around [indicating the frequency of the event], and in Tampa on November 18 [1963], just four days before his death, he dryly asked Agent Floyd Boring to 'keep those Ivy League charlatans off the back of the car.' Boring wasn't offended. There had been no animosity in the remark. (Emphasis added)." (In his "defense", Manchester also wrote: “It was a good idea, for example, to have agents perched on the broad trunk of the Presidential Lincoln when crowds threatened to grow disorderly. The trouble was that they were always there [emphasis added].”)

Incredibly, Boring told this author: "I never told him 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. 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 8/23/93 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, Manchester’s probable and---as we shall see---very questionable “source.” [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, & Blaine---were not asked to write a similar report. In addition, Manchester had access to this report while writing his book). 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 & Newman---also mentioned the remark 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?]

Needless to say, Manchester left his mark on this issue. [Interestingly, Manchester, having interviewed 21 different agents/ officials for his book [pages 660-669], 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: 10/9/64, 11/17/64, 11/18/64, 2/5/65; Warner: 6/2/64, 11/18/64, 2/5/65, 5/12/65)! Only Emory Roberts, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, and Forrest Sorrels had two interviews apiece, while all the other agents/ officials garnered just one interview 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 [page 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 [page 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), page 220], while Inspector Warner would go on to become Director of Public Affairs (a position he held until the 1990’s), 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, pages 101, 201, 224, 237]. Warner would also later become a consultant to the 1993 Clint Eastwood movie “In The Line of Fire.”]

Jim Bishop, in his own massive best-selling book entitled "The Day Kennedy was Shot, "does nothing more than repeat the written record of the Warren Commission and the previously mentioned five reports, taken at face value. Again, Mr. Boring was not interviewed for the book. With Mr. Bishop dead, this is where the matter rests with his account. That said, Jim Bishop did sum up the situation best: "No one wanted to weigh the possibilities that, if a Secret Service man had been on the left rear bumper going down Elm Street, it would have been difficult to hit President Kennedy (emphasis added).” Bishop also noted: "The Secret Service men were not pleased because they were in a "hot" city and would have preferred to have two men ride the bumper of the President's car with two motorcycle policemen between him [JFK] and the crowds on the sidewalks."

Still, thanks to the Secret Service reports above (and, in large measure, to Agent Boring himself), three massive best-sellers still in print or in libraries ---the Warren Report The Warren Report , Manchester‘s “The Death of a President“, and Bishop’s “The Day Kennedy Was Shot”--- have created the myth that JFK was difficult to protect and had ordered the agents off his car and the like, a dangerous myth that endures to this day in classrooms and in the media, thus doing great damage to the true historical record.

Remember, Boring is admitting it came from him, and not JFK! With regard to exactly who makes the decision regarding the agents’ proximity to the President, Agent Jerry Parr told Larry King: “I would say it was the agent in charge who makes that decision.” When asked, point blank, if JFK had ever ordered the agents off the rear of the limousine, including in Tampa on 11/18/63, Boring told the author again : "Well that's not true. That's not true. He was a very nice man; he never interfered with us at all." In a letter received by the author on, of all dates, 11/22/97, Boring confirmed what he had previously told the author on two previous occasions (9/22/93 and 3/4/94, respectively) when he wrote: "President Kennedy was a very congenial man knowing most agents by their first name. He was very cooperative with the Secret Service, and well liked and admired by all of us (emphasis added)." Not only does Boring NOT mention anything about JFK’s alleged “desires” to restrict security during his two lengthy oral histories, the agent stated: “…of all the administrations I worked with, the president and the people surrounding the president were very gracious and were very cooperative. As a matter of fact, you can’t do this type of security work without cooperation of the people surrounding the president…[emphasis added]” Indeed, Chief James J. Rowley told the JFK Library in 1976: "...you could talk to them [JFK’s staff]...It made for a very happy relationship."

ATSAIC (Shift Leader) Emory Roberts one-page report (dated 4/10/64, the second one submitted to Rowley and finally on Treasury Department letterhead) deals exclusively with the Tampa FL trip of 11/18/63 and states nothing other than confirmation that he heard ASAIC Boring tell him, via radio, to get the agents off the back of JFK's car; nothing about the President's alleged wishes or anything else. From an evidentiary standpoint, moot and useless. Roberts was a "good soldier": he ordered an agent back from JFK's limo at Love Field (as this author discovered back in 1991 and had popularized for the first time back in 1995 and, again, in 2003 on The History Channel, long before this clip became something of an internet sensation), recalled an agent during the shooting and, as Sam Kinney told me, ordered the men on the follow-up car not to move! So, needless to say, like Boring, I am suspicious of Mr. Roberts (deceased 1973).

Special Agent John (Jack) Ready's one-page report (dated 4/11/64, the third one submitted to Rowley and, like Roberts, also on Treasury Department letterhead) deals exclusively with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip. However, Mr. Ready was not on this specific trip: Mr. Boring was, once again, his source for JFK's alleged request. Ready would not respond to written inquiries from the author. The author phoned Mr. Ready on 6/13/05 and asked him if it was true that Boring said this, based on JFK’s request. After confirming he wasn’t on the Tampa trip, Ready stated: “Not on the phone [will I answer you]. I don’t know you from Adam. Can you see my point?”

Special Agent Clint Hill's one-page report (strangely undated and, presumably, the last one submitted to Rowley) deals with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip and Boring second-hand because, like Ready, Mr. Hill was not on this trip, either. Mr. Hill lives incommunicado in Virginia and will not grant private interviews. That said, the author was the first private researcher to get through to Mr. Hill (more on this in a moment). Interestingly, Mr. Hill’s brother-in-law is none other than fellow former agent David B. Grant, a former advance agent who worked on the planning of the Florida and Texas trips with none other than Mr. Boring.

Agent Hill's report was the most honest of the five: "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 Presidents 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 3/9/64, 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:
:
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)

On 9/18/96, by request of the author, the ARRB’s Doug Horne interviewed Mr. Boring regarding this matter. 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, 11/18/63, 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).”

The author 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 4 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, & Charles T. Zboril, to be exact)!

Furthermore, as noted above, both Clint Hill's written report and his testimony sure convey a more strict approach than one stemming from an alleged kind anecdote. In fact, as mentioned above, Hill twice stated in his report that he DID NOT RECALL who the agent was who told him, and the other agents, not to ride on the rear of the limousine, yet named him under oath to Counsel Specter: Floyd Boring.

So 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 Mr. Behn, mentions the same 11/18/63 trip with Mr. Boring as the others do (again, Boring’s report was the first one written, then came one each from Roberts, Ready, Behn, and Hill, respectively). Both Behn and Boring totally contradicted the contents of their reports at different times, independent of each other, to the author. In addition, agents did ride on the rear of the limousine on 7/2/63 and 11/18/63 anyway, despite these alleged Presidential requests, as the film and photo record proves.

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.Behn’s, Boring’s, and Hill’s reports are not even on any Secret Service or Treasury Dept. stationary, just blank sheets of paper. In fact, as noted above, Hill’s report is undated, a bizarre error to make in an official government report written by request of the head of the Secret Service.All are supposedly evidence of JFK expressing his desire to keep Secret Service agents off the limousine, particularly in Tampa, Florida on 11/18/63.

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!

POST SCRIPT ONE:

The “one-two” punch was provided in the late 1990’s by both former Carter & Reagan SAIC Jerry Parr’s comments to Larry King on CNN dated 7/14/98, as well as, controversially, then-current Clinton Secret Service Director Lewis C. Merletti. For his part, Parr, a major consultant to the “In The Line of Fire” movie, told Larry King: “The critical factor [in Dallas]…was the fact that he ordered the two agents off the car…which made him very vulnerable to Lee Oswald’s attack.” Regarding Merletti, “The Washington Post” reported on 5/14/98: “During private meetings, sources said, Merletti told officials from [Kenneth] Starr's office [investigating the President Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky matter] and the Treasury and Justice departments that trust and proximity to a president are crucial to protecting him [In fact, Clint Hill and Jerry Parr where 2 of the nine living former SAIC’s of the WHD who signed a petition to try to block Kenneth Starr from interviewing Secret Service officials. The other 7 were unnamed in the article. (“Washington Post”, 6/16/98)]...the service ran through the history of assassination attempts, showing instances where they succeeded or failed, possibly depending on how close agents were to an intended victim. Sources said they produced rare photographs of John F. Kennedy's fateful 1963 motorcade through Dallas, where agents were not standing on running boards on the back of his exposed automobile when shots rang out because the president several days before had ordered them not to…Merletti indicated to the court that the assassination in a moving limousine of President John F. Kennedy "might have been thwarted had agents been stationed on the car's running boards (emphasis added).” To drive the point home even further, here is an excerpt from Director Merletti’s testimony, as reported in “The Washington Post” from 5/20/98: "I have attached, as Exhibit A to this Declaration, photographs of President John F. Kennedy's visit to Tampa, Florida on November 18, 1963. We use these photographs, and the ones attached as Exhibit B, in our training exercises. Exhibit A demonstrates the lengths to which protective personnel have been forced to go to try to maintain proximity to the President. In the photographs contained in Exhibit A, agents are kneeling on the running board of the Presidential limousine, while the vehicle was traveling at a high rate of speed [note: a contradiction---according to prior official agency mythology, the agents shouldn’t even be there at all!]. I can attest that this requires extraordinary physical exertion. Nevertheless, they performed this duty in an attempt to maintain close physical proximity to the President. Exhibit B, by contrast, scarcely needs any introduction. It is a series of photographs of the Presidential limousine, taken just four days later, on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. As can be seen, at the instruction of the President, Secret Service agents had been ordered off of the limousine's running boards. An analysis of the ensuing assassination (including the trajectory of the bullets which struck the President) indicates that it might have been thwarted had agents been stationed on the car's running boards. In other words, had they been able to maintain close proximity to the President during the motorcade, the assassination of John F. Kennedy might have been averted. Exhibit C contains a series of photographs taken during the actual assassination that demonstrate how critical and tragic the absence of proximity to the protectee can be (emphasis added).”

POST SCRIPT TWO:

J. Frank Yeager, WHD (on Texas trip but not the Dallas stop)---In a letter to the author dated 12/29/03, 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…” 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…[it was] 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… 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.

Gerald S. Blaine, WHD (on Texas trip but not the Dallas stop)---Blaine told the author on 2/7/04 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 the author 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 11/22/63. Surprisingly, Blaine, the WHD advance agent for the Tampa trip of 11/18/63, 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 had to be HIS source for this story! In addition to Emory Roberts, one now wonders 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 (see above). Blaine would not respond to a follow-up letter on this subject. However, when the author phoned Blaine on 6/10/05, 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 (When asked if agents rode on the rear of the limousine on the Italy trip in 1963, Blaine said forcefully: “Oh yeah, oh yeah.” It turns out he was one of the agents) Blaine also added that the lack of agents on the rear of the car “had no impact,” adding: “Well, maybe a hesitation.” That is all it took. The former agent also 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.” If only he would have taken Jack Kennedy’s life with the same degree of concern.

Donald J. Lawton, WHD; rode on rear of limousine 3/23/63 (Chicago) & 11/18/63 (Tampa); relegated to airport duty 11/22/63---When the author told Lawton on 11/15/95 what fellow agent Kinney said, namely, that JFK never ordered the agents off the rear of the limousine, he said: "It's the way Sam said, yes" (Meaning, he agrees with Kinney, it happened the way Kinney said). Asked to explain how he dismounted the rear of the limousine in Tampa, Lawton said: " 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. '“ This would have been Boring, by radio, to Roberts, then finally to the agents---Lawton, Zboril, and Berger---on the limousine. According to Lawton, JFK was "very personable...very warm".Asked about the tragedy in Dallas, Lawton said, "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 (emphasis added).” Paradoxically, when I asked Lawton if JFK really made the statement to Boring mentioned above, Lawton said: “The President told him [Boring], I think he said 'get the college kids off the back of the car.'” (See Blaine, Meredith & Newman, above and below.) That said, in a letter to the author dated, ironically, 11/22/97, Lawton wrote: "Since I am currently employed by the Secret Service I do not believe it appropriate that I comment on former or current protectees of the Service. If you spoke with Bob Lilley as you stated then you can take whatever information he passed on to you as gospel [see Lilley’s comments, below].”

Robert E. Lilley, WHD agent with JFK from election night until Oct. 1963: transferred to Boston Office - When the author told this former agent what Mr. Behn said in September 1992, that Kennedy never said a thing about having the agents removed from the limousine (thus repudiating his own report), Lilley responded: "Oh, I'm sure he [JFK] didn't [order agents off his car, agreeing with Behn]. He was very cooperative with us once he became President. He was extremely cooperative. Basically, 'whatever you guys want is the way it will be'." In interviews and correspondence on four separate occasions, Lilley reiterated this view. Lilley also refuted the Bishop and Manchester accounts, adding that, as an example, on a trip with JFK in Caracas, Venezuela, he and "Roy Kellerman rode on the back of the limousine all the way to the Presidential palace" at speeds reaching "50 miles per hour." Furthermore, Lilley did the advance work for JFK’s trip to Naples, Italy in the summer of 1963: again, agents rode on the rear of the limousine.

Aide David F. Powers (rode in the follow-up car on 11/22/63) & Jacqueline Kennedy (rode with President Kennedy in the limousine)- In a personal letter to the author dated 9/10/93, Mr. Powers wrote: "Unless they were ‘running’ along beside the limo, the Secret Service rode in a car behind the President, so, no, they never had to be told to "get off" the limousine" (emphasis added). This comment rivals Behn’s shocking statements to the author due to the source: President Kennedy’s longtime friend and aide and a man who was on countless trips with the President. For the record, Agent Bob Lilley endorsed Mr. Powers view: "Dave would give you factual answers." In addition, the ARRB’s Tom Samoluk told the author that, during the course of an interview he conducted with Powers in 1996, the former JFK aide and friend agreed with the author’s take on the Secret Service!

For her part, 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…[emphasis added]” (“Just Jackie: Her Private Years” by Edward Klein (Ballantine Books, 1999), pages 58-59 & 374: based off an interview Klein had with Kitty Carlisle Hart re: Hart’s conversation with Jackie)

Winston G. Lawson, WHD (lead) advance agent for the Dallas trip (rode in the lead car on 11/22/63): In a stunning letter to the author dated 1/12/04, Lawson wrote: “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. I am sure it would have been on a “case by case” basis depending on event, intelligence, threats, etc. Jerry Behn as Special Agent in Charge of the White House Detail…would have been privy to that type of info more than I [see above]. However, it never came to my attention as such. I am certain agents were on the back on certain occasions [emphasis added].” The agent should be certain of that last understatement---he rode on the back of the limousine on the 7/2/63 Italy trip. Coming from one of the chief architects of security planning in Dallas, this is very important, to say the least.

Anthony Sherman (WHD, 9/61-10/63)---Sherman wrote the author: “Yes, it is common knowledge, contrary to the denial of SAIC Behn [see above], that agents were advised not to ride on the rear of the limo during the Dallas motorcade. I suggest to further discuss this question you contact former Special Agent Tim McIntyre, [address deleted for privacy]. Retired SAIC McIntyre was riding the “follow up car” immediately behind the limo. I was not in Dallas, having been transferred to the Field in Oct. 1963. I was sent to Dallas immediately after the assassination and spent three months on the protective/ investigative team representing the Secret Service [Emphasis added].” See McIntyre’s comments, below. Ironically, Sherman added: “May I suggest that you get a copy of THE SECRET SERVICE: THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF AN ENIGMATIC AGENCY by Professor Phillip Melanson, PhD. This book is by far the best, most professional “study” of the USSS I have ever read. I believe it will give you other answers to your questions.” What Sherman apparently did not know or remember was that the author’s work was included in Melanson’s book!

Larry Newman, WHD (October 1961 to October 1963, then Washington Field Office)---In a friendly if somewhat contentious interview conducted on 2/7/04 (Newman had seen the author on “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” in November 2003 and thought I was some “20 year old kid” (actually, 36 at the time!). He also mentioned my letter he received and chose not to answer back in 1997), Newman told the author that there was “no policy” regarding the use of agents on the rear of Kennedy’s car, further adding that the question was “hard to answer: it depends on the crowd, the threat assessment, and so forth. There was not a consistent rule of thumb [emphasis added].” This comment will become important later. In addition, regarding the controversial “Ivy League Charlatan” remark first mentioned in Manchester’s book and noted by Lawton and Blaine (above), Newman said: “When Kennedy went to Florida [11/18/63], supposedly, I didn’t hear this directly, Kennedy said to Boring ‘Get the Ivy League charlatans off the back of the car [emphasis added].’” The former agent added that Manchester’s work, while with some merit, became “part of myth, part of truth.” This author couldn’t agree more. With regard to Boring, Newman said: “Boring will only tell you the company line. I’m no friend of Boring’s.” Actually, what Boring told the author went against the “company line” he espoused back in 1964. And, from the latter comment, Newman obviously has no love lost for his former boss on the WHD. The former agent said that both Behn and Boring were “extremely loyal to JFK,” adding: “Boring told you Kennedy didn’t want any agents on the car; then again, he’s been a proponent that JFK wasn’t a womanizer.” Both comments are true. Newman phoned the author unexpectedly on 2/12/04 to say that “there was not a directive, per se” from President Kennedy to remove the agents from their positions on the back of his limousine. The former agent seemed troubled by the author’s research into the matter. Newman did ridicule former Director Merletti’s testimony in 1998 (see above). Regarding Roberts’ order not to move and his conduct, in general, Newman said: “They were probably afraid to hit the street at that speed.” When told that the cars were actually traveling quite slowly, including the limousine’s decelerating speed from a meager 11.2 mph, he had nothing to say in response. When asked if Tim McIntyre may shed more light on the matter (knowing full well that he said as much to the author on 2/7/04), Newman now said he is “hiding out” and “probably, he wouldn’t talk to you anyway” (see McIntyre’s comments, below) Newman seemed concerned yet strangely helpful in conversation with the author. He reiterated that he has no good feelings for Boring (in contrast to his warm feelings for Kellerman) and that---describing himself--- said: “I’m not a good guy.” (!) Finally, Newman said: “You need to get inside the nuts and bolts.” That is what the author is attempting to do with his research and his book.

William “Tim” McIntyre, WHD (rode on the follow-up car on 11/22/63): The author contacted McIntyre on 6/13/05 (McIntyre had previously been contacted via mail in 2004, based on the strong recommendations of former agents’ Larry Newman and Tony Sherman, but did not respond back). Asked about the Tampa trip of 11/18/63, the former agent said: “I was there on the follow-up car.” Regarding the question of agents being on the back of the car, McIntyre said: “I believe so---Zboril was on the back,” which he was (He also mentioned Don Lawton and Emory Roberts as being on the trip, which they were). Regarding the matter at hand, McIntyre stated: “I can’t remember if they were told to be off the car.” So, in spite of these strong recommendations from his colleagues to ask him about this specific subject, McIntyre now allegedly “can’t remember”?

Arthur L. Godfrey, ATSAIC of WHD---The former agent told the author on 5/30/96, 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 6/7/96. Asked if whether Aide Ken O'Donnell did any similar ordering, Godfrey said emphatically: "He did not order anyone around." As just one example, Godfrey was on the Italy trip mentioned in Boring’s report above and agents frequently rode on the rear of the limousine- one of the agents was none other than Winston G. Lawson. In a letter dated 11/24/97, 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.

Samuel A. Kinney, WHD---The affable former agent told the author on 3/5/94, regarding the “official” notion of history that President Kennedy ordered the agents off the rear of the limousine and the like: "That is absolutely, positively false...no, no, no: he had nothing to do with that [ordering agents off the rear of the limousine]...No, never-the agents say, 'O.K., men, fall back on your posts'...President Kennedy was one of the easiest presidents to ever protect; Harry S. Truman was a jewel just like John F. Kennedy was...99% of the agents would agree...(JFK) was one of the best presidents ever to control-he trusted every one of us [Emphasis added]." In regard to the infamous quote from William Manchester, Kinney said, "That is false. I talked to William Manchester; he called me on the book...for the record of history that is false - Kennedy never ordered us to do anything. I am aware of what is being said but that is false"Finally, just to nail down this issue, the author asked Kinney if an exception was made on 11/22/63: "Not this particular time, no. Not in this case". Kinney also told the author that Ken O'Donnell did not interfere with the agents: "Nobody ordered anyone around.”

Secret Service Chiefs James J. Rowley and Urbanus E. “U.E.” Baughman---Rowley told the Warren Commission: "No President will tell the Secret Service what they can or cannot do.” Apparently, Rowley thought the agents DID ride on the rear of the limousine throughout the motorcade, for he added: “…the men at some point came back to this [follow-up] car.” In fact, Rowley’s predecessor, former Chief U.E. Baughman, who had served under JFK from Election Night 1960 until Sept. 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." Indeed, an AP story from 11/15/63 stated: “The (Secret) Service can overrule even the President where his personal security is involved.“To the point, when Baughman was asked by U.S. News & World report on 12/23/63 about the Service’s protective efforts in Dallas, he said: “I can’t understand why Mrs. Kennedy had to climb over the back of the car, as she did, to get help…[this matter] should be resolved.” Apparently, Baughman was puzzled by the lack of agents on or near the rear of the limousine.

Cecil Stoughton, WH photographer---Stoughton wrote the author: "I did see a lot of the activity surrounding the various trips of the President, and in many cases I did see the agents in question riding on the rear of the President's car. In fact, I have ridden there a number of times myself during trips...I would jump on the step on the rear of the [Lincoln] Continental until the next stop. I have made photos while hanging on with one hand...in Tampa [11/18/63], for example. As for the [alleged] edict of not riding there by order of the President- I can't give you any proof of first hand knowledge." Stoughton went on to write: "I am bothered by your interest in these matters". In a later letter, Stoughton merely corroborated his prior written statements: "I would just jump on and off [the limo] quickly- no routine, and Jackie had no further remarks to me". It should be explained that, according to Stoughton's book, Jackie had told him to stay close to the limo in July 1963, and he did up to and including the Houston, TX trip of 11/21/63 (There are photos that Stoughton made from the follow-up car that day, as well). “Then, for some unknown reason, Stoughton was relegated to a position further away from JFK on 11/22/63 .

Charles T. Zboril, WHD, Lawton's partner on the rear of the limo in Tampa on 11/18/63 ---Former Agent Zboril curiously did not give the author a straight answer on this issue when interviewed on 11/15/95. Zboril said: "Well, Don Lawton and I are just sub-notes [sic] because somebody else testified on behalf of us about what happened in Tampa"- this was Clint Hill, testifying to Arlen Specter about why agents were not on the rear of the car during the assassination. When asked if it was true that JFK had ordered the agents off the limousine four days before Dallas, which the author already knew not to be true, Zboril got emotional: "Where did you read that? I...If-if you read it in the Warren Report, that's what happened...Do you want me commenting officially? I’m pretty sure it’s there [in the Warren Report]…I'm talking to someone I don't know. I’m talking to you as frank as I can...If you read it in there [the Warren Report], it happened…I gave you more than I would give someone else". The agent also added: “There is an old adage that we used in the Secret Service: ‘Don’t believe anything you read and only half of what you see,’” the identical sentiment used by Jean (and Jerry) Behn, above. Zboril then gave the author his home address and requested that the author send him anything on this matter, promising to respond back. He never did. Included in the package the author sent was a video of Agent Rybka being recalled at Love Field by Agent Roberts.

Press Secretary Pierre Salinger: JFK had a good relationship with the Secret Service and, more importantly, did NOT argue with their security measures. This was based on the author's correspondence with noted journalist Roger Peterson from 2/99 (from Peterson's very recent conversations with Salinger).

Samuel E. Sulliman, WHD (On Texas trip, in Dallas, at the Trade Mart): Sulliman told the author on 2/11/04 that agents were on the back of the limousine a lot; in fact, he remembered riding there on the trips to Ireland and Germany. When told of Art Godfrey’s comments on the matter (see above), the former agent agreed with his colleague. Regarding the notion that JFK ordered the agents off the car, Sulliman told the author twice: “I don’t think so.” Sulliman also said that JFK was “easy to get along with.” As for who exactly was responsible for the decision to remove the agents from the rear area of the limousine, Sulliman told the author: “I can’t tell you who made the decision.” The author took this to mean that he honestly did not know, rather than the notion that he was hiding the true answer.

Frank G. Stoner, PRS: During an interview conducted on 1/17/04, former agent Stoner, who served in the Secret Service from January 1945 until 1969, said that Manchester was “probably trying to sell books” when he suggested that Kennedy ordered the agents off the back of the limousine. In fact, the 84-year-old former agent laughed at the mere suggestion. Stoner also agreed with several of his colleagues that JFK was “very personable”: “He was an old Navy man. He understood security. He wouldn’t have ordered them off the car.”

Gerald W. “Jerry” O’Rourke, WHD (on Texas trip but not the Dallas stop; on WHD from Eisenhower to LBJ/1964)---In a letter to the author dated 1/15/04, O’Rourke 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. ” (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.”

Vincent P. Mroz, WHD (Truman, Eisenhower, and part-time with JFK, LBJ [9 months], and Nixon)---During an interview with the author conducted on 2/7/04, the former agent said that President Kennedy was “friendly, congenial---he was really easy to get along with…just like Truman.” When asked, point blank, if JFK had ever ordered the agents off the car, Mroz said forcefully: “No, no---that’s not true.” When asked a second time, the former agent responded with equal conviction: “He did not order anybody off the car.”

J. Walter Coughlin, WHD (on Texas trip but not the Dallas stop)--- The author e-mailed the former agent, asking him: “How often did agents ride on the rear of the limousine during JFK's time (and/ or walk, jog, or run nearby)? Coughlin responded: “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.” Also, the author, in the same message, asked Coughlin: “What was President Kennedy like? Was he easy to protect?” The former agent responded in the same reply: “Very funny and very friendly. Knew all the agents by first name.” (Regarding LBJ, Coughlin wrote: “Didn't like anyone and could be very surly. Hard to protect - did not like to take advice.”) Coughlin later wrote: “The rear steps [of the limousine] were very adaquete [sic] for safety.”Finally, to clarify this matter further, the author asked Coughlin: “So far, combing the literature, books, interviews, etc., I've found that Behn, Boring, Blaine, Mroz, Godfrey, Lawson, and Dave Powers said that President Kennedy did not order the agents off his limousine---do you think William Manchester and others took "poetic license" on this matter?” Coughlin responded: “Yes I do.”

Darwin David Horn, Sr. (Secret Service, Los Angeles office; former WHD agent; served in the agency from 1951 to 1981): Horn wrote the author on 1/30/04: “You asked about Kennedy. I have worked him primarily in Los Angeles on several occasions …and never heard him tell the agents to get off of the car. It is possible. You will have to ask some of the other agents who worked him full time. [Art] Godfrey would have been perfect but he passed away some time ago [emphasis added].” See Godfrey’s comments, above. Horn later wrote the author: “Agents on the rear of JFK's car might have made a difference. They may have been hit instead of the President. That would have been all right with all of us. Agents normally would have been on the sides [of the car] (emphasis added).”

Maurice G. Martineau, SAIC of Chicago office: Martineau joined his colleagues in refuting the Manchester story that JFK ordered the agents off the rear of the car. Martineau said this to the author in two telephonic interviews on 9/21/93 and 6/7/96, respectively.

Abraham W. Bolden, Sr. - In reference to Kennedy's alleged "requests", Mr. Bolden told the author on numerous occasions in 1993-1996 that he "didn't hear anything about that...I never believed that Kennedy said that [ordering removal of agents]”. Bolden, an ardent critic of the agency’s lax protection since 1963, also wrote the author: “No-one could have killed our President without the shots of omission fired by the Secret Service. Observe the feet of [four] Secret Service agents glued to the running boards of the follow-up car as bullets [sic?] pierce the brain of our President!!!" (In addition to being a WHD agent on temporary assignment in 1961, as well as a Chicago Office agent afterwards, Bolden saw action on the 3/23/63 and (cancelled) 11/2/63 trips to Chicago)

DNC Advance man Martin E. “Marty” Underwood - He could not believe that Mr. Behn wrote in his report that JFK desired to have the agents off the car (later repudiated by Mr. Behn, of course), citing Clint Hill's actions on 11/22/63 as just one of "many times" that agents were posted on the back of the JFK limousine. During this 10/9/92 interview, Underwood confirmed to the author that JFK never ordered the agents off the rear of the car.

Robert I. Bouck, SAIC of PRS: On 9/27/92, Bouck confirmed to the author that having agents on the back of the limousine depended on factors independent of any alleged Presidential "requests": “Many times there were agents on his car.” On 4/30/96, the ARRB’s Doug Horne questioned Bouck: “Did you ever hear the President personally say that he didn’t want agents to stand on the running boards on his car, or did you hear that from other agents?” Bouck: “I never heard the President say that personally. I heard that from other agents (emphasis added).” The former agent also told the ARRB that JFK was the “most congenial” of all the presidents he had observed (Bouck served from FDR to LBJ).

Rufus W. Youngblood, ASAIC of LBJ Detail: On 10/22/92, Youngblood confirmed to the author: "There was not a standing order" from JFK to restrict agents from the back of the limousine - the agents had "assigned posts and positions" on the back of the President's car. On 2/8/94, Youngblood added: "President Kennedy wasn't a hard ass...he never said anything like that [re: removing agents from limo and the like]. As a historian, he [Manchester] flunked the course---don't read Manchester." Youngblood knows of what he speaks: he was interviewed by Manchester on 11/17/64.

John F. Norris, Uniformed Division of the Secret Service: On 3/4/94, in an interview with the author, Norris also joined his colleagues in refuting the notion that JFK ordered the agents off the rear of the limo: “I would doubt that very much,” Norris said.

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to President Lyndon B. Johnson, 1:40 p.m., 11/29/63: "You see, there was no Secret Service man standing on the back of the car. Usually the presidential car in the past has had steps on the back, next to the bumpers, and there's usually been one [agent] on either side standing on these steps...[ellipsis in text]...Whether the President asked that that not be done, we don't know (emphasis added).” "So, as of 11/29/63, a week after the murder, the myth hadn’t been set in motion yet. From Hoover’s Memorandum for Messrs. Tolson, Belmont, & Mohr, November 29, 1963: “…there was no Secret Service Agent on the back of the car; that in the past they have added steps on the back of the car and usually had an agent on either side standing on the bumper; that I did not know why this was not done - that the President may have requested it…[emphasis added].” One now wonders if Hoover was the originator of the blame-the-President campaign and if he had any influence on Agent Boring who, by date, had written the first report about these matters to former FBI agent---and Hoover friend and colleague---Chief James Rowley.

Newsmen: ABC’s Ron Gardner, ABC’s Jim Haggerty (former Eisenhower Press Secretary), & UPI’s Robert J. Serling: Shortly after the assassination on 11/22/63 before a television audience of many millions of people, Gardner reported: “Secret Service agents normally walk directly beside the car. We can’t see any in these pictures (emphasis added).” Also on the very same day before an enormous television audience, Haggerty maintained that agents normally walked or jogged near the rear of the president’s car, adding that he had a hand in planning many motorcades (as did his successor, Pierre Salinger). For his part, Serling wrote on 11/23/63, based in part on “private conversations” with unnamed agents: “There are two absolute rules for motorcade protection: The agent running or riding at the President's shoulder must never leave that position unless relieved. The other is to turn out the manpower in all secret service cars the moment trouble arises and get secret service bodies around the President [emphasis added].” (In the same UPI story written by Serling from Washington entitled “Secret Service Men Wary of Motorcade”: “The United States Secret Service… has always feared a motorcade assassination attempt more than anything else. In private conversations and in books published by high officials after they left the service, agents admit that Chief Executives riding in open cars down crowded city streets are at their most vulnerable as the targets of assassination… For motorcades the secret service checks every manhole cover and sewer along the parade route for bombs or dynamite. Buildings frequently are checked, along with records of occupants to make sure there are no known President-haters on the premises… They are trained never to watch the President himself but the people and crowds around him. They are also sworn to throw themselves in front of their charge at the first indication of gunfire -- to take the bullets, if possible, meant for the Chief Executive… 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].”)

Lynn S. Meredith (WHD, “Kiddie Detail”/ Kennedy Children; served in the Secret Service from 1951 to 1983)---In yet another potential dissenting voice that is, like Agent Sherman (above) not what it seems to be, Meredith wrote to the author on 3/9/04: “…it is my very definite understanding that President Kennedy did, in fact, politely request that Secret Service agents not ride on platforms to the rear of his limousine shortly before he was assassinated. The President was campaigning in Tampa, Florida, on or about November 19, 1963 [actually, 11/18/63] (3 days before he was assassinated in Dallas on November22), when he requested that agents not ride on the rear of his vehicle because they tended to obstruct the view of the crowd and take attention away from him and others riding with him. He said something to the effect to senior agent Roy Kellerman [sic: allegedly to Floyd Boring; Kellerman was not even on this trip] at the time, “Do you suppose we could get those Ivy Leaguers off the back of my limo so the people can get a good look at us instead of you guys?” He was obviously inferring that the people along the motorcade route in Tampa were seeing the two agents on the rear of the limo and not concentrating on him and the First Lady [sic: also not on this trip] and the other dignitaries riding in the back seat. I must admit that I was not along on the trip and was back at the White House with Caroline and John, Jr., when this happened in Tampa, but I’m pretty sure this is accurate information, and was the main reason there were no agents on the back of the limousine in Dallas, Texas, at the time of the assassination. If the Secret Service could not respond to the President by saying it was absolutely necessary for two agents to be there, then his request had to be honored. And in Dallas, the Secret Service had no reliable information that Dallas was a dangerous place and we certainly did not know at the time that Lee Harvey Oswald existed. Incidentally, I’m pretty sure that neither Jerry Behn or Sam Kinney were on this trip [wrong re: Kinney---on the Florida and Texas trips]…I do believe if agents had been riding on the rear of the limo in Dallas that President Kennedy would not have been assassinated as they would have been in Oswald’s line of fire…To elaborate a little more on the assassination in Dallas, I have always believed that the following adverse situations all contributed to the unnecessary and unfortunate death of President Kennedy: (1) No Secret Service agents riding on the rear of the limousine…[Emphasis added]” In a follow-up letter to the author dated 5/22/05, Meredith wrote: “…I do not know first hand if President Kennedy ordered agents off the back end of his limousine…I have been under the impression through the years that he did just that politely in Tampa Bay (sic) ...they [the agents] took this as a polite order from the President not to take these upright positions on the back of the limousine…on November 22, 1963. So don’t take my word as the gospel truth on this matter.” Meredith continued: “If you really want to receive a very definite and accurate statement of fact about this, I strongly recommend that you try to contact former Agent Clint Hill…Here is Hill’s mailing address [deleted for privacy]…I don’t know how successful you would be in contacting Clint Hill…But I wish you “Good Luck” in this regard.”

On 6/2/05, the author mailed a lengthy, 22-page letter to former WHD agent Clinton J. Hill (Certified, Return Receipt Requested with a S.A.S.E. to boot) summarizing this entire chapter in great detail. On 6/13/05, after not receiving a reply, the author phoned Mr. Hill, who was quite apparently angry---he first pretended not to know about the lengthy letter he had to sign for (of which the author received his signed receipt): “About what?,” Hill exclaimed in response to the author’s inquiry. Then, forcefully, Hill added: “I’m just not interested in talking to you.”

Author Jim Bishop revealed the seemingly unknown fact that Floyd Boring was the number one agent involved in the Dallas trip back in the 1960's in his book "The Day Kennedy Was Shot": "...[LBJ] called Secret Service Chief James Rowley. ‘Rufe [Youngblood] did a brave thing today,’ he said. ‘He jumped on me and kept me down. I want you to do whatever you can, the best that can be done, for that boy." He hung up [this was 11/22/63]. It had not occurred to him that Rowley, too, was lonely. If there was any blame, any official laxness, it didn't matter that the planning of the Texas trip had been in the capable hands of Floyd Boring (Emphasis added).” And, to the JFK Library in the 1970's, Boring said: "Part of my job at the White House during the entire President Kennedy administration was to be in charge of the advance work. I used to assign people to do the advance work, and most of the overseas trips I did myself in conjunction with other people on the detail." To the Truman Library in the 1980's, Boring added: "I was on all the advance work out of there. I was assigned all the advance work, sort of an administrator... I was second in charge [behind Special Agent in Charge Jerry Behn]." Finally, fellow former agent Sam Kinney told this author, in regard to SAIC Gerald A. "Jerry" Behn's absence from the Texas trip, leaving ASAIC (#2) Floyd M. Boring to be the agent in charge of the Texas trip: "Here’s the story on that. We got, as agents, federal employees, thirty days a year annual leave. We lose it, because they can’t let us go…there was only " x " amount of agents back then in the whole wide world… they could not let us off …Jerry Behn had probably worked three years without any annual leave at all and this particular time, he could get some time off and he didn’t go to Dallas. Roy Kellerman was third in charge, so he took the thing (sic), which is, you know-he's qualified. Floyd Boring stayed home- he could get his time off and he could still handle what ever came about from his house; there was very little correspondence between [the agents in Dallas] because Win Lawson had the advance (emphasis added)." Back to the ARRB interview of Boring: "Boring independently recalled that he was the person who assigned Winston Lawson as the S.S. advance agent for the Dallas leg of the Texas trip, but could not recall why or how "Win" Lawson was given that assignment." Agent David Grant, who worked hand in glove with Boring on the controversial 11/18/63 Florida trip, assisted Lawson in the advance preparations in Dallas. Boring was also involved in the pre-11/22/63 checks of the Protective Research Section (PRS) files of any potential threats to JFK reported in Dallas which, incredibly, yielded nothing, a matter fellow ASAIC Roy Kellerman found unusual , as did fellow agent Abraham Bolden , as common sense would seem to dictate (interestingly, according to his Truman Library oral history, Boring worked for PRS back in the 1940’s!). Yet Boring had begun his ARRB interview exclaiming: "I didn't have anything to do with it, and I don't know anything," a similar sentiment he first gave to the author before probing further into the mystery. The author later asked Boring: “Were you involved in any of the planning of the Texas trip?” Then, the agent finally admitted: “Well, no, I sent-ah, yeah, I was involved in that, yeah”. And, if that weren’t enough, during researcher Dan Robertson’s interview of the lucid, 90 year old Boring in 2006, the former agent quite shockingly claimed that "He [JFK] was responsible for his own death." Indeed, Mr. Boring IS interesting, to say the least.

While it is certainly true that the agents were not always stationed on the rear of the limousine, President Kennedy was not in the equation regarding the circumstances for this (they DID often walk, jog, or run near the rear of the limousine, though). If the Secret Service would only have taken their rightful responsibility for not having agents positioned there (as was the usual practice), this would not really be an issue, only a "what if" situation. However, because they lied and blamed it on JFK's alleged "desires" and "requests", they blew their cover story for their "negligence." Furthermore, merely as a hypothetical inference, in the highly unlikely event, in light of all the previous evidence to the contrary, JFK DID in fact somehow or other tell the agents not to ride on the rear of the car a few times in the past, this was clearly the exception, NOT the rule from him; turning an isolated incident from 1961 into a rule to be followed on 11/22/63 simply isn’t credible. And, again---agents DID ride on the rear of the car during the Florida trip…but not on the very next trip to Texas which began a mere three days later, allegedly by “Presidential request” (a kind anecdote), courtesy of Agent Boring, who informed his men between 11/19 and 11/21/63.

If you don’t believe the “kind anecdote” story as told to the ARRB (as the author does not), then why did Mr. Boring take it upon himself to order the men not to take their usual positions on or near the rear of the Presidential limousine? Why did they blame it on JFK? Why didn't the agent physically present and nominally in charge of the trip (ASAIC Kellerman) mention JFK's desires even once during his very lengthy, two-session interview with the Warren Commission, not to mention his reports and his later HSCA and private researcher contacts? Why, indeed.

Marty Underwood told the author that Chief Rowley's best friend was Clint Hill. In keeping with Mr. Hill's honesty noted earlier, it appears that Mr. Rowley exhibited a little of it himself during his testimony to the Warren Commission when, as previously mentioned, he stated: "No President will tell the Secret Service what they can or cannot do" (emphasis added).

Even President Truman agreed, stating: “the Secret Service was the only boss that the President of the United States really had.”

To summarize, the point is that this was a Secret Service decision, not a JFK desire as "official" history (Warren Commission/ Bishop/ Manchester/ Secret Service) has told us all. The Secret Service lied, using JFK as a scapegoat. To blame the deceased President after-the-fact is very suspicious, to say the least; why Mr. Boring took it upon himself to relay these orders between 11/19 and 11/21/63 (according to both Clint Hill and Frank Yeager) is an important issue, especially when considering the timing in relation to the start of the Texas trip: 11/21/63. If “the devil is in the details,” the author would also add that the timing is everything; the sequence of events is crucial. And, if it was necessary during the Watergate scandal to “follow the money,” the author chose in this case to follow the lies told by the Secret Service, find out who specifically told the lies, and why, as well as the incumbent results of these lies.If an agent (or agents) would have been positioned on or near the rear of the limousine or, at the very least, if John Ready, in particular, would have been permitted to run to his position on JFK's side of the limousine during the shooting, history would have been changed: the agent (or agents) may have blocked one or more shots or, at the very least, would have been able to cover JFK before the fatal head shot. As former agent Harry Neal wrote: “It is my personal belief that had they [Secret Service] been permitted to stay on the presidential car, the body of one of the agents might have completely obscured the President from Oswald’s vision. In that event, either no shots would have been fired, or the agent might have been killed or wounded. But the President would not have been hit.” “An unnamed former JFK-era agent told author Philip Melanson in February 2002 that not having agents on the running boards of the limousine was a major factor in Kennedy’s death. Former Secret Service Chief Frank J. Wilson wrote: “Agents on running boards at Dallas might not have saved the President from the first bullet but might have saved him from the second one, which was fatal,” a view later shared by Reagan Agent Joseph Petro. Ironically, former JFK Secret Service Chief U.E. Baughman wrote in 1962: “... the Secret Service knows from experience that a car directly behind the President may save his life in certain emergencies…” In addition to the various still and motion pictures demonstrating the agents on or near the rear of the President’s car, the Honolulu, Hawaii trip in the summer of 1963 bears mute testimony to an important, often neglected facet of the protective mission: the agents also frequently RAN beside the car, even while the limousine was going at a fair clip. Agents walked, jogged, or ran beside the car, and were often on the rear of the limousine whether the car was traveling at a modest speed or even at a high rate of speed. If some look at this as "Monday morning quarterbacking", ask yourself this: Why did the Secret Service, in charge of the "defense", alter history's "official" verdict? Why, indeed.

ASAIC Floyd Boring’s favorite President was Harry S. Truman (actually, he was a favorite of Behn, Kinney, and a host of other JFK-era agents). Truman was famous for the saying “The buck stops here.” With regard to the assassination of President Kennedy and the protective measures used—and not used---on that fateful day, the buck stops with the Secret Service…and Boring, especially.

POST SCRIPT THREE---JFK'S STAFF? NOT.:

Ronald M. Pontius, WHD (on Texas trip, but not the Dallas stop): In reference to an e-mail inquiry from the author (“did JFK ever order the agents to not ride on the rear of his limousine? Author William Manchester claims he did, while Behn, Kinney, & Youngblood said he did not”), Pontius e-mailed the author back on 10/30/00 and wrote: “He did through his staff (emphasis added).” 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, as mentioned above, Powers refutes this whole idea. Again, JFK’s staff is not mentioned as a factor during any of the agent’s Warren Commission testimony, nor in the five reports submitted in April 1964. (7 H 440-457. Manchester, page 666 (O’Donnell was interviewed 5/4/64, 6/4/64, 8/6/64 & 11/23/64). O’Donnell passed away 9/9/77. For what it’s worth, neither Presidential Aide’s Larry O’Brien [7 H 457- 472] or Dave Powers [7 H 472-474] mentioned any JFK “desires”, either (also, see Powers, above). In addition, nothing of the sort is mentioned in “Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye” by O'Donnell, Kenneth P., David F. Powers, and Joseph McCarthy (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1972 [see especially page 20], nor in Kenny O’Donnell’s daughter’s book “A Common Good: The Friendship of Robert F. Kennedy and Kenneth P. O’Donnell (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1998), written by Helen O’Donnell, who wrote: “Much of the material in this book has been gathered from the private tapes of my father, Kenneth P. O’Donnell.” [Author’s Note]) In addition, former agent’s Godfrey and Kinney denounced the “staff/ O’Donnell” notion (see above). It is interesting to note that, like JFK, O’Donnell was not blamed for any security deficiencies and the like until only after his death (in 1977), when he was thus unable to refute any allegations as such.

Breaking news: Author Helen O'Donnell, the daughter of the late Ken O'Donnell, told me in October 2010, based on her memory AND her father's many audio tapes, that JFK did not order the agents off the car and neither did her father!
------------

Secret Service Describes JFK as Reckless

2012-02-13T14:53:00.000-08:00

Secret Service Describes JFK as Reckless
Monday, 13 Feb 2012 02:37 PM

By Ronald Kessler

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, decisions made by President John F. Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev could have plunged both countries into thermonuclear war.

But the 45-year-old president was preoccupied with 19-year-old White House aide Mimi Beardsley Alford, according to her memoir “Once Upon a Secret.”

Secret Service agents assigned to Kennedy’s detail say that his affair with Alford was just the tip of the iceberg.

As revealed in my book “In the President’s Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect,” agents assigned to Kennedy’s detail soon learned that he led a double life.

He was the charismatic leader of the free world. But in his other life, he was the cheating, reckless husband whose aides snuck women into the White House to appease his sexual appetite.

Former agent Robert Lutz remembers a gorgeous Swedish Pan Am flight attendant who was on the press plane following Kennedy on Air Force One. She seemed to take a liking to Lutz, and he planned to invite her out to dinner. The detail leader noticed that they were getting chummy and told the agent to stay away.

“She’s part of the president’s private stock,” he warned Lutz.

Besides one-night stands, Kennedy had several consorts within the White House. Besides Alford, whose book came out on Feb. 8, one was Pamela Turnure, who had been Kennedy’s secretary when he was a senator and then became Jacqueline Kennedy’s press secretary in the White House.

Two others, Priscilla Wear and Jill Cowen, were secretaries who were known, respectively, as Fiddle and Faddle. Wear already had the nickname Fiddle when she joined the White House staff, so Kennedy aides applied the name Faddle to Cowen.

“Neither did much work,” says former agent Larry Newman, who was on the Kennedy detail.

Wear and Cowen would have threesomes with Kennedy.

When I interviewed Cowen some years back in her New York apartment, she would neither admit nor deny the affair. She pointed out that Kennedy’s women had remained loyal to him up to that point, and she said she was not going to be the first one to break silence. An art historian, Cowen died of brain cancer in 2003.

“When Jackie was away, Pam Turnure would see JFK at night at the residence,” says former Secret Service agent Chuck Taylor. “Fiddle and Faddle were well-endowed and would swim with JFK in the pool. They wore only white t-shirts that came to their waists. You could see their nipples. We had radio contact with Jackie’s detail in case she came back.”

One afternoon, Kennedy was cavorting in the White House pool with young women when Secret Service agents on Jackie’s detail radioed that she was returning unexpectedly to the White House.

“Jackie was expected back in 10 minutes, and JFK came charging out of the pool,” says agent Anthony Sherman, who was on his detail at the time. “He had a bathing suit on and a Bloody Mary in his hand.”

Kennedy looked around and gave the drink to Sherman. “Enjoy it, it’s quite good,” the president said.

According to Secret Service agents, Kennedy had sex with Marilyn Monroe at New York hotels and in a loft above the Justice Department office of then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, the president’s brother.

Between the fifth and sixth floors, the loft contains a double bed that is used when the attorney general needs to stay overnight to handle crises. Its proximity to a private elevator made it easy for Kennedy and Monroe to enter from the Justice Department basement without being noticed.

“He [Kennedy] had liaisons with Marilyn Monroe there,” a Secret Service agent says. “The Secret Service knew about it.”

Kennedy was following the example of his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, who served as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. ambassador in London.

Like his son Jack, Joe Kennedy mesmerized the press. Until his death in 1969 at the age of 81, Joe would be described in print as a Horatio Alger hero and chaste Roman Catholic, a man who had risen from the home of a saloon keeper in east Boston to become one of the richest men in America.

Usually, Joe Kennedy would be pictured with his wife Rose and one or more of his nine children. The pictures never showed his well-sculpted, green-eyed Hyannis Port secretary, Janet Des Rosiers. As disclosed in my book “The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded,” she was his mistress for nine years.

Des Rosiers — now Janet Fontaine — concluded that Joe’s wife Rose was aware of Joe’s affair with her and others such as actress Gloria Swanson. She decided that Rose not only tolerated Joe’s philandering but approved of it, since it took pressure off her.

“She must have known I was around all the time and not unattractive,” Des Rosiers told me. “I used to massage Joe’s scalp and neck with Rose in the living room.”

Eventually, Des Rosiers left Joe. She became the stewardess on JFK’s campaign plane and eventually served as one of his secretaries in the White House.

On the plane, Des Rosiers often massaged Jack’s feet and hands behind closed doors. Many reporters thought she must have been having sex with him. In fact, he had made a pass at her, giving her a printed napkin that said, “Don’t you think it’s about time you found me attractive?”

Des Rosiers was not interested.

“A lot of my friends said, ‘Why don’t you get a Kennedy boy?’ I said, ‘I wouldn’t marry one of them for anything.’ I wasn’t impressed by their wealth. They didn’t appeal to me. I didn’t want to be in that group.”

Since the “kill shot” to the president’s head came 4.9 seconds after the first shot that hit him, Secret Service agents would have had a chance to protect him.

“If agents had been allowed on the rear running boards, they would have pushed the president down and jumped on him to protect him before the fatal shot,” former agent Taylor tells me.

Confirming that, Secret Service Director Lewis Merletti later said, “An analysis of the ensuing assassination — including the trajectory of the bullets which struck the president — indicates that it might have been thwarted had agents been stationed on the car’s running boards.”

JFK mistress gets no love from her tale

2012-02-13T11:19:00.000-08:00

JFK mistress gets no love from her tale
By Margery Eagan
Sunday, February 12, 2012 -
Boston Herald Columnist

Maybe America has lived through so many political sex scandals, one more fails to grab us. Mimi Alford, the latest JFK mistress to tell all, drew only 5 million viewers to her debut interview Wednesday with NBC’s Meredith Vieira. Meanwhile, 19 million tuned into “American Idol” that night and 70 million watched Barbara Walters depose Monica Lewinsky in 1999.

Or maybe we’re not as titillated by a grandmother’s confession, no matter how gorgeous Mimi Alford remains at 69.

But clearly the double standard remains. There’s one for the powerful, one for the powerless; one for the middle-aged politician, another for the teenage intern or, in Lewinsky’s case, the 22-year-old. No new revelation about the sordid womanizing of both Clinton and Kennedy seems to hurt these men’s legacies. Clinton is the most popular Democrat alive today. Lewinsky, 38, lives with struggle and ridicule. NBC on Wednesday brought out historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews to assure viewers that Alford’s “Once Upon A Secret” has not sullied Camelot, though she is even more sympathetic than Lewinsky.

Alford arrived at the White House a 19-year-old virgin kissed just once — in eighth grade. In pictures taken then, she looks like a baby-faced middle-schooler in modest cardigan sweaters and pearls. She writes that JFK got her tipsy, escorted her into a White House bedroom and quickly had sex with her. Worse, he allegedly later asked her to perform sex acts on his aide Dave Powers and his brother Ted. This is uncorroborated, but Vieira, a veteran journalist, described Alford as “credible” and her name has been known by Kennedy biographers, none of whom she talked to.

Still, the trashing of Alford is well under way. It was so uncomfortable watching Barbara Walters go after her on “The View,” particularly since Walters has written an autobiography revealing her affair with a married U.S. senator of Massachusetts, Ed Brooke. And Walters was no teenager at the time but the co-host of “Today” and well into her 30s.

All but pummeled by Walters, Alford said she wrote her story now both because she did not want some other biographer to tell it for her, perhaps erroneously; and because her secret had haunted her, taking a terrible toll on her marriage, which failed, and her psyche.

Alford, while not blaming Kennedy, tries to explain how easily she fell for the most powerful man on earth. She tells of limousines fetching her at Wheaton College, of parties at Bing Crosby’s, of the thrill of being allowed so close to this glamorous world. “Being part of it — that was huge, for me,” she said. “I was special; I was taken in. When I think about it, I go back to feeling sort of — chosen ...” Then, “I’m in the bedroom, he’s so handsome, I’m 19, and I’ve had two daiquiris. ... Do I know one person who would have done differently?”

My bet: Many would do just what she did, then pay an awful price. But Clinton and Kennedy did not, and won’t, pay a price anywhere near so dear for their many, many, many transgressions
--
Posted at 12:14 PM ET, 02/09/2012
JFK Mistress Mimi Alford: Do you care?
By Michael Katz

(Mimi Alford in January 1963 (Courtesy of Mimi Alford)) The details of Mimi Alford’s affair with President John F. Kennedy continue to trickle out from her new book and into the news cycle.

The latest salacious tidbit from the former White House intern’s memoir is that JFK once asked her to “take care of my baby brother” Ted.

There was also the revelation that she was with the president on the final night of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

With more sordid tales sure to come, how interested are you in this story?

[More: Why it’s relevant | Why she did it | Affairs still political killer?]

Vote in our reader poll after the jump and explain yourself in the comments.

Your results
Do you care about White House intern Mimi Alford's affair with JFK?
Yes
No
Submit
No 62%
Yes 38%
Washington Post

GREAT REVIEW of Alford's book

2012-02-13T10:35:00.001-08:00

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars When is a secret really a secret?, February 13, 2012
By The Good Book Lady (Philadelphia) - See all my reviewsAmazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath (Hardcover)
This book - though well-written and captivating - is an embarrasment to Mimi and the American Public. So she had an intimate relationship with JFK. I believe those intimate moments should have been kept a secret. It was not "the secret" that ruined Mimi's first marriage, it was her incredible and overwhelming guilt over the affair. She should not have told her fiance in fact, she should not have even married him. After JFK was killed she should have gone straight to therapy! It sounds as though she has convinced herself she is well now - by virtue of her current marriage. She is also using this book as therapy and we - who bought it - are all party to this charade. While I do not condone JFK's actions with Mimi or any other woman outside his marriage, what I do know is that she has not been loyal to JFK's love for her nor loyal to his memory. She said after the first time, she not only knew what she was doing but, she accepted and wanted his intimacy so, she was the other dancer in the dance. JFK would not have expected nor wanted her to "tell all" about the inner workings of the White House, no matter how sordid the situation, that was then. We can argue that she might or might not have been old enough to play adult games when she was an Intern but, what is her excuse now? I guarantee this book will not clear her conscience nor relieve her guilt, and the money she makes on the sale of the books and the interviews will only make her life worse.

Reader's scathing comments about Alford

2012-02-13T07:30:00.000-08:00

Why now? Good grief; leave him to RIP. It's been nearly 49 years since JFK's death, but ne'er-do-well folks, such as this aide, refuse to let him lie in peace, or offer his remaining family any shred of dignity.

Money, the root of all evil, runs rampant once again! I, for one, will not buy her book, and refuse to allow this 'dead-in-the-water' story, cloud my mind. Our beloved Mr. Kennedy was human, and he suffered the same frailties as any person throughout history. While I don't condone extramarital affairs, this appears to have been a mutual consent tryst, so, to me, becomes a non-issue. It's also a non-story, and this senior citizen is merely trying to capture her youth. She's pathetic and a sore loser.
-------
Well it`s one thing to have an affair - alot of people do that..... It`s quite another thing to be asked to blow his buddy while he watches and than asked again to do his brother....

She might have been 19 but she was a doing the w hore thing .....

So getting it off her chest now --- just makes them both look bad....

JFK intern recounts long-ago affair in new book

2012-02-13T07:20:00.001-08:00

JFK intern recounts long-ago affair in new book
By KAREN MATTHEWS | Associated Press 2/13/12

NEW YORK (AP) — Mimi Alford was terrified in 1998 when the Monica Lewinsky scandal turned the word "intern" into a dirty joke, exposing an affair with a president. Her decades-old secret about her trysts with John F. Kennedy was still safe then.

Outed in a 2003 biography and a New York newspaper account, Alford has learned to tell her story and not be ashamed of it — from the moment she said Kennedy seduced her on her fourth day working at the White House until the affair ended shortly before his death.

In "Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and its Aftermath," published last week by Random House, she writes of her first encounter as a naïve teenager, her "varied and fun" sex life with Kennedy, whom she always called Mr. President.

The Rumson, N.J., native was 19 and had no sexual experience when she first went to bed with Kennedy in his wife, Jacqueline's, bedroom. It was June 1962.

"Short of screaming," she writes, "I doubt I could have done anything to thwart his intentions."

Nor did she want to thwart his intentions.

"I wouldn't describe what happened that night as making love," she writes. "But I wouldn't call it nonconsensual, either." Addressing people who have questioned the encounter, she said: "I don't consider it was rape. I have never considered it rape because I was willing."

The relationship continued, even after Alford had become engaged while attending college in suburban Boston, until Kennedy's 1963 assassination, she wrote.

The two raced rubber ducks in the bathtub; they had multiple sexual encounters, though he never kissed her; when he called her at her college dorm, he would use the code name Michael Carter, she wrote.

Her account seems "quite credible," said Robert Dallek, whose Kennedy biography made a passing reference to a college sophomore who was a favorite of the president's.

"This is how he operated," Dallek said. "He was a compulsive womanizer."

A lawyer for the Kennedy family did not respond to requests for comment over the weekend.

Writing the book was liberating, Alford said in an interview last week in her publisher's midtown Manhattan offices. Now 68, Alford was slim and elegant in a gray knit dress, gray pageboy hairstyle and pearl earrings.

She was Marion "Mimi" Beardsley when she arrived at the White House press office the summer after her freshman year at Wheaton College in Massachusetts, then an all-girls school.

The affair began during her summer internship and continued when she returned to Wheaton in the fall, she wrote. It continued while she dated and until a few months after her engagement to Tony Fahnestock, a senior at Williams. She was deep into wedding preparations when Kennedy was shot.

Overcome with grief, she confessed the affair to her fiancé. He told her never to breathe a word of it. She promised, fearful that the only alternative was to break off the engagement, and she largely kept the promise, telling only a trusted few. It took years for her to see the connection between her silence about the relationship and "the emotional shutting down" that had blighted much of her life.

"I needed to look at the secret and then look at the impact of having kept the secret for so long," she said.

Mimi and Tony Fahnestock divorced in 1991 and he died in 1993. Alford married again in 2005, to Dick Alford. Her two daughters from her marriage to Fahnestock are in their 40s, are mothers themselves and have supported her decision to write of her experience, she said.

The book took several years and multiple drafts. Alford supplemented her memory with research at the Kennedy Library, where she found her name on passenger logs from plane trips with Kennedy's entourage.

The story she tells is not always flattering to Kennedy or to Alford herself.

She felt no guilt, she wrote, with regard to the first lady, whom she never met.

"I do now," she said.

But at the time, "it wasn't as if I was trying to replace her or that the president was trying to replace her. I think I just went along. And so I didn't feel guilty. It's kind of embarrassing to say that."

Alford knows that readers may judge her harshly; "it doesn't frighten me," she said.

She describes Kennedy as "a kind and thoughtful man." And then, she tells stories of what she calls his darker side.

She says Kennedy once asked her to "take care of" his aide Dave Powers, who had served as the go-between facilitating the affair; she performed oral sex on Powers while Kennedy watched. The president later apologized to both of them.

On another occasion, she wrote, he asked her to do the same for his brother Teddy. She refused.

Then there was a party with a "fast Hollywood crowd" at Bing Crosby's house in Palm Springs, Calif., that she attended with the president. A guest offered yellow pills that she believed were poppers, or amyl nitrate, a drug often used to enhance sexual pleasure.

Kennedy asked her if she wanted to try one and she said no, but she said he popped the capsule and held it under her nose anyway.

"Within minutes of inhaling the powder, my heart started racing and my hands began to tremble," she writes. "This was a new sensation, and it frightened me. I panicked and ran crying from the room, praying that it would end soon."

Alford debated whether to share episodes like this, taking them out of the book and putting them back in. If she had excluded them, she said, "it would have felt like I was not telling the whole story."

When the affair with Kennedy was revealed in 2003 — the Daily News of New York published her name — Alford spent a few days holed up in her apartment with the media camped outside. Then they left and she started going to work and going grocery shopping again.

After interviews to promote "Once Upon a Secret," she expects to return to her quiet life once more.

"It's sort of like closing a chapter on that 18 months," she said, "and closing a chapter on keeping secrets."

..

This comment from a reader sums up Mimi Alford's book well

2012-02-13T06:42:00.001-08:00

This comment from a reader sums up Mimi Alford's book well

"It really won't shock many readers coming at this late date when JFK's sexual adventures are well known. And it includes a lot of great stuff about the hidden, secret personality of JFK. This is one of the best reads to be published so far this year. And it won't cause JFK's fans to lose their respect for President Kennedy."

The late Agent James M. (Mike) Mastrovito schools Blaine!+ interesting blogs

2012-02-10T09:54:00.000-08:00

Sunday, May 29, 2005
My Profile
My name is James M. (Mike) Mastrovito and I retired in 2004 after a career of some fifty years in law enforcement and intelligence, as an employee of the FBI, the Secret Service and as an independent contractor with the CIA. I have created this site to address reports appearing on the internet in which I am mentioned. I will make comments and corrections to these reports as I believe are needed. These reports pertain to NSA watchlists, the "CIA" Crowley files, the JFK Assassination and the Watergate affair.

I will make no additional comments regarding any of these subjects. I do not intend to join the long list of those who have shamelessly profited from books, articles and media appearances as a result of the information that they were privy to during their government careers.
posted by James M. Mastrovito at 3:48 PM 47 comments

NSA watchlists
The Select Committee to Study Government Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities issued their final report on April 23, 1976, and the report can be found on the internet. Among the alleged abuses the committee investigated was how the National Security Agency surveillance affected Americans. Part II of this report deals with NSA's monitoring of international communications. Section B., item 3., of Part II reports on the increasing security and concealment of programs involving American citizens. Paragraph one, containing footnotes 42 and 43 reads as follow:

The watchlist was always a highly sensitive, compartmented operation (42). The secrecy was not due to the nature of the communications intercepted (most were personal and innocuous), but to the fact that American citizens were involved. NSA requested that some of the agencies receiving watchlist product either destroy the material or return it within two weeks (43). This procedure was not followed with even the most sensitive of NSA's legitimate foreign product.

I am quoted in footnote 43, along with two DEA officials. I take issue with the last line of the above paragraph. I had stated to the committee that the Secret Service Intelligence Division did not, at that time, meet the security regulations for the storage of NSA material. Therefore, our policy, following NSA's instructions, was not to store any NSA material, either legitimate foreign product or watchlist material and all NSA material was destroyed after reading. I also told the committee that all watchlist material came to me in double sealed envelopes by messenger, with the order on the outside of the envelope that it was to be opened only by me. All material was opened by me, and was immediately destroyed after reading. Nothing was stored. There was no need to store any reports as they were of little intelligence value.

The last line of the above noted paragraph insinuates that security procedures were not followed. But since footnote 43 pertains to information given by me and the DEA officials, I assume that it was the DEA that was not following the correct procedures. The last line of the paragraph does not clarify this, and infers that both DEA and the Secret Service were at fault. Neither the Secret Service nor I were in violation of NSA security procedures.

The above noted paragraph is poorly written, such as one finds in many Senate committee reports. The staff members who conduct the interviews and write the reports have their own agendas for the final staff reports (usually political). In this case, the final report does not accurately reflect my interview.
posted by James M. Mastrovito at 2:20 PM 1 comments

The Crowley Files
There are several entries on the internet regarding the so called Crowley files of "2619 CIA sources" Apparently, Crowley, a high CIA official, had given files and notes to a journalist prior to his death. I do not know if any of these files were classified, and if so, what investigation, if any, the CIA made of their theft.

Among the files and notes was an unclassified, but restricted to members only, roster of the members of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO). This roster provided the names and home addresses of the members. I am a lifelong member of this organization and I was listed in the roster, with my address at that time in Albuquerque, NM.

I had joined AFIO when I retired from the US Secret Service in 1979. Subsequently, I worked for many years as an independent contractor for the CIA. In July, 2002, I was working in Athens, Greece, in true name and under slim diplomatic cover, when a copy of this roster was found on a bench near the residence of the US Embassy Defense Attache (DATT). It appeared that the DATT may have been under surveillance and that a surveillant had left his observation post in a hurry and had forgotten to take his papers. No further investigation was made of this incident, and I never felt that I had been under surveillance, but it would have been quite easy for the holders of this roster to connect my name with the embassy - no thanks to the persons who publicized this roster for their own ridiculous reasons.

This is another example of "journalists" trying to make a name for themselves by publicizing distorted information, and in the process not realizing the damage they cause. And it is also another example of persons who have worked in the intelligence community being so full of themselves that they must publicize what they believe is their great contributions to saving the world. Crowley did no favors for the CIA, nor the members of AFIO.
posted by James M. Mastrovito at 8:56 AM 4 comments

Friday, May 27, 2005
The JFK Assassination
On April 1, 1997, I was interviewed telephonically by a representative of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), concerning my years with the U. S Secret Service Intelligence Division, when I was the custodian of the Kennedy Assassination file. The report of this conversation is noted in the ARRB file number MD 261, pages 1892 and 1893 and it is available on the internet. I will make some comments and corrections to this report as it appears that at the time of the interview some of my statements were misconstrued. These comments and corrections are as follows:

Paragraph 2 - In regard to my "culling" of the files, further explanation may be helpful. A CO-2 number was assigned to the assassination as soon as it occurred and until the Warren Commission issued it's final report, all information and material pertaining to the assassination in any way was given this sole number. Thus, much extraneous information, such as tips and "confessions" by mental cases was placed in this file. The "culling", did not destroy all of these reports. Those "culled" were given separate file numbers and many of these cases were eventually destroyed in accordance with the official retention and destruction schedule of the Secret Service. Professor Blakey did request certain files of persons whom had been given the original assassination number, but were subsequently given separate numbers and had been destroyed, and I recall explaining to his staff in detail why these files no longer existed as I had made the decision that they did not belong in the JFK Assassination File.

Paragraph 4 - This paragraph is somewhat of a garble. I tried to explain that threat cases had historically been given file numbers by headquarters rather than the field offices. In the early days of the Secret Service, the CO-2 cases were directed from headquarters and given the Chief's office designation. Later, with the advent of the Protective Research Section, which was renamed the Intelligence Division, the CO-2 numbering system was retained. Cases did not go directly to the Chief's office, nor originate in that office.

Paragraph 5 - In regard to my comment that I had kidded Assistant Director Kelley for never having written a final report in the Assassination case, I note that AD Kelley wrote detailed reports regarding his participation in the interviews with Lee Harvey Oswald. There was no need for him to write a closing report as the FBI took over the investigation. This was a private joke between the two of us, as he, being my boss, was always requesting reports from me.

Paragraph 6 - I have been asked several times about my decision to destroy the piece of the President's brain. I make no apologies for this decision. In view of what is being offered for sale on e-Bay these days, I believe I made the correct one.

Paragraph 7 - In paragraph seven, there is a line which reads "Before November, 1963, the Secret Service had sent its records to the Federal Records Centers and to presidential libraries." I did not make this statement. I told the interviewer that the Secret Service had sent its records only to the Federal Record Center in Alexandria, Va. I further explained that when presidential libraries requested records for their particular administration, the Federal Record Center had sent Secret Service records along with general government records - without the knowledge of the Secret Service.

I would hope that the above comments and corrections are helpful to the ARRB and to others interested in this matter.
posted by James M. Mastrovito at 12:38 PM 1 comments

Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Watergate
The final report of the Watergate Commission, Vol. 1, was released in 1974. the report runs 761 pages in it's pocketbook edition. The final 29 pages, although not a part of the official report, consist of a Minority Report authored by Senator Howard Baker and his staff relating to alleged CIA involvement in Watergate. On the final page of the Minority Report, and the last page of the entire Watergate Report, is a sole paragraph which reads:

Michael Mastrovito of the Secret Service should be interviewed concerning his Agency communications on June 17, 1972. Agency documents indicate that Mastrovito agreed to downplay McCord's Agency employment; that Mastrovito was being pressured for information by a Democratic state chairman; and that Mastrovito was advised by the CIA that the Agency was concerned with McCord's emotional stability prior to his retirement.

This paragraph has been mentioned in at least two books and has been referenced on the internet, and in the past I received inquiries from investigative reporters. Obviously, the paragraph infers that I and the Secret Service may have had further information relating to Watergate, or worse, may have been involved in it. I was never called to testify and I was not even given the courtesy of a phone call from either Michael Madigan or Howard Liebengood, staff lawyers for Senator Baker who authored this report, to advise me that my name was being included in their final paper.

When the Watergate incident occurred, early in the morning of June 17, 1972, I was in charge of the Protective Intelligence unit of the Secret Service in Miami Beach, Florida in support of the protection of dignitaries for the Democratic National Convention which was held in Miami Beach later that summer. I had been there since late May in liaison with all police agencies, the FBI and the CIA. The CIA chief and I met frequently. This was not a new assignment for me as I had served in the same capacity for the Republican National Convention in Miami Beach in 1968.

The paragraph in question results from a phone conversation I had with the CIA chief held later in the morning of June 17, 1972. I had been advised by my Headquarters in Washington of the general details of the incident and that James McCord was one of those arrested. I knew little of McCord, had never met him, and did not know where he had been working. The chief and I agreed that it was a stupid operation and we discussed McCord's involvement. The chief did not tell me at this time that others arrested also had CIA connections. Following our conversation the chief sent a classified cable to his Headquarters reporting our conversation. I have never seen the cable, thus, I have no knowledge of what other comments he made regarding me. Obviously, the Minority Staff took out of this cable only what they felt was pertinent for their interest and wrote the paragraph about me.

The final section of the Minority Report is entitled, Action Required, and a sub-section is entitled, Miscellaneous. In their haste to conclude their Minority view, the authors threw in my name in this sub-section to juice up their position that further investigation needed to be conducted. Obviously, nobody else agreed with their politically inspired Minority Report, because no further investigation was ever made. To be the only name mentioned four times in one paragraph on the last page of this long report has been quite upsetting for me. If I had been called to testify, under oath or not, I would have responded to the three insinuations in this paragraph as follows:

In response to: "Mastrovito agreed to downplay McCord's Agency employment":

My answer: I made no such agreement. I told the CIA chief that the Secret Service convention advance group would make no comments regarding Watergate from Miami Beach, and that any statements would be made by our Public Affairs office in Washington. I also told the chief that it was well known that McCord had worked for the Agency (indeed, at his arraignment later in the day of June 17, 1972, McCord's previous Agency employment was publicized). There would have been little reason for me to make a futile attempt to downplay McCord's Agency employment. It appears to me that the chief was trying to impress his headquarters that he was attempting to keep the lid on McCord's previous employment.

In response to: "Mastrovito was being pressured for information by a Democratic State Chairman":

My answer: I personally was not pressured by any Democratic official. I told the CIA chief that the Democratic Party was naturally upset that some of the Watergate perpetrators had come from Miami. I told him that Dick Murphy, the Chairman of the Democratic National Convention had been in touch with our Miami Beach office (not me ), and that he wanted assurances that the Secret Service would keep him updated.

In response to: "Mastrovito was advised by the CIA that the Agency was concerned with McCord's emotional stability prior to his retirement":

My answer: The CIA chief did make that comment to me. My reaction was to laugh, knowing that this was his attempt to cover the Agency's backside. I also recall making a flippant comment to him on the order of "McCord must have been nuts to get involved in this mess."

As I stated above, I never saw the cable which the chief sent to his Headquarters following our phone conversation, therefore, I do not know what other comments he made in this message. Obviously, he was under a lot of pressure, thus, his comments regarding our conversation were crafted to his advantage. I do find it shoddy tradecraft that he used my true name in a classified cable.

Senator Baker made the following statement which is printed on the back cover of the pocketbook edition of the Watergate Report:

"We aspire...to write a report that will stand as an important document in the political history of the Nation."

Unfortunately, his Minority Report degrades the overall Report and will confuse historians in the future, plus, of course, give food for thought for the conspiracy theorists. To quote Robert Novak in his column 0f March 27, 1975,"Senator Baker insinuated much, but proved nothing. And by hinting at revelations that he could not produce, Baker seriously damaged his own credibility."

I might not entirely agree with Novak's assessment that Baker damaged his credibility. Senators always seem to have a way of slithering out of problem areas. But if he did not damage his reputation, he sure cast suspicion on mine. I have no other information relating to Watergate. I had none when it occurred, and I have none now. But unfortunately for me, my name will always be associated with this sordid affair due to the Star Chamber mentality of Senator Howard Baker and his staff. Shame on them.

Blaine's book proven a lie AGAIN: Secret Service aware of JFK affairs!

2012-02-10T07:30:00.000-08:00

MIMI ALFORD: "TODAY" transcript 2/9/12

Woman reveals ‘dark side’ of JFK affair Advertise | AdChoices>>> back now at 8:09 with the woman who claims she had an affair with president john f. kennedy during her time as a white house intern. we'll talk to mimi alford exclusively in just a moment. but first, her story. for mimi alford , then mimi beardsley, it was a secret that started in the summer of 1962 rks when the 19-year-old debutante from a prominent new jersey family began what she says was an 18-month affair with president john f. kennedy . her secret was first revealed in 2003 , when historian, robert dallek wrote in his biography of jfk ha a tall, slender, beautiful white house intern was rumored to be among the president's many paramours. at the time, mimi wasn't offering details. she released a short statement confirming the affair, and then disappeared. now in a tell-all book, "once upon a secret," she reveals explicit details about her alleged affair with jfk, which include close encounters in this white house swimming pool , losing her virginity to the president in jackie kennedy 's bedroom. sleep-overs at the white house and trips with the 35th president. mimi alford , good morning to you. and welcome. thanks for being here.

>> thanks for having me.

>> watching the interviews that meredith vieira did with you last night. you watched it as well --

>> i did.

>> i was struck by how you are still sad after 50 years. by all that's happened. what makes you most sad?

>> what really makes me most sad is not having been able to talk. not having been able to talk about what i was part of, what had happened to me. and that's what makes me the saddest.

>> you write --

>> and also that you know, going back and from hindsight, looking back as that relationship i had with president kennedy was, was so imbalanced. though there were lots of positive things about it for me. it was also imbalanced. so it wasn't, it didn't help me learn how to have a real relationship with a man.

>> so you're sad in part for that 19-year-old, happy, joyful, fun-to-be around girl, who suddenly lost her innocence?

>> yes. but she also had fun. i also had fun. so i'm sad for that, that she -- but i had a good time. i was there.

>> you write that for years afterwards, you were quote emotionally crippled. and you were struggling to overcome the consequences of that relationship. do you think we would ever be sitting here if you had not been outed in 2003 ?

>> i can't say for sure. but i don't think so. because so many things would have been different in my life, and what's given me the confidence to tell my story and to talk about my story now, is that i have a life and a relationship that has given me space to be myself. all of me. and i think that that's, that's what changed.

>> and so you tell the story now of this intern who on her fourth day as an intern at the white house , was invited to join the president, essentially, in a swimming pool . and then later on, being led then to private quarters, and then, invited by the president on a tour to mrs. kennedy 's bedroom. what happened in that bedroom, mimi ?

>> well the president had invited me to take a tour of the white house . of the upstairs of the white house . and i followed along behind him. and as i say in my book, really feeling as if i was being pulled by a magnet. and in the last room that we went into, was the bedroom. i learned that it was mrs. kennedy 's bedroom. and the president came very close to me and put his hands on my shoulders. and guided me down to the edge of the bed. and i lost my virginity right there. i feel that i was, it wasn't something that i had planned. and certainly not something that i was expecting to have happen. on the other hand, i think i allowed it to happen.

>> you didn't say no?

>> i didn't say no.

>> but at 19 years old, as you were in this situation, that you didn't expect, what did you think was happening to you?

>> i'm not sure i knew what was going to happen. and i think i was taken by surprise. and i think that i felt -- if i can recall my feelings from that moment, it would have been that it was almost what i was supposed to be doing. it's very odd to feel that way. but it was, i didn't, i didn't say no. and i didn't, i didn't feel like i was really being forced.

>> but you were definitely in a state of shock afterward?

>> i think i must have been, yes.

>> were you in a state of shock , do you think, during?

>> no. i don't think so.

>> you didn't tell your parents. you went home.

>> yes.

>> you didn't want to be around anyone. you took a shower.

>> well i went home, no the to my parents' home, but to where i was living in georgetown. and my roommate there, she wasn't home. and i did, i took a shower and i just tried to put my mind around what had happened. and i really, i didn't call my parents.

>> why not? why didn't you call your parents and tell them what had happened?

>> i don't know. i think it was an era when we really, when i didn't really have that kind of a relationship with my parents, that i would have told them. and that makes me sad, and i regret that today. i regret that my parents don't know. maybe not even at that moment, if i hadn't told them. but later on, because they would have known more about me.

>> but did you feel that they would have comforted you? do you think that would have understood? or do you think when you talk about this being that era, are you thinking that they would have condemned you?

>> i think at the time, i didn't think that. i just thought, this has happened. and i was just trying to understand it myself. so i didn't reach out to them.

>> after that, you were invited to another swim.

>> yes.

>> and there was a pivotal, you call it a pivotal moment.

>> uh-huh.

>> because you were pretty shocked as you write about it in the book, but you said yes.

>> i know.

>> why did you say yes?

>> well, you have to understand what it was like to be in the white house at that time. and this is president kennedy . and this was, i was being included in a small group of people that knew him. it was very, it was almost like being swept away.

>> but at the same time, you say you always called him mr. president. you didn't call him jack.

>> always mr. president.

>> there was always a separation. he was an older man, you were 19.

>> right.

>> you didn't have conversations about world events.

>> no.

>> he never kissed you?

>> that is right. the relationship was very imbalanced. i was 19, he was 45. but i accepted that imbalance. because i think i felt very special from having been included.

>> do you believe that if your story is true, do you believe that president john f. kennedy abused his power in having a relationship with a 19-year-old intern?

>> you know, as i've said before, he was extremely powerful. he was very alluring. he was very, he made you feel, made me feel as if i was the only person in his presence. and if that's an abuse of power, yes. but i didn't ever feel abused.

>> did you feel that you were in some ways being abusive, in the sense that he was married? did you think about mrs. kennedy ?

>> no.

>> were you aware, i'm having an affair with the president of the united states , who is married?

>> i hate to admit today, that i didn't feel guilty. but i was 19 years old. and i was very young. and i was being included in something so glamorous and special, that i didn't feel guilty. and today, i regret that.

>> do you feel guilty today?

>> i feel guilty about not having felt guilty about mrs. kennedy , yes.

>> what's also surprising is that at some point, you started to spend the night at, and you would actually walk past some of the president's i guess secret service agents on the way back downstairs to go back to work where you were an intern. how many people knew about this mimi ?

>> i don't know how many people knew. but certainly secret service that were there at the elevator on the second floor would have known. the thing that's so amazing to me is that those, that all felt very natural. and that's what's so interesting to me. looking back. i didn't feel like i was really hiding. i felt like it was natural.

>> so if what you're saying is true, it begs the question -- how was the president able to live in this kind of way? with a wife and children being present, being the united states and having as you put it, a relationship with a 19-year-old? there's something that mrs. kennedy said in some oral history just a few months after her husband's death. that it's interesting to listen to as we talk about this. let's take a listen to what she had to say.

>> he really kept his life in compartments, and the wonderful thing is that everyone in every one of those compartments was ready to die for him.

>> you wrote that the president's compartmentalizing allowed him to effectively segregate people in all areas of his life.

>> right. well that's how i felt and i also had read that. i hadn't heard mrs. kennedy 's tapes. but i had read that in ted sorenson 's book. a lot of people felt he compartmentalized. was good at that. and i think that's exactly what he did.

>> an example of that would be what you write about the president, as he was dealing with the cuban missile crisis , having you upstairs, in his bedroom.

>> yeah.

>> while he was negotiating a standoff with khrushchev. describe that time?

>> it's really ludicrous that i was there. i realized that today. but i wanted to be there. and obviously the president wanted me there, too. and i was there.

>> you also write about some very tough stuff that meredith also asked you about last night. let me ask you about, you say in the book, that the president encouraged you to try a drug at a party at bing crosby 's house. that the president emotionally abused you by suggesting that you sexually service another person, and that at one point you thought you were pregnant and you called the president. and what was his reaction?

>> it was to get help for me, to take care of that. but you know my, i included these dark, this dark side and these dark memories i have of the president in my book. because first, i had them in. then i would take them out, and then i would put them back in and take them out. and i really felt that i needed to do that. i needed to include them, because my book is about being honest. and i -- if i had kept all of that out, it would have been just another layer of a secret, really.

>> at the same time, mimi , you know that all the principles who principals are not around to defend themselves. what do you say to people who say look, you're profiting off a story. you're making money.

>> i know.

>> off of this. what do you say to that?

>> i wrote this book because of the secret that i held. and that was the focus of my book. there's no way i could have separated the kennedy 's name from the book. because that's part of the story. and that's how i feel. people will have their judgments. and they're entitled to them.

>> what about caroline, who is still alive? she's going to have to deal at some point with the fact of this. did you think about, as you talk about, unburdening yourself? the idea that you burdened other people with this?

>> well i don't intentionally burden someone else. i'm telling my story. and that is what i needed to do.

>> any push-back from the kennedy family ? yes or no?

>> no.

---------------
Chris Matthews Explains JFK’s Affairs: He Was Able To ‘Understand People’s Feelings And Not Be Moved’
Video
by Alex Alvarez | 9:54 am, February 10th, 2012
On Friday, the folks at Morning Joe invited Chris Matthews — who recently published Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero, a book about (you guessed it!) John F. Kennedy — to the show to discuss Mimi Alford, a former White House intern who recently came forward with the story of her affair with the former President.
Joe Scarborough, for one, isn’t exactly shocked by the news that Kennedy engaged in an affair with a young press intern. He brought up two other interns — named “Fiddle and Faddle” by the secret service — and Joe Kennedy‘s rumored interest in his son’s dates.
Matthews called JFK’s actions “indefensible” and gave us some insight into what Kennedy was like as a person:
Part of it that’s indefensible is his tone of detachment, his ability to understand the feelings of those around him, and in fact track them and manipulate them, whether it’s Curtis LeMay or it’s his wife. I mean, his amazing ability to understand people’s feelings and not be moved by them at all. I think the word that’s been used recently is “heedless.” Cold detachment.
And the other part of it is the compartmentalization of his life where he could have what seems to be — if you’ve listened to all these tapes that have come out — a full marriage. Discussions about emotions and life, the normal things that most married couples think of as marriage, that sharing of emotions and life. And, yet, having these other compartments with these other women at the same time. He was able to keep them sealed off from one another in a way that was almost inhuman.
At the end of the segment, Matthews implored viewers to buy his book instead of Alford’s.

MIMI ALFORD---MY THOUGHTS

2012-02-10T06:07:00.001-08:00

Please see all my other blogs via my complete profile. On the one hand, I have great misgivings about former JFK White House intern Mimi Alford, writing a book for (massive) profit a half century after the fact and including highly explicit details that no one can now corroborate, seeing that JFK, Dave Powers, and Ted Kennedy, among others, are deceased. However, that said, on the OTHER hand, Alford's tale adds further fuel to the fire for those (like myself) who believe several agents, disgusted with President Kennedy's private life, chose action via INaction on 11/22/63. Former agents Larry Newman, Tony Sherman, Tim McIntyre, and Joe Paolella, as well as Robert Bouck (again, to myself) waxed on about both their knowledge and anger over JFK's sordid extra-marital affairs to best-selling author Seymour Hersh for his 1997 book "The Dark Side of Camelot", as well as to Peter Jennings for the December 1997 ABC television special (and video) "Dangerous World: The Kennedy Years" (I have excerpts from this special in several videos).

Nonetheless, we have long known---for decades---that JFK was a womanizer: Judith Campbell Exner, (allegedly) Marilyn Monroe, secretaries "Fiddle" and "Faddle", etc.

Robert Dallek "smoked out" Alford in his excellent 2003 book "JFK: An Unfinished Life". In addition, the website THE SMOKING GUN offers further corroboration via a long-suppressed JFK Library oral history:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jfk-had-intern-too

NBC's "Rock Center" aired a long interview with Alford on 2/8/12 and ended with the opinions of writers/ historians Chris Matthews, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and Richard Reeves that, despite his dark side, President Kennedy's legacy, although taken down a notch from these latest allegations, is still secure as a statesman, leader, and cultural icon...I agree. Even Alford defended JFK, saying she still admires him and that she does not reget their 18-month affair, only keeping it a secret (she also said it was consensual, fun, and she would do it all over again).

Vince Palamara

Regarding Mimi Alford's book

2012-02-08T16:10:00.000-08:00

I have tremendously flip flopped on the merits and substance of the book, as one can tell from my deleted and changed blogs and Amazon reviews LOL :O) I guess I must put aside the skeptic in me and put the best spin on her "tale": it further debunks Blaine's book and corroborates the 4 agents interviewed for Seymour Hersh's book, adding further fuel to the fire for the agents to have disgust over JFK's private life: motive for inaction on 11/22/63

NOW we know why JFK visited NY twice in November 1963...and Blaine's book is further debunked

2012-02-07T04:55:00.000-08:00

Once JFK's mistress, N.J. woman tells all in explosive new memoir
Published: Tuesday, February 07, 2012, 7:30 AM
By Amy Ellis Nutt/The Star-Ledger The Star-Ledger

Mimi Alford (aka Marion Beardsley), a former White House intern, is shown in this file photo. This week, the Rumson native details an affair she had with John F. Kennedy during his term in the early 1960s.
Four days after arriving at the White House as a college intern in the summer of 1962, 19-year-old Rumson native Mimi Beardsley lost her virginity to the President of the United States.

In an explosive and salacious new memoir, "Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and its Aftermath," to be published Wednesday by Random House, Mimi Beardsley Alford describes what she says was an 18-month-long tryst with the most powerful man in the world that ended with JFK’s assassination in November 1963.

Fifty years later, Alford’s book, which was obtained early by the New York Post at a Manhattan bookstore, recounts in detail how the president asked her to join him in a swim at the White House pool just days after arriving in Washington, D.C. He then asked her if she wanted a tour of the family quarters and a short time later seduced her in "Mrs. Kennedy’s room."

"After he finished, he hitched up his pants and smiled at me," she writes in the memoir, after which Kenndey asked her if she wanted anything to eat, then sent her home in a limousine.

Alford, 69, is a wife, mother and grandmother and lives now in Western Massachusetts. The retired Manhattan church administrator came from a well-to-do Monmouth County family, graduated from Rumson County Day School and had her coming out at the Rumson Debutante Ball in September 1961.

Wednesday evening, she appears on NBC’s "Rock Center" with Brian Williams and describes how she fell under the "aura" of JFK. Although he never kissed her on the lips, she says the fact that he chose her made her "feel very special."

"I’m not going to say he loved me," she tells Meredith Vieira in the interview, "but I think he liked me. I think he cared about me."

Alford, who at the time had just finished her freshman year at Wheaton College in Massachusetts, details sexual escapades that included performing oral sex on one of the president’s close aides while Kennedy watched, as well as taking baths with the president.

The relationship continued even after the teenager returned to Wheaton College for her sophomore year. Kennedy would call her using the pseudonym "Michael Carter" and provide car service and a plane ticket for her to visit D.C.

The story of Kennedy’s liaison with a teenager intern first came to light nine years ago when a reference to an affair with a 19-year-old intern was mentioned in the Kennedy biography, "An Unfinished Life," by Robert Dallek. After the New York Daily News identified the previously unknown woman, Alford, who at the time was married to Anthony Fahnestock, publicly admitted she was the intern.

"From June 1962 to November 1963, I was involved in a sexual relationship with President Kennedy," she said at the time in a written statement.

Not until this week, however, has she publicly discussed the affair. According to recently released audiotapes made by historian Arthur Schlesinger in March 1964, four months after Kennedy’s assassination, the First Lady apparently suspected her husband was having an affair but referred to his extramarital escapades as "Jack’s meaningless flings."

Kennedy and his young lover met for the last time at The Carlyle Hotel in New York City on Nov. 15, 1963, seven days before he was shot to death in Dallas.

Before parting, the president embraced her and said, "I wish you were coming with me to Texas," Alford writes. Then he added, "I’ll call you when I get back."

see also
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/jfk-had-intern-too
-----------
Memoir: Mistress Spills Kinky JFK Sex Secrets
Mimi Alford writes of president pressuring her to do drugs during 18-month affair.
By Daniel Politi | Posted Sunday, Feb. 5, 2012, at 2:07 PM ET
Tweet 465MYSLATE Save this story. Follow all articles. Follow The Slatest. Follow stories by Daniel Politi.
MySlate is a new tool that you track your favorite parts Slate. You can follow authors and sections, track comment threads you're interested in, and more.

US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy leaves the Saint Stephen Martyr catholic church after attending mass, on October 29, 1962 in Washington DC Photo by STF/AFP/Getty Images
Mimi Alford has officially broken her silence and recounts details of her affair with John F. Kennedy in her memoir, Once Upon a Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy and its Aftermath. The book is to be released Wednesday but the New York Post apparently got a copy at a Manhattan bookstore and reveals lots of salacious details.

Mimi Alford, then Mimi Beardsley, interned at the White House in the summer of 1962, quickly caught the president’s eye. The 19-year-old joined the 45-year-old president for a noon swim four days into her internship. Later that day, he took her virginity in “Mrs. Kennedy’s room.”

“After he finished, he hitched up his pants and smiled at me.” Alford says their sex life was “varied and fun” and describes an affair that was more than just sex. They apparently spent an “inordinate amount of time taking baths” and listened to music together. He confided in her during key personal and professional moments, such as when his infant son died and during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But he never kissed her on the lips.

At one point, during another noon swim, Kennedy allegedly asked Alford to “take care” of an aide. He watched as she performed oral sex on him. Kennedy ended up apologizing to both of them. At a later date, Kennedy asked her to “take care of my baby brother,” meaning Ted Kennedy, during a Democratic fund-raiser. She refused.

Alford also describes a party in Bing Crosby’s desert ranch when “yellow capsules” that were “most likely amyl nitrate” were passed around. The president asked her if she wanted to try it. She said no, but “he just went ahead and popped the capsule and held it under my nose.”

Alford’s identity was first revealed in 2003 when Robert Dallek published portions of a 1964 oral history that described the affair. A press aide had described the affair to a researcher but had asked that it be kept secret. Dallek convinced her to release the interview for his book. The New York Daily News then tracked down Marion Fahnestock, who, faced with a media frenzy, confirmed the affair.

At the time, the late Hugh Sidey, who covered Kennedy at the White House, wrote in Time, confirming that “there was a Mimi,” quickly adding: “there was also a Pam, a Priscilla, a Jill (actually, two of them), a Janet, a Kim, a Mary and a Diana I can think of offhand.”

In 2009, the New York Times wrote that Alford was working on a memoir. Random House’s executive editor said she bought the book after seeing 20 pages, noting it would have “an extraordinary heart and soul.” The editor also insisted that Alford’s “just not that type of person, where she’s going to spill her guts about intimate stuff for the whole country to see.”

ANOTHER great review for "Within Arm's Length"!

2012-02-03T07:43:00.000-08:00

GET THIS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE-AMAZING!

Dan Emmett has hit a literary home run with "Within Arm's Length": simply put, this is the best book ever written on the Secret Service. What's more, Emmett knows about what he is writing about, having served in the agency from 1983-2004. Get this asap! Best book on the agency since 1865 and the book of the year!

MORE GREAT REVIEWS FOR DAN EMMETT'S NEW BOOK "WITHIN ARM'S LENGTH"

2012-02-03T07:41:00.001-08:00

did NOT want it to end!!
Only took 2 days to finish this book and I did not want it to end!! Anyone who served bravely in the armed forces of the US of A and was a Secret Service person is A ok in my book. Nice photos.

Excellent book, as a retired law enforcement officer(NYPD) I highly recommend, it
well written and informative

essential
loved it!

Well done
A number of books by various authors have tackled the Secret Service but, far and away, this book-by a former agent, no less-should be required reading for all law enforcement personnel who are thinking about joining this division of the Office of Homeland Security. While I wish it was longer, I cannot find fault there; why be long-winded? Recommended for the college student through adult.

good read
i got this book the other day and liked it

OUTSTANDING! BUY THIS ASAP!
Simply put, this is THE best book ever written on the Secret Service. Very well written and put together, exciting, never dull, and quite a page turner. Since the agency's inception in 1865, no other book matchs Dan Emmett's "Within Arm's Length."

THE BOOK OF THE YEAR! HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
I enjoyed this book immensely. I cannot say enough positive things about this work. In fact, I literally have no criticisms! You can do no wrong in purchasing this fine book. Dan Emmett deserves the Pulitzer Prize!

Makes me want to run out and join the secret Service!
Mr Emmett has put together a nice book for himself. I was so pumped up reading it that it made me want to run out and join the Secret Service! Must be a Marine recruiter in his spare time

not what I expected, but no complaints
I got this as a gift. I thought it was going to be a Clinton memoir. it is actually the story of a dude who protected him. It is actually pretty sweet- me like. He also guarded W, but we won't hold that against him ;) Two thumbs up

Within Arm's Length: The Extraordinary Life and Career of a Special Agent in the United States Secret Service

2012-02-03T07:36:00.000-08:00

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Excellent Work, February 3, 2012
By Brenda (Ohio) - See all my reviewsThis review is from: Within Arm's Length: The Extraordinary Life and Career of a Special Agent in the United States Secret Service (Paperback)
Dan Emmett documented an interesting and honest account of his important responsibilities and accomplishmets within the Secret Service. Mr. Emmett brought us through the "ups and downs" of what agents go through with their personal lives and family due to mandatory transfers, long working hours and the overall stress of constantly working both protection and investigaions. The author's writing method, while serious, also maintained a sense of humor throughout the book indicating that his flexibility and optimistic attitude brought him through many difficult times. I enjoyed this book and highly recommend reading it for anyone who desires insight into what is behind the curtain of the U.S. Secret Service.

A Message For Gerald Blaine

2012-02-01T09:18:00.000-08:00

Your book failed miserably*---as usual, the people have spoken; NOTHING has changed:

YAHOO international POLL 2/1/12:
Do you believe JFK was killed by one shooter?

Poll Choice Options Yes, there was no conspiracy. No, the truth's been covered up.

See results »

Do you believe JFK was killed by one shooter?

Yes, there was no conspiracy.

27%

No, the truth's been covered up.

73%
Thank you for voting
.
200,000+ votes [and counting]

*and this doesn't even deal with the substantive issues that have been debunked IN your book

Have a nice day! :O)

Vince
P.S. I attempted to speak again (for the third time) to former JFK agent Larry Newman, whom you decided to avoid speaking to for your book. He told me that I am "crazier than a shithouse rat", so someone is on your side haha :)

Chilling tape from Air Force One on day JFK shot

2012-02-01T05:02:00.000-08:00

It's been nearly a half-century since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

But new information from that day in Dallas has just been released -- audiotape of conversations between Air Force One and Washington.

For the first time, the complete audio record of the flight back from Dallas to Washington is available to the public online, from the National Archives, for free.

It helps to fill in the record of that day of sorrow, confusion and fear.

"Gonna put Mrs. Rose Kennedy on the line now," one voice can be heard saying.

Lyndon Johnson, newly sworn-in as president of the United States, and his wife, Ladybird, attempted to console President Kennedy's mother.

"I wish to God," Lyndon Johnson said, "there was something that I could do. And I wanted to tell you that we are grieving with you."

"Thank you very much," Rose Kennedy responded. "Thank you very much. I know you loved Jack. And he loved you."

"Mrs. Kennedy," Ladybird said, "We just wanted to -- we feel like we've lost..."

"Thank you very much," Rose Kennedy repeated." Then, goodbyes all-around.

Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other cabinet members were over the Pacific in an aircraft code-named Wayside. They had just turned back from a trip to Asia when the White House confirmed their worst fears.

"This is the (White House) Situation Room. Relay following to Wayside. We have report quoting that the president is dead, that he died about 35 minutes ago."

The full audio of transmissions from White House Communications Agency (which captured the tapes) that day includes 42 minutes edited out of the original public version. It's likely to peak the interest of conspiracy theorists who are already asking why this material was cut out of the original.

Then-Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Curtis LeMay had been a frequent opponent of Kennedy's. His whereabouts on the day of the assassination has always been a mystery.

In the newly public audio, we learn that LeMay was airborne, even as JFK's body was being flown back to Washington. And an aide to LeMay tried urgently to reach his boss.

"General LeMay," the aide said, "is in a C 140. ... He's inbound. His code name is Grandson. And I wanna talk to him. ... If you can't work him now, it's gonna be too late, because he'll be on the ground in a half-hour."

Historian Robert Dallek suggests doubters will wonder if the aide's comments about not reaching LeMay within 30 minutes may be "too late" could have some sinister meaning. "I'd doubt these tapes will put the conspiracy theory to rest," he says. "They continue to believe it was a conspiracy and again, they just can't accept the proposition that a lone wolf, a single, and someone as dysfunctional as Lee Harvey Oswald, could have carried off this assassination of the president." [oh, shut up, Dallek---sure, lone nuts shoot at presidents (Hinckley), but there is an overwhelming amount of evidence of conspiracy in the death of JFK. See Doug Horne's 5-volume set]

At the end of that fateful day, the body of the fallen president arrived in Washington -- and the new president made a promise to the nation.

"I will do my best," Johnson said, "That is all I can do. I ask for your help and God's."

The complete audio record of the flight back to Washington was lost for years until the estate of JFK's top military aide, Army Gen. Chester "Ted" Clifton Jr., sold his copy of the tapes to The Raab Collection, historical document dealers, which gave a copy of the audio to the National Archives.

Jack Walsh, 79, Secret Service agent who guarded JFK’s family

2012-02-01T04:16:00.000-08:00

Jack Walsh, 79, Secret Service agent who guarded JFK’s family

Jack Walsh was a relatively new Secret Service agent when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, and he soon was assigned to protect Jacqueline Kennedy and her two young children, Caroline and John Jr.

“Those were difficult times,’’ said Jim Christian, a retired special agent in charge with the Secret Service. “The nation was in mourning, she was probably the most important person in the United States, and the country pretty much adopted the children.’’

The assignment brought Mr. Walsh more than the standard chores of missing his children’s birthdays so he could guard the children of America’s Camelot. As fascination with the Kennedys increased, writers sought him out to see if he would share secrets.

“We would get repeated calls from people writing the unauthorized Kennedy books. He wouldn’t take a call,’’ said Mr. Walsh’s son David, of Cincinnati. “Whatever happened behind the walls at the Kennedy compound, stayed behind those walls.’’[Hmmm--I first became aware of the name Jack Walsh from an interview he gave with the tabloid The Globe right after Jackie's death in May 1994-VMP]

Mr. Walsh, who became agent in charge of protecting the late president’s children and was so well loved by the family that he was a pallbearer at the funeral of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, died in his home of cancer Thursday. He was 79 and had lived in Milton for more than 40 years.

“Jack had one of the more difficult jobs in the Secret Service,’’ Christian said. “He had to keep Washington happy and that meant keeping the children safe, and it also meant keeping her happy. That was an enormous balancing act.’’

When the president’s widow lived in New York City, she “wanted to keep those children safe, but she also wanted them to have normal lives,’’ Christian said. “The desire was that the children and their friends would not see the agents, but the agents had the responsibility of not letting anything happen. With all the other protectees, you were right there. Here, you were trying to stay out of the way, sometimes on busy New York streets.’’

Mr. Walsh, he said, “did it all, and he did it well.’’

Despite efforts to fade into the scenery, Mr. Walsh occasionally showed up in books by and about the Kennedys, or on the Globe’s front page, as he did May 17, 1965. In a photo, John Kennedy Jr. runs joyously down a street in England as a smiling Mr. Walsh towers over him, keeping pace.

Sarah Bradford’s 2000 book, “America’s Queen,’’ quoted a letter Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis wrote in 1967 about a trip to Ireland. She thought she was swimming alone on the coast when a current threatened to sweep her away.

“I was becoming exhausted, swallowing water and slipping past the spit of land, when I felt a great porpoise at my side,’’ she wrote. “It was Mr. Walsh. He set his shoulder against mine and together we made the spit.’’

She recommended that the Secret Service award Mr. Walsh its highest commendation and requested that he lead the detail protecting the family.

“He was fiercely loyal and loved loyalty more than anything else,’’ said Geoffrey Kierstead, a friend and retired Secret Service agent. “And he was so loyal to the Kennedy family.’’

The feeling was mutual. Raymond L. Flynn, a former mayor of Boston, knew Mr. Walsh and his family since their childhoods in South Boston.

“I was in New York jogging one day through Central Park, and Jacqueline Kennedy was there,’’ he said. “She was sitting by herself trying not to be noticed, but I recognized her. I went over and introduced myself and said, ‘I’m a friend of Jackie Walsh.’ I ended up sitting with her for 45 minutes. All she wanted to do was talk about him.’’

John F. Walsh grew up in South Boston and, despite traveling the world with the Kennedys, never really left.

Photos of Southie hang in his Milton home. He attended Gate of Heaven Church in South Boston and its high school.

When he served in Korea with the Marines, he answered the obligatory “where you from’’ with: “Gate of Heaven.’’ Pressed to provide more, he would add: “I and 8th,’’ the street corner close by his family’s home.

Mr. Walsh was part of the Aces, a street gang from the days when pride was the weapon young guys wielded.

“He was known as Jack Walsh, I and 8th, one of the Aces,’’ David said. “He hadn’t lived in Southie for a long, long time, but you’d never know it.’’

Standing several inches above 6 feet, Mr. Walsh started going gray while still in high school.

“He had silver hair at 18 years old,’’ said his son John II, of Milton.

After returning home from Korea, Mr. Walsh graduated from Suffolk University and worked at City Hall until he became a Secret Service agent.

When the Kennedy children were too old for Secret Service protection, Mr. Walsh switched to the Boston office and coordinated protection when Pope John Paul II visited Boston in 1979. The Walsh family was up front during Mass, receiving Communion from the pope.

In 1963, Mr. Walsh married Ann Welch, whom he always called “my Ann.’’ Family was so important that while guarding the Kennedys in New York, he sometimes drove to Milton just to spend the night, and headed back the next day.

As if to make up for holidays and birthdays he missed while on duty, in retirement “he went to every one of his grandchildren’s games,’’ David said.

In addition to his wife and two sons, Mr. Walsh leaves a daughter, Maura Walsh-Hammer of Hingham; another son, Matthew of New York City; a brother, Joseph of Hyde Park; a sister, Ellen Concannon of South Boston; and nine grandchildren

A funeral Mass will be said at 10 a.m. today in Gate of Heaven Church in South Boston. Burial will be in Milton Cemetery.

When his illness progressed, Mr. Walsh “had three requests: ‘I want to die in my bedroom, I want to be waked at O’Brien’s Funeral Home in South Boston, and I want my funeral at Gate of Heaven,’ ’’ David said.

Mr. Walsh may have spent years training his watchful gaze on those who made history, but in the end his own past was most important.

“The best praise is when the people you grew up with and lived with respect you,’’ Flynn said. “That’s the greatest tribute that Jackie got. He traveled with presidents, popes, and prime ministers, but the people who love him the most are the people he grew up with.’’

US Archives releases longer audio tape from Air Force One after Kennedy assassination

2012-01-31T04:44:00.000-08:00

US Archives releases longer audio tape from Air Force One after Kennedy assassination

01/30/2012 4:23 PM

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- The Kennedy assassination was one of the most heart-wrenching and chaotic events in modern American history -- and one still replete with mysteries.

But now a little more light has been shed on one of them: What was edited out of the flight deck recording from Air Force One as it carried John F. Kennedy’s body and the new president, Lyndon B. Johnson, from Dallas to Washington.

The National Archives and Records Administration today released a newly discovered recording – running about 2 hours and 20 minutes -- that is nearly 40 minutes longer than the only version previously known to exist.

The more complete recording was discovered last year by the Raab Collection, a manuscript collector in Pennsylvania, after one of its agents purchased at auction a box of personal effects from the estate of General Chester Clifton, who was Kennedy’s military aide.

The whereabouts of the complete Air Force One radio transmissions from Nov. 22, 1963, still remain a mystery. But what makes this a historically significant find is that it is an earlier version of the raw transmissions than the one housed at the LBJ Library, which was more heavily edited and runs only about an hour and 40 minutes.

Clifton, who died in 1991, left the White House in 1965, while the LBJ Library version was made public in 1971.

“This is the earliest that likely exists,” said Nathan Raab, vice president of the Raab Collection in Ardmore, Pa.

The newly found tape, a copy of which was donated to the Archives, includes never-before-heard transmissions between the White House Situation Room and another plane taking Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other Cabinet members to Tokyo at the time of Kennedy’s shooting and was turned back. It also contains an urgent request to locate the head of the Air Force, General Curtis LeMay, whose whereabouts in the immediate aftermath of the assassination have remained an obsession for generations of conspiracy theorists.

Some of the newly discovered radio traffic is raw and uncensored, such as when Rusk and his party are informed of the shooting while flying over the Pacific.

“Kennedy apparently shot in head,” the male radio operator in the Situation Room reports. “He fell face down in back seat of his car, blood was on his head, Mrs. Kennedy cried ‘oh, no’ and tried to hold up his head.”

Also heard are more mundane things, such as the pilots of Air Force One discussing how to avoid tornados in Arkansas and Mississippi along the flight path from Dallas to Washington, D.C.

Raab said he was most intrigued by the portion involving LeMay. Kennedy and the hawkish Air Force chief were widely known to mistrust each other and all references to LeMay were deleted in the Johnson Library version of the recording.

In the longer version, one of LeMay’s aides, a Colonel Dorman, contacts the White House Situation Room seeking to reach the general, who he tells them is flying in a C-140 aircraft with the last three numbers 497 and whose code name is “Grandson.”

“And I want to talk to him,” the colonel says. Any delay, he adds, “would be too late.”

But he is told they will have to interrupt transmissions with Air Force One to do so. The Situation Room reports that they are using both frequencies available to communicate with the presidential aircraft.

Summarizing the portions of the tape not made public before, the National Archives cited “references to new code names and incidents; a private conversation between Jerry Behn, the head of the Secret Service, and an unidentified individual about the disposition of the president’s body; an urgent effort by an aide to Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay to reach [him]; and attempts to locate various members of Congress from the Texas delegation.”

Archivist of the United States David S. Ferriero said the recording “provides additional documentation concerning the immediate response of the US Government on the day of President Kennedy’s assassination.”

The tape, added, Raab, “will allow the public a more complete view of the chaotic circumstances following the assassination of President Kennedy.”

But the recording only goes so far. Several hours of raw tape are still missing. The transmissions heard on Air Force One that day should cover more than four hours -- from before 2 p.m. Eastern time to after 6 p.m., when the new president and the casket bearing JFK arrived at Andrews Air Force Base in suburban Maryland.

“The raw tapes never resurfaced after 1965-66, and the very existence of the first Air Force One assassination tape [found among Clifton’s papers] was forgotten,” said the Raab Collection. “Over the years all the efforts to find the raw tapes or any other original version proved fruitless. They are no longer with the White House Communications Agency, where they were created.”

The Raab Collection is selling the original copy of the reel-to-reel recording for $500,000, along with other items found among Clifton’s estate, including an autographed photograph of President Kennedy.

Blaine wasn't there; THIS guy was. Blaine wants $$$ for his books; this guy wants zero profit---believe THIS guy

2012-01-30T10:38:00.000-08:00

Dallas surgeon recounts JFK operation

Dr. Robert McClelland believes there was more than one shooter

Photo by Chris Beattie
Dr. Robert McClelland recounts to the Rotary Club of McKinney what happened Nov. 22, 1963 in the Parkland Memorial Hospital operating room where former President John F. Kennedy took his final breaths.
Almost 49 years later, mystery still surrounds the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy.
Was Lee Harvey Oswald the real shooter? If so, was he the only one? There is someone who knows the truth about what happened on that November day in Dallas -- at least part of it.
"It was not just a single shooter," said Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the surgeons who operated on Kennedy at Parkland Memorial Hospital. "It wasn't just some crazy young man who wasn't connected to anything."
Such a conclusion, shared by millions across America, came to McClelland long before Friday, when he recapped his experience to the Rotary Club of McKinney. Though he admittedly "kept a distance from all of it," McClelland's personal connection to the event was hard for anyone else to ignore.
Just moments after Kennedy slunk to his left, sending horror through thousands of spectators, he was fighting for every breath inside a Parkland operating room, his head inches away from McClelland.
"He was in terrible shape; the right side of his brain had been blown out," McClelland said. "We worked on him for only eight or 10 minutes, from the time they made the incision to the time he lost all of his cardiac activity.
"There was no chance of saving him."
But memories of the futile operation, and the surrounding chaos, were never lost. McClelland spoke to Rotarians the past two Fridays about his recollections. His story dropped jaws and drew curious silence.
He reignited the wonder of any listeners who'd pushed the conspiracy theories away, out of mind. That's what McClelland said he tried to do, but the mysterious pieces always found him.
Some pieces seemingly fell from the gun -- or guns -- of Kennedy's killer.
"My supposition, and that of a lot of people, is that the first shot probably was fired from the sixth floor of the [Texas School Book Depository]...whether by Oswald or someone else, I don't know," McClelland told Rotarians. "The next shot apparently came from behind the picket fence by the grassy knoll -- all kinds of things indicate that is indeed what happened."
One glaring indicator, to which McClelland was uniquely close, was Kennedy's neck wound. Dr. Malcolm Perry, the chief surgeon for Kennedy and Oswald, cut an incision into Kennedy's neck to explore the wound.
Perry told reporters minutes later that it looked like an entrance wound -- meaning the shot had come from somewhere other than the sixth floor of the Depository. Referencing a recently published book about the assassination, McClelland said Secret Service agents allegedly accosted Perry after his statement and told him never to say it again.
"After the assassination, if you ever mentioned anything about it to Dr. Perry, he would tell you, 'I don't want to talk about it,' and he would really get angry if you pressed him about it," McClelland said. "We always wondered why that was."
Perry took his reluctance to the grave, dying from lung cancer two years ago in Tyler. McClelland, the only surviving member of the historic surgical team, stayed clear of the chaos as long as he could. He and Perry were two of four doctors who tried to save the president Nov. 22, 1963.
"People always ask if he was dead, and he wasn't," McClelland said. "He was making attempts to breath. But we didn't stand around and ask questions, we just started acting."
The team, which also included Drs. Charles J. Carrico and Charles Baxter, afterward sat, dazed, in a nearby nurse's station. Secret Service agents gave them note pads and asked each to write his impressions of the president's wounds.
Their notes later became evidence in the Warren Commission's investigation of the assassination. Perry eventually changed his initial story and said the bullet hole near Kennedy's Adam's apple was an exit wound.
But the Warren Commission's report has since been directly refuted by numerous eyewitness accounts, one of whom McClelland met a few years ago in Dallas.
Ed Hoffman, who is deaf, had his daughter tell McClelland what he saw near the grassy knoll, behind the picket fence, when Kennedy went down.
Hoffman, 27 at the time, had left work around the time of the president's arrival in Dallas to get a toothache inspected at the dentist. The presidential motorcade forced Hoffman to pull off on the edge of Stemmons Freeway, about 700 feet away from the knoll, Hoffman told McClelland.
He said he saw one suited man pull out a rifle, place it on top of the fence and fire at Kennedy, then toss the gun to another man dressed in work clothes. That man dissembled the gun, put it in his tool bag and disappeared into the crowd, Hoffman said.
Moments later, Hoffman saw a policeman question the suited man, then walk into the crowd with him following a short glimpse of the man's identification.
Two high school history teachers came to Dallas several years ago to study Hoffman's story, and wrote a book that McClelland said is "very well-detailed in establishing what Mr. Hoffman saw."
Just as in Perry's case, though, Hoffman was quickly shut out, McClelland said. Hoffman told his father and his uncle -- a Dallas police officer at the time -- days after the shooting, and both told him he better keep his mouth shut.
After recounting his conversation with Hoffman and his daughter, the Rotarians focused on his every word, McClelland summarized other prominent theories surrounding Kennedy's death. He answered questions about the "magic bullet" and the assassination's potential connection to Kennedy's involvement in the Cold War.
Dr. Jerry Sims, the Rotarian who invited McClelland to speak in McKinney, was a young intern at Parkland on that day. He recalled how the First Lady asked him outside the operating room if she could smoke a cigarette -- a habit that few knew she had, Sims said.
McClelland, who still spends time in hospitals teaching young doctors, packed up his notes to standing applause. One by one, Rotarians came to him with more questions.
He was the closest most of them would ever come to knowing what happened the day JFK was killed.
But, even for McClelland, the mystery remains.
"It was the most memorable thing of my life," he said. "Yet, we may never know the exact truth."

Dan Emmett has a new website!

2012-01-29T10:42:00.000-08:00

PLEASE CHECK OUT:

http://danemmett.com/

FROM HIS WEBSITE:

"I'm Dan Emmett, author of Within Arm's Length: The Extraordinary Life and Career of a Special Agent in the United States Secret Service.

This book is the story of my life in the Secret Service and the events that lead up to my selection as an agent after being honorably discharged from the Marine Corps. In these pages the reader will experience through my words and descriptions what it is like to be a Secret Service agent assigned to the Presidential Protective Division. Here I describe for the first time in a book the experiences of an agent running with President Clinton through the streets of Washington, driving him in an armored limousine, flying with him on Air Force One, and traveling throughout the world with him as well as Presidents Bush 41 and 43. In addition I devote a large part of the book to describing my experiences as a field office agent in New York where we regularly executed warrants in the worst parts of the city, never knowing what was on the other side of the door we were about to break down.

There are many interesting yet fun stories as well as interesting commentary throughout the book. I believe anyone with an interest in federal law enforcement and the Secret Service will enjoy the work.

About the Author
Dan Emmett earned a bachelor's degree from North Georgia College in criminal justice and a master's degree from Troy University. A former captain in the US Marine Corps, he worked twenty-one years as a special agent in the US Secret Service. Subsequent to retiring from the Secret Service Emmett was recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency where he worked six more years, primarily in the Directorate of Operations. Emmett is currently an adjunct professor of criminal justice and security consultant for the United States Government as well as the private sector. He lives with his family in the southeastern United States."

From Barry Ernest's excellent website "The Girl On The Stairs" (based off his excellent book of the same name): my article

2012-01-23T14:30:00.000-08:00

http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/id12.html

THE KENNEDY DETAIL DEBUNKED

by VINCE PALAMARA

CE 1025, the 5 Secret Service reports submitted by Chief James J. Rowley on 4/22/64 (exactly 5 months to the day after the assassination) to the Warren Commission's General Counsel, J. Lee Rankin, ONLY because Rankin asked via a letter dated 4/3/64, were supposed to specifically address, quote, "expressions by President Kennedy regarding the placement of Secret Service agents on or near his car during the motorcade," obviously meaning THE fateful motorcade in Dallas on 11/22/63 when JFK was assassinated. However, not one of the five reports even addresses the DALLAS motorcade; only the Tampa, FL motorcade of 11/18/63 (and a few earlier motorcades) are addressed. Out of roughly 36 agents of the White House Detail (the number slightly fluctuates if you include "the brass"), Rowley chose to obtain written statements from just five: SAIC Gerald Behn (not in Dallas or Tampa; on leave during this time), ASAIC Floyd Boring (not in Dallas; in Tampa), ATSAIC Emory Roberts (in Tampa and Dallas), SA John Ready (not in Tampa but in Dallas), and Clint Hill (like Ready, not in Tampa but in Dallas). Why Roy Kellerman, the agent nominally in charge of the Texas trip, nor Winston Lawson, the lead advance agent, nor even the other 5 agents in the follow up car in Dallas (McIntyre, Kinney, Landis, Bennett, and Hickey), were not asked their thoughts on the matter raises suspicion (all the other agents on the Dallas trip, and prior trips, for that matter, could have participated). Importantly, NO MENTION is made of JFK's staff (Ken O'Donnell, Dave Powers, Larry O'Brien) being involved in this issue in any way whatsoever---the same goes for the Warren Report (and accompanying testimony of the JFK agents they spoke to---Kellerman, Hill, & Greer), Jim Bishop's book, and William Manchester's tome. With that said, a look at each report is warranted.

SAIC Behn's two-page report, dated 4/16/64 (the fourth report submitted to Rowley, and on blank paper, to boot; not official treasury Department stationary), first mentions the Mexico trip of 1962 and the trip to Berlin in 1963---both trips involved agents on and near the rear of the limo, as the film/ photo record exhaustively proves, so whatever JFK allegedly said on the matter, one way or the other, is moot. As for the other trips he mentions on page two of his report (Seattle, Phoenix, Bonham, TX, and "other stops" [no specifics]), two points must be made. These all occurred in November of 1961, a whopping two years before the assassination! So, if there was not a standing order for the agents to stay off the car by order of JFK (which the film/ photo record, just by viewing the aforementioned Mexico and Berlin trips, proves), these alleged statements by JFK are not really germane to a trip two years after the (alleged) fact, to put it mildly. The second point is a recent discovery: the Bonham, TX stop was for the funeral of former Speaker Sam Rayburn and it involved a HARDTOP car without handholds for the agents to begin with: JFK was well protected, so mentioning this trip isn't germane, either. Keep in mind a valuable point in looking at all these reports: this was before the internet and before many of these films and photos were somewhat accessible to the lay person. Back in 1964, it was very easy to believe the pronouncements of official government employees, especially with JFK dead and not able to defend himself by stating HIS real views on the matter.

Quite surprisingly, when I asked Behn about this on 9/27/92, he told me: "I don't remember Kennedy ever saying that he didn't want anybody on the back of his car." Behn further stated: “I think if you watch the newsreel pictures you’ll find agents on there from time to time.” Since Behn's report is "signed" by a stamp-pad signature, one wonders if he actually even wrote this. If he did, his statements to myself (a total stranger on the phone [now a You Tube video]) tell me that, late in life, he told me the REAL story, NOT the one he was force-fed to state for the record to his boss to collectively cover the ass of the Secret Service, as the agency was rightfully worried about their future.

Behn ended his report by stating: "As late as November 18, of last year [1963], he [JFK] told ASAIC Boring the same thing. He [Boring or JFK?] gave me no reason for this." With this in mind, we will take an even more detailed look at Boring's report, as well as the major ramifications of his report via the effect it had on several major books and so forth.

ASAIC Boring's one-page report, dated 4/8/64 (the very first report submitted to Rowley and, once again, on blank paper), deals mainly with the Tampa, FL trip of 11/18/63, while also mentioning the Italy trip of 7/2/63. Boring claims in this report that JFK told him to have the agents remove themselves from the rear of the limousine. However, films/ photos exhaustively prove that the agents rode on or near the rear of the car either the entire motorcade, or, at the very least, the vast majority of the trek, in Tampa, so, once again, whatever JFK allegedly said to Boring is moot. What's more, as the author discovered via research at the JFK Library, films and photos depict agents on and near the rear of the limo in Italy, as well! Regarding the Tampa trip, the author wrote to former Florida Congressman Samuel Melville Gibbons. Gibbons response in full, 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.” Furthermore, an amazing document was released in the 1990’s concerning, among many other related topics, the issue of the agents’ presence (or lack thereof) on the limousine. This is a 28-page “Sensitive "memorandum from Belford Lawson, the attorney in charge of the Secret Service area for the HSCA, addressed to Gary Cornwell & Ken Klein dated 5/31/77 and revised 8/15/77. Apparently, Attorney Lawson was suspicious of Mr. Boring, for he wrote on the final page of this lengthy memorandum: “Subject: Florida Motorcades in November 1963…Was Floyd Boring, the Senior SS Agent on the White House detail, lying to SS Agent Hill when he told Hill that JFK had said in Tampa…that he wanted no agents riding upright on the rear bumper step of the JFK limousine? Did JFK actually say this? Did Boring know when he told this to Hill that Hill would be riding outboard on the JFK follow-up car in Dallas on November 22, 1963? Did Boring say this to Ready or Roberts? [Lawson’s emphasis]” On page 27 of the same memo, Lawson wrote: “Why did only one Agent, Hill, run forward to the JFK limousine?”

As or even more surprising than the shocking comments by Behn, Floyd Boring told the author, in reference to JFK's alleged "desires" mentioned by Jim Bishop, Manchester (“quoting” Boring), and himself in his own report: "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" (emphasis added)! The author reiterated the point - Mr. Boring was still adamant that JFK never issued any orders to the agents; he even refuted Manchester's book. Floyd Boring (and quite a few of his colleagues) categorically denied to the author what William Manchester reports in his acclaimed massive best-seller “The Death of a President”: "Kennedy grew weary of seeing bodyguards roosting behind him every time he turned around [indicating the frequency of the event], and in Tampa on November 18 [1963], just four days before his death, he dryly asked Agent Floyd Boring to 'keep those Ivy League charlatans off the back of the car.' Boring wasn't offended. There had been no animosity in the remark. (Emphasis added)." (In his "defense", Manchester also wrote: “It was a good idea, for example, to have agents perched on the broad trunk of the Presidential Lincoln when crowds threatened to grow disorderly. The trouble was that they were always there [emphasis added].”)

Incredibly, Boring told this author: "I never told him 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. 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 8/23/93 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, Manchester’s probable and---as we shall see---very questionable “source.” [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, & Blaine---were not asked to write a similar report. In addition, Manchester had access to this report while writing his book). 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 & Newman---also mentioned the remark 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?]

Needless to say, Manchester left his mark on this issue. [Interestingly, Manchester, having interviewed 21 different agents/ officials for his book [pages 660-669], 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: 10/9/64, 11/17/64, 11/18/64, 2/5/65; Warner: 6/2/64, 11/18/64, 2/5/65, 5/12/65)! Only Emory Roberts, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, and Forrest Sorrels had two interviews apiece, while all the other agents/ officials garnered just one interview 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 [page 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 [page 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), page 220], while Inspector Warner would go on to become Director of Public Affairs (a position he held until the 1990’s), 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, pages 101, 201, 224, 237]. Warner would also later become a consultant to the 1993 Clint Eastwood movie “In the Line of Fire.”]

Jim Bishop, in his own massive best-selling book entitled "The Day Kennedy was Shot, "does nothing more than repeat the written record of the Warren Commission and the previously mentioned five reports, taken at face value. Again, Mr. Boring was not interviewed for the book. With Mr. Bishop dead, this is where the matter rests with his account. That said, Jim Bishop did sum up the situation best: "No one wanted to weigh the possibilities that, if a Secret Service man had been on the left rear bumper going down Elm Street, it would have been difficult to hit President Kennedy (emphasis added).” Bishop also noted: "The Secret Service men were not pleased because they were in a "hot" city and would have preferred to have two men ride the bumper of the President's car with two motorcycle policemen between him [JFK] and the crowds on the sidewalks."

Still, thanks to the Secret Service reports above (and, in large measure, to Agent Boring himself), three massive best-sellers still in print or in libraries ---the Warren Report The Warren Report , Manchester‘s “The Death of a President“, and Bishop’s “The Day Kennedy Was Shot”--- have created the myth that JFK was difficult to protect and had ordered the agents off his car and the like, a dangerous myth that endures to this day in classrooms and in the media, thus doing great damage to the true historical record.

Remember, Boring is admitting it came from him, and not JFK! With regard to exactly who makes the decision regarding the agents’ proximity to the President, Agent Jerry Parr told Larry King: “I would say it was the agent in charge who makes that decision.” When asked, point blank, if JFK had ever ordered the agents off the rear of the limousine, including in Tampa on 11/18/63, Boring told the author again : "Well that's not true. That's not true. He was a very nice man; he never interfered with us at all." In a letter received by the author on, of all dates, 11/22/97, Boring confirmed what he had previously told the author on two previous occasions (9/22/93 and 3/4/94, respectively) when he wrote: "President Kennedy was a very congenial man knowing most agents by their first name. He was very cooperative with the Secret Service, and well liked and admired by all of us (emphasis added)." Not only does Boring NOT mention anything about JFK’s alleged “desires” to restrict security during his two lengthy oral histories, the agent stated: “…of all the administrations I worked with, the president and the people surrounding the president were very gracious and were very cooperative. As a matter of fact, you can’t do this type of security work without cooperation of the people surrounding the president…[emphasis added]” Indeed, Chief James J. Rowley told the JFK Library in 1976: "...you could talk to them [JFK’s staff]...It made for a very happy relationship."

ATSAIC (Shift Leader) Emory Roberts one-page report (dated 4/10/64, the second one submitted to Rowley and finally on Treasury Department letterhead) deals exclusively with the Tampa FL trip of 11/18/63 and states nothing other than confirmation that he heard ASAIC Boring tell him, via radio, to get the agents off the back of JFK's car; nothing about the President's alleged wishes or anything else. From an evidentiary standpoint, moot and useless. Roberts was a "good soldier": he ordered an agent back from JFK's limo at Love Field (as this author discovered back in 1991 and had popularized for the first time back in 1995 and, again, in 2003 on The History Channel, long before this clip became something of an internet sensation), recalled an agent during the shooting and, as Sam Kinney told me, ordered the men on the follow-up car not to move! So, needless to say, like Boring, I am suspicious of Mr. Roberts (deceased 1973).

Special Agent John (Jack) Ready's one-page report (dated 4/11/64, the third one submitted to Rowley and, like Roberts, also on Treasury Department letterhead) deals exclusively with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip. However, Mr. Ready was not on this specific trip: Mr. Boring was, once again, his source for JFK's alleged request. Ready would not respond to written inquiries from the author. The author phoned Mr. Ready on 6/13/05 and asked him if it was true that Boring said this, based on JFK’s request. After confirming he wasn’t on the Tampa trip, Ready stated: “Not on the phone [will I answer you]. I don’t know you from Adam. Can you see my point?”

Special Agent Clint Hill's one-page report (strangely undated and, presumably, the last one submitted to Rowley) deals with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip and Boring second-hand because, like Ready, Mr. Hill was not on this trip, either. Mr. Hill lives incommunicado in Virginia and will not grant private interviews. That said, the author was the first private researcher to get through to Mr. Hill (more on this in a moment). Interestingly, Mr. Hill’s brother-in-law is none other than fellow former agent David B. Grant, a former advance agent who worked on the planning of the Florida and Texas trips with none other than Mr. Boring.

Agent Hill's report was the most honest of the five: "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 Presidents 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 3/9/64, 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:

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)

On 9/18/96, by request of the author, the ARRB’s Doug Horne interviewed Mr. Boring regarding this matter. 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, 11/18/63, 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).”

The author 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 4 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, & Charles T. Zboril, to be exact)!

Furthermore, as noted above, both Clint Hill's written report and his testimony sure convey a more strict approach than one stemming from an alleged kind anecdote. In fact, as mentioned above, Hill twice stated in his report that he DID NOT RECALL who the agent was who told him, and the other agents, not to ride on the rear of the limousine, yet named him under oath to Counsel Specter: Floyd Boring.

So 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 Mr. Behn, mentions the same 11/18/63 trip with Mr. Boring as the others do (again, Boring’s report was the first one written, then came one each from Roberts, Ready, Behn, and Hill, respectively). Both Behn and Boring totally contradicted the contents of their reports at different times, independent of each other, to the author. In addition, agents did ride on the rear of the limousine on 7/2/63 and 11/18/63 anyway, despite these alleged Presidential requests, as the film and photo record proves.

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. Behn’s, Boring’s, and Hill’s reports are not even on any Secret Service or Treasury Dept. stationary, just blank sheets of paper. In fact, as noted above, Hill’s report is undated, a bizarre error to make in an official government report written by request of the head of the Secret Service. All are supposedly evidence of JFK expressing his desire to keep Secret Service agents off the limousine, particularly in Tampa, Florida on 11/18/63.

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!

POST SCRIPT ONE:

The “one-two” punch was provided in the late 1990’s by both former Carter & Reagan SAIC Jerry Parr’s comments to Larry King on CNN dated 7/14/98, as well as, controversially, then-current Clinton Secret Service Director Lewis C. Merletti. For his part, Parr, a major consultant to the “In The Line of Fire” movie, told Larry King: “The critical factor [in Dallas]…was the fact that he ordered the two agents off the car…which made him very vulnerable to Lee Oswald’s attack.” Regarding Merletti, “The Washington Post” reported on 5/14/98: “During private meetings, sources said, Merletti told officials from [Kenneth] Starr's office [investigating the President Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky matter] and the Treasury and Justice departments that trust and proximity to a president are crucial to protecting him [In fact, Clint Hill and Jerry Parr where 2 of the nine living former SAIC’s of the WHD who signed a petition to try to block Kenneth Starr from interviewing Secret Service officials. The other 7 were unnamed in the article. (“Washington Post”, 6/16/98)]...the service ran through the history of assassination attempts, showing instances where they succeeded or failed, possibly depending on how close agents were to an intended victim. Sources said they produced rare photographs of John F. Kennedy's fateful 1963 motorcade through Dallas, where agents were not standing on running boards on the back of his exposed automobile when shots rang out because the president several days before had ordered them not to…Merletti indicated to the court that the assassination in a moving limousine of President John F. Kennedy "might have been thwarted had agents been stationed on the car's running boards (emphasis added).” To drive the point home even further, here is an excerpt from Director Merletti’s testimony, as reported in “The Washington Post” from 5/20/98: "I have attached, as Exhibit A to this Declaration, photographs of President John F. Kennedy's visit to Tampa, Florida on November 18, 1963. We use these photographs, and the ones attached as Exhibit B, in our training exercises. Exhibit A demonstrates the lengths to which protective personnel have been forced to go to try to maintain proximity to the President. In the photographs contained in Exhibit A, agents are kneeling on the running board of the Presidential limousine, while the vehicle was traveling at a high rate of speed [note: a contradiction---according to prior official agency mythology, the agents shouldn’t even be there at all!]. I can attest that this requires extraordinary physical exertion. Nevertheless, they performed this duty in an attempt to maintain close physical proximity to the President. Exhibit B, by contrast, scarcely needs any introduction. It is a series of photographs of the Presidential limousine, taken just four days later, on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas. As can be seen, at the instruction of the President, Secret Service agents had been ordered off of the limousine's running boards. An analysis of the ensuing assassination (including the trajectory of the bullets which struck the President) indicates that it might have been thwarted had agents been stationed on the car's running boards. In other words, had they been able to maintain close proximity to the President during the motorcade, the assassination of John F. Kennedy might have been averted. Exhibit C contains a series of photographs taken during the actual assassination that demonstrate how critical and tragic the absence of proximity to the protectee can be (emphasis added).”

POST SCRIPT TWO:

J. Frank Yeager, WHD (on Texas trip but not the Dallas stop)---In a letter to the author dated 12/29/03, 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…” 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…[it was] 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… 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.

Gerald S. Blaine, WHD (on Texas trip but not the Dallas stop) --- Blaine told the author on 2/7/04 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 the author 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 11/22/63. Surprisingly, Blaine, the WHD advance agent for the Tampa trip of 11/18/63, 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 had to be HIS source for this story! In addition to Emory Roberts, one now wonders 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 (see above). Blaine would not respond to a follow-up letter on this subject. However, when the author phoned Blaine on 6/10/05, 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 (When asked if agents rode on the rear of the limousine on the Italy trip in 1963, Blaine said forcefully: “Oh yeah, oh yeah.” It turns out he was one of the agents) Blaine also added that the lack of agents on the rear of the car “had no impact,” adding: “Well, maybe a hesitation.” That is all it took. The former agent also 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.” If only he would have taken Jack Kennedy’s life with the same degree of concern.

Donald J. Lawton, WHD; rode on rear of limousine 3/23/63 (Chicago) & 11/18/63 (Tampa); relegated to airport duty 11/22/63---When the author told Lawton on 11/15/95 what fellow agent Kinney said, namely, that JFK never ordered the agents off the rear of the limousine, he said: "It's the way Sam said, yes" (Meaning, he agrees with Kinney, it happened the way Kinney said). Asked to explain how he dismounted the rear of the limousine in Tampa, Lawton said: " 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. '“This would have been Boring, by radio, to Roberts, then finally to the agents---Lawton, Zboril, and Berger---on the limousine. According to Lawton, JFK was "very personable...very warm." Asked about the tragedy in Dallas, Lawton said, "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 (emphasis added).” Paradoxically, when I asked Lawton if JFK really made the statement to Boring mentioned above, Lawton said: “The President told him [Boring], I think he said 'get the college kids off the back of the car.'” (See Blaine, Meredith & Newman, above and below.) That said, in a letter to the author dated, ironically, 11/22/97, Lawton wrote: "Since I am currently employed by the Secret Service I do not believe it appropriate that I comment on former or current protectees of the Service. If you spoke with Bob Lilley as you stated then you can take whatever information he passed on to you as gospel [see Lilley’s comments, below].”

Robert E. Lilley, WHD agent with JFK from election night until Oct. 1963: transferred to Boston Office - When the author told this former agent what Mr. Behn said in September 1992, that Kennedy never said a thing about having the agents removed from the limousine (thus repudiating his own report), Lilley responded: "Oh, I'm sure he [JFK] didn't [order agents off his car, agreeing with Behn]. He was very cooperative with us once he became President. He was extremely cooperative. Basically, 'whatever you guys want is the way it will be'." In interviews and correspondence on four separate occasions, Lilley reiterated this view. Lilley also refuted the Bishop and Manchester accounts, adding that, as an example, on a trip with JFK in Caracas, Venezuela, he and "Roy Kellerman rode on the back of the limousine all the way to the Presidential palace" at speeds reaching "50 miles per hour." Furthermore, Lilley did the advance work for JFK’s trip to Naples, Italy in the summer of 1963: again, agents rode on the rear of the limousine.

Aide David F. Powers (rode in the follow-up car on 11/22/63) & Jacqueline Kennedy (rode with President Kennedy in the limousine)- In a personal letter to the author dated 9/10/93, Mr. Powers wrote: "Unless they were ‘running’ along beside the limo, the Secret Service rode in a car behind the President, so, no, they never had to be told to "get off" the limousine" (emphasis added). This comment rivals Behn’s shocking statements to the author due to the source: President Kennedy’s longtime friend and aide and a man who was on countless trips with the President. For the record, Agent Bob Lilley endorsed Mr. Powers view: "Dave would give you factual answers." In addition, the ARRB’s Tom Samoluk told the author that, during the course of an interview he conducted with Powers in 1996, the former JFK aide and friend agreed with the author’s take on the Secret Service!

For her part, 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…[emphasis added]” (“Just Jackie: Her Private Years” by Edward Klein (Ballantine Books, 1999), pages 58-59 & 374: based off an interview Klein had with Kitty Carlisle Hart re: Hart’s conversation with Jackie)

Winston G. Lawson, WHD (lead) advance agent for the Dallas trip (rode in the lead car on 11/22/63): In a stunning letter to the author dated 1/12/04, Lawson wrote: “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. I am sure it would have been on a “case by case” basis depending on event, intelligence, threats, etc. Jerry Behn as Special Agent in Charge of the White House Detail…would have been privy to that type of info more than I [see above]. However, it never came to my attention as such. I am certain agents were on the back on certain occasions [emphasis added].” The agent should be certain of that last understatement---he rode on the back of the limousine on the 7/2/63 Italy trip. Coming from one of the chief architects of security planning in Dallas, this is very important, to say the least.

Anthony Sherman (WHD, 9/61-10/63)---Sherman wrote the author: “Yes, it is common knowledge, contrary to the denial of SAIC Behn [see above], that agents were advised not to ride on the rear of the limo during the Dallas motorcade. I suggest to further discuss this question you contact former Special Agent Tim McIntyre, [address deleted for privacy]. Retired SAIC McIntyre was riding the “follow up car” immediately behind the limo. I was not in Dallas, having been transferred to the Field in Oct. 1963. I was sent to Dallas immediately after the assassination and spent three months on the protective/ investigative team representing the Secret Service [Emphasis added].” See McIntyre’s comments, below. Ironically, Sherman added: “May I suggest that you get a copy of THE SECRET SERVICE: THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF AN ENIGMATIC AGENCY by Professor Phillip Melanson, PhD. This book is by far the best, most professional “study” of the USSS I have ever read. I believe it will give you other answers to your questions.” What Sherman apparently did not know or remember was that the author’s work was included in Melanson’s book!

Larry Newman, WHD (October 1961 to October 1963, then Washington Field Office)---In a friendly if somewhat contentious interview conducted on 2/7/04 (Newman had seen the author on “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” in November 2003 and thought I was some “20 year old kid” (actually, 36 at the time!). He also mentioned my letter he received and chose not to answer back in 1997), Newman told the author that there was “no policy” regarding the use of agents on the rear of Kennedy’s car, further adding that the question was “hard to answer: it depends on the crowd, the threat assessment, and so forth. There was not a consistent rule of thumb [emphasis added].” This comment will become important later. In addition, regarding the controversial “Ivy League Charlatan” remark first mentioned in Manchester’s book and noted by Lawton and Blaine (above), Newman said: “When Kennedy went to Florida [11/18/63], supposedly, I didn’t hear this directly, Kennedy said to Boring ‘Get the Ivy League charlatans off the back of the car [emphasis added].’” The former agent added that Manchester’s work, while with some merit, became “part of myth, part of truth.” This author couldn’t agree more. With regard to Boring, Newman said: “Boring will only tell you the company line. I’m no friend of Boring’s.” Actually, what Boring told the author went against the “company line” he espoused back in 1964. And, from the latter comment, Newman obviously has no love lost for his former boss on the WHD. The former agent said that both Behn and Boring were “extremely loyal to JFK,” adding: “Boring told you Kennedy didn’t want any agents on the car; then again, he’s been a proponent that JFK wasn’t a womanizer.” Both comments are true. Newman phoned the author unexpectedly on 2/12/04 to say that “there was not a directive, per se” from President Kennedy to remove the agents from their positions on the back of his limousine. The former agent seemed troubled by the author’s research into the matter. Newman did ridicule former Director Merletti’s testimony in 1998 (see above). Regarding Roberts’ order not to move and his conduct, in general, Newman said: “They were probably afraid to hit the street at that speed.” When told that the cars were actually traveling quite slowly, including the limousine’s decelerating speed from a meager 11.2 mph, he had nothing to say in response. When asked if Tim McIntyre may shed more light on the matter (knowing full well that he said as much to the author on 2/7/04), Newman now said he is “hiding out” and “probably, he wouldn’t talk to you anyway” (see McIntyre’s comments, below) Newman seemed concerned yet strangely helpful in conversation with the author. He reiterated that he has no good feelings for Boring (in contrast to his warm feelings for Kellerman) and that---describing himself--- said: “I’m not a good guy.” (!) Finally, Newman said: “You need to get inside the nuts and bolts.” That is what the author is attempting to do with his research and his book.

William “Tim” McIntyre, WHD (rode on the follow-up car on 11/22/63): The author contacted McIntyre on 6/13/05 (McIntyre had previously been contacted via mail in 2004, based on the strong recommendations of former agents’ Larry Newman and Tony Sherman, but did not respond back). Asked about the Tampa trip of 11/18/63, the former agent said: “I was there on the follow-up car.” Regarding the question of agents being on the back of the car, McIntyre said: “I believe so---Zboril was on the back,” which he was (He also mentioned Don Lawton and Emory Roberts as being on the trip, which they were). Regarding the matter at hand, McIntyre stated: “I can’t remember if they were told to be off the car.” So, in spite of these strong recommendations from his colleagues to ask him about this specific subject, McIntyre now allegedly “can’t remember”?

Arthur L. Godfrey, ATSAIC of WHD---The former agent told the author on 5/30/96, 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 6/7/96. Asked if whether Aide Ken O'Donnell did any similar ordering, Godfrey said emphatically: "He did not order anyone around." As just one example, Godfrey was on the Italy trip mentioned in Boring’s report above and agents frequently rode on the rear of the limousine- one of the agents was none other than Winston G. Lawson. In a letter dated 11/24/97, 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.

Samuel A. Kinney, WHD---The affable former agent told the author on 3/5/94, regarding the “official” notion of history that President Kennedy ordered the agents off the rear of the limousine and the like: "That is absolutely, positively false...no, no, no: he had nothing to do with that [ordering agents off the rear of the limousine]...No, never-the agents say, 'O.K., men, fall back on your posts'...President Kennedy was one of the easiest presidents to ever protect; Harry S. Truman was a jewel just like John F. Kennedy was...99% of the agents would agree...(JFK) was one of the best presidents ever to control-he trusted every one of us [Emphasis added]." In regard to the infamous quote from William Manchester, Kinney said, "That is false. I talked to William Manchester; he called me on the book...for the record of history that is false - Kennedy never ordered us to do anything. I am aware of what is being said but that is false." Finally, just to nail down this issue, the author asked Kinney if an exception was made on 11/22/63: "Not this particular time, no. Not in this case". Kinney also told the author that Ken O'Donnell did not interfere with the agents: "Nobody ordered anyone around.”

Secret Service Chiefs James J. Rowley and Urbanus E. “U.E.” Baughman---Rowley told the Warren Commission: "No President will tell the Secret Service what they can or cannot do.” Apparently, Rowley thought the agents DID ride on the rear of the limousine throughout the motorcade, for he added: “…the men at some point came back to this [follow-up] car.” In fact, Rowley’s predecessor, former Chief U.E. Baughman, who had served under JFK from Election Night 1960 until Sept. 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." Indeed, an AP story from 11/15/63 stated: “The (Secret) Service can overrule even the President where his personal security is involved.“To the point, when Baughman was asked by U.S. News & World report on 12/23/63 about the Service’s protective efforts in Dallas, he said: “I can’t understand why Mrs. Kennedy had to climb over the back of the car, as she did, to get help…[this matter] should be resolved.” Apparently, Baughman was puzzled by the lack of agents on or near the rear of the limousine.

Cecil Stoughton, WH photographer---Stoughton wrote the author: "I did see a lot of the activity surrounding the various trips of the President, and in many cases I did see the agents in question riding on the rear of the President's car. In fact, I have ridden there a number of times myself during trips...I would jump on the step on the rear of the [Lincoln] Continental until the next stop. I have made photos while hanging on with one hand...in Tampa [11/18/63], for example. As for the [alleged] edict of not riding there by order of the President- I can't give you any proof of first hand knowledge." Stoughton went on to write: "I am bothered by your interest in these matters". In a later letter, Stoughton merely corroborated his prior written statements: "I would just jump on and off [the limo] quickly- no routine, and Jackie had no further remarks to me". It should be explained that, according to Stoughton's book, Jackie had told him to stay close to the limo in July 1963, and he did up to and including the Houston, TX trip of 11/21/63 (There are photos that Stoughton made from the follow-up car that day, as well). “Then, for some unknown reason, Stoughton was relegated to a position further away from JFK on 11/22/63 .

Charles T. Zboril, WHD, Lawton's partner on the rear of the limo in Tampa on 11/18/63 ---Former Agent Zboril curiously did not give the author a straight answer on this issue when interviewed on 11/15/95. Zboril said: "Well, Don Lawton and I are just sub-notes [sic] because somebody else testified on behalf of us about what happened in Tampa"- this was Clint Hill, testifying to Arlen Specter about why agents were not on the rear of the car during the assassination. When asked if it was true that JFK had ordered the agents off the limousine four days before Dallas, which the author already knew not to be true, Zboril got emotional: "Where did you read that? I...If-if you read it in the Warren Report, that's what happened...Do you want me commenting officially? I’m pretty sure it’s there [in the Warren Report]…I'm talking to someone I don't know. I’m talking to you as frank as I can...If you read it in there [the Warren Report], it happened…I gave you more than I would give someone else". The agent also added: “There is an old adage that we used in the Secret Service: ‘Don’t believe anything you read and only half of what you see,’” the identical sentiment used by Jean (and Jerry) Behn, above. Zboril then gave the author his home address and requested that the author send him anything on this matter, promising to respond back. He never did. Included in the package the author sent was a video of Agent Rybka being recalled at Love Field by Agent Roberts.

Press Secretary Pierre Salinger: JFK had a good relationship with the Secret Service and, more importantly, did NOT argue with their security measures. This was based on the author's correspondence with noted journalist Roger Peterson from 2/99 (from Peterson's very recent conversations with Salinger).

Samuel E. Sulliman, WHD (On Texas trip, in Dallas, at the Trade Mart): Sulliman told the author on 2/11/04 that agents were on the back of the limousine a lot; in fact, he remembered riding there on the trips to Ireland and Germany. When told of Art Godfrey’s comments on the matter (see above), the former agent agreed with his colleague. Regarding the notion that JFK ordered the agents off the car, Sulliman told the author twice: “I don’t think so.” Sulliman also said that JFK was “easy to get along with.” As for who exactly was responsible for the decision to remove the agents from the rear area of the limousine, Sulliman told the author: “I can’t tell you who made the decision.” The author took this to mean that he honestly did not know, rather than the notion that he was hiding the true answer.

Frank G. Stoner, PRS: During an interview conducted on 1/17/04, former agent Stoner, who served in the Secret Service from January 1945 until 1969, said that Manchester was “probably trying to sell books” when he suggested that Kennedy ordered the agents off the back of the limousine. In fact, the 84-year-old former agent laughed at the mere suggestion. Stoner also agreed with several of his colleagues that JFK was “very personable”: “He was an old Navy man. He understood security. He wouldn’t have ordered them off the car.”

Gerald W. “Jerry” O’Rourke, WHD (on Texas trip but not the Dallas stop; on WHD from Eisenhower to LBJ/1964)---In a letter to the author dated 1/15/04, O’Rourke 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. ” (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.”

Vincent P. Mroz, WHD (Truman, Eisenhower, and part-time with JFK, LBJ [9 months], and Nixon)---During an interview with the author conducted on 2/7/04, the former agent said that President Kennedy was “friendly, congenial---he was really easy to get along with…just like Truman.” When asked, point blank, if JFK had ever ordered the agents off the car, Mroz said forcefully: “No, no---that’s not true.” When asked a second time, the former agent responded with equal conviction: “He did not order anybody off the car.”

J. Walter Coughlin, WHD (on Texas trip but not the Dallas stop)--- The author e-mailed the former agent, asking him: “How often did agents ride on the rear of the limousine during JFK's time (and/ or walk, jog, or run nearby)? Coughlin responded: “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.” Also, the author, in the same message, asked Coughlin: “What was President Kennedy like? Was he easy to protect?” The former agent responded in the same reply: “Very funny and very friendly. Knew all the agents by first name.” (Regarding LBJ, Coughlin wrote: “Didn't like anyone and could be very surly. Hard to protect - did not like to take advice.”) Coughlin later wrote: “The rear steps [of the limousine] were very adaquete [sic] for safety.”Finally, to clarify this matter further, the author asked Coughlin: “So far, combing the literature, books, interviews, etc., I've found that Behn, Boring, Blaine, Mroz, Godfrey, Lawson, and Dave Powers said that President Kennedy did not order the agents off his limousine---do you think William Manchester and others took "poetic license" on this matter?” Coughlin responded: “Yes I do.”

Darwin David Horn, Sr. (Secret Service, Los Angeles office; former WHD agent; served in the agency from 1951 to 1981): Horn wrote the author on 1/30/04: “You asked about Kennedy. I have worked him primarily in Los Angeles on several occasions …and never heard him tell the agents to get off of the car. It is possible. You will have to ask some of the other agents who worked him full time. [Art] Godfrey would have been perfect but he passed away some time ago [emphasis added].” See Godfrey’s comments, above. Horn later wrote the author: “Agents on the rear of JFK's car might have made a difference. They may have been hit instead of the President. That would have been all right with all of us. Agents normally would have been on the sides [of the car] (emphasis added).”

Maurice G. Martineau, SAIC of Chicago office: Martineau joined his colleagues in refuting the Manchester story that JFK ordered the agents off the rear of the car. Martineau said this to the author in two telephonic interviews on 9/21/93 and 6/7/96, respectively.

Abraham W. Bolden, Sr. - In reference to Kennedy's alleged "requests", Mr. Bolden told the author on numerous occasions in 1993-1996 that he "didn't hear anything about that...I never believed that Kennedy said that [ordering removal of agents]”. Bolden, an ardent critic of the agency’s lax protection since 1963, also wrote the author: “No-one could have killed our President without the shots of omission fired by the Secret Service. Observe the feet of [four] Secret Service agents glued to the running boards of the follow-up car as bullets [sic?] pierce the brain of our President!!!" (In addition to being a WHD agent on temporary assignment in 1961, as well as a Chicago Office agent afterwards, Bolden saw action on the 3/23/63 and (cancelled) 11/2/63 trips to Chicago)

DNC Advance man Martin E. “Marty” Underwood - He could not believe that Mr. Behn wrote in his report that JFK desired to have the agents off the car (later repudiated by Mr. Behn, of course), citing Clint Hill's actions on 11/22/63 as just one of "many times" that agents were posted on the back of the JFK limousine. During this 10/9/92 interview, Underwood confirmed to the author that JFK never ordered the agents off the rear of the car.

Robert I. Bouck, SAIC of PRS: On 9/27/92, Bouck confirmed to the author that having agents on the back of the limousine depended on factors independent of any alleged Presidential "requests": “Many times there were agents on his car.” On 4/30/96, the ARRB’s Doug Horne questioned Bouck: “Did you ever hear the President personally say that he didn’t want agents to stand on the running boards on his car, or did you hear that from other agents?” Bouck: “I never heard the President say that personally. I heard that from other agents (emphasis added).” The former agent also told the ARRB that JFK was the “most congenial” of all the presidents he had observed (Bouck served from FDR to LBJ).

Rufus W. Youngblood, ASAIC of LBJ Detail: On 10/22/92, Youngblood confirmed to the author: "There was not a standing order" from JFK to restrict agents from the back of the limousine - the agents had "assigned posts and positions" on the back of the President's car. On 2/8/94, Youngblood added: "President Kennedy wasn't a hard ass...he never said anything like that [re: removing agents from limo and the like]. As a historian, he [Manchester] flunked the course---don't read Manchester." Youngblood knows of what he speaks: he was interviewed by Manchester on 11/17/64.

John F. Norris, Uniformed Division of the Secret Service: On 3/4/94, in an interview with the author, Norris also joined his colleagues in refuting the notion that JFK ordered the agents off the rear of the limo: “I would doubt that very much,” Norris said.

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to President Lyndon B. Johnson, 1:40 p.m., 11/29/63: "You see, there was no Secret Service man standing on the back of the car. Usually the presidential car in the past has had steps on the back, next to the bumpers, and there's usually been one [agent] on either side standing on these steps...[ellipsis in text]...Whether the President asked that that not be done, we don't know (emphasis added).” "So, as of 11/29/63, a week after the murder, the myth hadn’t been set in motion yet. From Hoover’s Memorandum for Messrs. Tolson, Belmont, & Mohr, November 29, 1963: “…there was no Secret Service Agent on the back of the car; that in the past they have added steps on the back of the car and usually had an agent on either side standing on the bumper; that I did not know why this was not done - that the President may have requested it… [emphasis added].” One now wonders if Hoover was the originator of the blame-the-President campaign and if he had any influence on Agent Boring who, by date, had written the first report about these matters to former FBI agent---and Hoover friend and colleague---Chief James Rowley.

Newsmen: ABC’s Ron Gardner, ABC’s Jim Haggerty (former Eisenhower Press Secretary), & UPI’s Robert J. Serling: Shortly after the assassination on 11/22/63 before a television audience of many millions of people, Gardner reported: “Secret Service agents normally walk directly beside the car. We can’t see any in these pictures (emphasis added).” Also on the very same day before an enormous television audience, Haggerty maintained that agents normally walked or jogged near the rear of the president’s car, adding that he had a hand in planning many motorcades (as did his successor, Pierre Salinger). For his part, Serling wrote on 11/23/63, based in part on “private conversations” with unnamed agents: “There are two absolute rules for motorcade protection: The agent running or riding at the President's shoulder must never leave that position unless relieved. The other is to turn out the manpower in all secret service cars the moment trouble arises and get secret service bodies around the President [emphasis added].” (In the same UPI story written by Serling from Washington entitled “Secret Service Men Wary of Motorcade”: “The United States Secret Service… has always feared a motorcade assassination attempt more than anything else. In private conversations and in books published by high officials after they left the service, agents admit that Chief Executives riding in open cars down crowded city streets are at their most vulnerable as the targets of assassination… For motorcades the secret service checks every manhole cover and sewer along the parade route for bombs or dynamite. Buildings frequently are checked, along with records of occupants to make sure there are no known President-haters on the premises… They are trained never to watch the President himself but the people and crowds around him. They are also sworn to throw themselves in front of their charge at the first indication of gunfire -- to take the bullets, if possible, meant for the Chief Executive… 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].”)

Lynn S. Meredith (WHD, “Kiddie Detail”/ Kennedy Children; served in the Secret Service from 1951 to 1983)---In yet another potential dissenting voice that is, like Agent Sherman (above) not what it seems to be, Meredith wrote to the author on 3/9/04: “…it is my very definite understanding that President Kennedy did, in fact, politely request that Secret Service agents not ride on platforms to the rear of his limousine shortly before he was assassinated. The President was campaigning in Tampa, Florida, on or about November 19, 1963 [actually, 11/18/63] (3 days before he was assassinated in Dallas on November22), when he requested that agents not ride on the rear of his vehicle because they tended to obstruct the view of the crowd and take attention away from him and others riding with him. He said something to the effect to senior agent Roy Kellerman [sic: allegedly to Floyd Boring; Kellerman was not even on this trip] at the time, “Do you suppose we could get those Ivy Leaguers off the back of my limo so the people can get a good look at us instead of you guys?” He was obviously inferring that the people along the motorcade route in Tampa were seeing the two agents on the rear of the limo and not concentrating on him and the First Lady [sic: also not on this trip] and the other dignitaries riding in the back seat. I must admit that I was not along on the trip and was back at the White House with Caroline and John, Jr., when this happened in Tampa, but I’m pretty sure this is accurate information, and was the main reason there were no agents on the back of the limousine in Dallas, Texas, at the time of the assassination. If the Secret Service could not respond to the President by saying it was absolutely necessary for two agents to be there, then his request had to be honored. And in Dallas, the Secret Service had no reliable information that Dallas was a dangerous place and we certainly did not know at the time that Lee Harvey Oswald existed. Incidentally, I’m pretty sure that neither Jerry Behn or Sam Kinney were on this trip [wrong re: Kinney---on the Florida and Texas trips]…I do believe if agents had been riding on the rear of the limo in Dallas that President Kennedy would not have been assassinated as they would have been in Oswald’s line of fire…To elaborate a little more on the assassination in Dallas, I have always believed that the following adverse situations all contributed to the unnecessary and unfortunate death of President Kennedy: (1) No Secret Service agents riding on the rear of the limousine…[Emphasis added]” In a follow-up letter to the author dated 5/22/05, Meredith wrote: “…I do not know first hand if President Kennedy ordered agents off the back end of his limousine…I have been under the impression through the years that he did just that politely in Tampa Bay (sic) ...they [the agents] took this as a polite order from the President not to take these upright positions on the back of the limousine…on November 22, 1963. So don’t take my word as the gospel truth on this matter.” Meredith continued: “If you really want to receive a very definite and accurate statement of fact about this, I strongly recommend that you try to contact former Agent Clint Hill…Here is Hill’s mailing address [deleted for privacy]…I don’t know how successful you would be in contacting Clint Hill…But I wish you “Good Luck” in this regard.”

On 6/2/05, the author mailed a lengthy, 22-page letter to former WHD agent Clinton J. Hill (Certified, Return Receipt Requested with a S.A.S.E. to boot) summarizing this entire chapter in great detail. On 6/13/05, after not receiving a reply, the author phoned Mr. Hill, who was quite apparently angry---he first pretended not to know about the lengthy letter he had to sign for (of which the author received his signed receipt): “About what?,” Hill exclaimed in response to the author’s inquiry. Then, forcefully, Hill added: “I’m just not interested in talking to you.”

Author Jim Bishop revealed the seemingly unknown fact that Floyd Boring was the number one agent involved in the Dallas trip back in the 1960's in his book "The Day Kennedy Was Shot": "...[LBJ] called Secret Service Chief James Rowley. ‘Rufe [Youngblood] did a brave thing today,’ he said. ‘He jumped on me and kept me down. I want you to do whatever you can, the best that can be done, for that boy." He hung up [this was 11/22/63]. It had not occurred to him that Rowley, too, was lonely. If there was any blame, any official laxness, it didn't matter that the planning of the Texas trip had been in the capable hands of Floyd Boring (Emphasis added).” And, to the JFK Library in the 1970's, Boring said: "Part of my job at the White House during the entire President Kennedy administration was to be in charge of the advance work. I used to assign people to do the advance work, and most of the overseas trips I did myself in conjunction with other people on the detail." To the Truman Library in the 1980's, Boring added: "I was on all the advance work out of there. I was assigned all the advance work, sort of an administrator... I was second in charge [behind Special Agent in Charge Jerry Behn]." Finally, fellow former agent Sam Kinney told this author, in regard to SAIC Gerald A. "Jerry" Behn's absence from the Texas trip, leaving ASAIC (#2) Floyd M. Boring to be the agent in charge of the Texas trip: "Here’s the story on that. We got, as agents, federal employees, thirty days a year annual leave. We lose it, because they can’t let us go…there was only " x " amount of agents back then in the whole wide world… they could not let us off …Jerry Behn had probably worked three years without any annual leave at all and this particular time, he could get some time off and he didn’t go to Dallas. Roy Kellerman was third in charge, so he took the thing (sic), which is, you know-he's qualified. Floyd Boring stayed home- he could get his time off and he could still handle what ever came about from his house; there was very little correspondence between [the agents in Dallas] because Win Lawson had the advance (emphasis added)." Back to the ARRB interview of Boring: "Boring independently recalled that he was the person who assigned Winston Lawson as the S.S. advance agent for the Dallas leg of the Texas trip, but could not recall why or how "Win" Lawson was given that assignment." Agent David Grant, who worked hand in glove with Boring on the controversial 11/18/63 Florida trip, assisted Lawson in the advance preparations in Dallas. Boring was also involved in the pre-11/22/63 checks of the Protective Research Section (PRS) files of any potential threats to JFK reported in Dallas which, incredibly, yielded nothing, a matter fellow ASAIC Roy Kellerman found unusual , as did fellow agent Abraham Bolden , as common sense would seem to dictate (interestingly, according to his Truman Library oral history, Boring worked for PRS back in the 1940’s!). Yet Boring had begun his ARRB interview exclaiming: "I didn't have anything to do with it, and I don't know anything," a similar sentiment he first gave to the author before probing further into the mystery. The author later asked Boring: “Were you involved in any of the planning of the Texas trip?” Then, the agent finally admitted: “Well, no, I sent-ah, yeah, I was involved in that, yeah”. And, if that weren’t enough, during researcher Dan Robertson’s interview of the lucid, 90 year old Boring in 2006, the former agent quite shockingly claimed that "He [JFK] was responsible for his own death." Indeed, Mr. Boring IS interesting, to say the least.

While it is certainly true that the agents were not always stationed on the rear of the limousine, President Kennedy was not in the equation regarding the circumstances for this (they DID often walk, jog, or run near the rear of the limousine, though). If the Secret Service would only have taken their rightful responsibility for not having agents positioned there (as was the usual practice), this would not really be an issue, only a "what if" situation. However, because they lied and blamed it on JFK's alleged "desires" and "requests", they blew their cover story for their "negligence." Furthermore, merely as a hypothetical inference, in the highly unlikely event, in light of all the previous evidence to the contrary, JFK DID in fact somehow or other tell the agents not to ride on the rear of the car a few times in the past, this was clearly the exception, NOT the rule from him; turning an isolated incident from 1961 into a rule to be followed on 11/22/63 simply isn’t credible. And, again---agents DID ride on the rear of the car during the Florida trip…but not on the very next trip to Texas which began a mere three days later, allegedly by “Presidential request” (a kind anecdote), courtesy of Agent Boring, who informed his men between 11/19 and 11/21/63.

If you don’t believe the “kind anecdote” story as told to the ARRB (as the author does not), then why did Mr. Boring take it upon himself to order the men not to take their usual positions on or near the rear of the Presidential limousine? Why did they blame it on JFK? Why didn't the agent physically present and nominally in charge of the trip (ASAIC Kellerman) mention JFK's desires even once during his very lengthy, two-session interview with the Warren Commission, not to mention his reports and his later HSCA and private researcher contacts? Why, indeed.

Marty Underwood told the author that Chief Rowley's best friend was Clint Hill. In keeping with Mr. Hill's honesty noted earlier, it appears that Mr. Rowley exhibited a little of it himself during his testimony to the Warren Commission when, as previously mentioned, he stated: "No President will tell the Secret Service what they can or cannot do" (emphasis added).

Even President Truman agreed, stating: “the Secret Service was the only boss that the President of the United States really had.”

To summarize, the point is that this was a Secret Service decision, not a JFK desire as "official" history (Warren Commission/ Bishop/ Manchester/ Secret Service) has told us all. The Secret Service lied, using JFK as a scapegoat. To blame the deceased President after-the-fact is very suspicious, to say the least; why Mr. Boring took it upon himself to relay these orders between 11/19 and 11/21/63 (according to both Clint Hill and Frank Yeager) is an important issue, especially when considering the timing in relation to the start of the Texas trip: 11/21/63. If “the devil is in the details,” the author would also add that the timing is everything; the sequence of events is crucial. And, if it was necessary during the Watergate scandal to “follow the money,” the author chose in this case to follow the lies told by the Secret Service, find out who specifically told the lies, and why, as well as the incumbent results of these lies.If an agent (or agents) would have been positioned on or near the rear of the limousine or, at the very least, if John Ready, in particular, would have been permitted to run to his position on JFK's side of the limousine during the shooting, history would have been changed: the agent (or agents) may have blocked one or more shots or, at the very least, would have been able to cover JFK before the fatal head shot. As former agent Harry Neal wrote: “It is my personal belief that had they [Secret Service] been permitted to stay on the presidential car, the body of one of the agents might have completely obscured the President from Oswald’s vision. In that event, either no shots would have been fired, or the agent might have been killed or wounded. But the President would not have been hit.” “An unnamed former JFK-era agent told author Philip Melanson in February 2002 that not having agents on the running boards of the limousine was a major factor in Kennedy’s death. Former Secret Service Chief Frank J. Wilson wrote: “Agents on running boards at Dallas might not have saved the President from the first bullet but might have saved him from the second one, which was fatal,” a view later shared by Reagan Agent Joseph Petro. Ironically, former JFK Secret Service Chief U.E. Baughman wrote in 1962: “... the Secret Service knows from experience that a car directly behind the President may save his life in certain emergencies…” In addition to the various still and motion pictures demonstrating the agents on or near the rear of the President’s car, the Honolulu, Hawaii trip in the summer of 1963 bears mute testimony to an important, often neglected facet of the protective mission: the agents also frequently RAN beside the car, even while the limousine was going at a fair clip. Agents walked, jogged, or ran beside the car, and were often on the rear of the limousine whether the car was traveling at a modest speed or even at a high rate of speed. If some look at this as "Monday morning quarterbacking", ask yourself this: Why did the Secret Service, in charge of the "defense", alter history's "official" verdict? Why, indeed.

ASAIC Floyd Boring’s favorite President was Harry S. Truman (actually, he was a favorite of Behn, Kinney, and a host of other JFK-era agents). Truman was famous for the saying “The buck stops here.” With regard to the assassination of President Kennedy and the protective measures used—and not used---on that fateful day, the buck stops with the Secret Service…and Boring, especially.

POST SCRIPT THREE---JFK'S STAFF? NOT:

Ronald M. Pontius, WHD (on Texas trip, but not the Dallas stop): In reference to an e-mail inquiry from the author (“did JFK ever order the agents to not ride on the rear of his limousine? Author William Manchester claims he did, while Behn, Kinney, & Youngblood said he did not”), Pontius e-mailed the author back on 10/30/00 and wrote: “He did through his staff (emphasis added).” 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, as mentioned above, Powers refutes this whole idea. Again, JFK’s staff is not mentioned as a factor during any of the agent’s Warren Commission testimony, nor in the five reports submitted in April 1964. (7 H 440-457. Manchester, page 666 (O’Donnell was interviewed 5/4/64, 6/4/64, 8/6/64 & 11/23/64). O’Donnell passed away 9/9/77. For what it’s worth, neither Presidential Aide’s Larry O’Brien [7 H 457- 472] or Dave Powers [7 H 472-474] mentioned any JFK “desires”, either (also, see Powers, above). In addition, nothing of the sort is mentioned in “Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye” by O'Donnell, Kenneth P., David F. Powers, and Joseph McCarthy (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1972 [see especially page 20], nor in Kenny O’Donnell’s daughter’s book “A Common Good: The Friendship of Robert F. Kennedy and Kenneth P. O’Donnell (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1998), written by Helen O’Donnell, who wrote: “Much of the material in this book has been gathered from the private tapes of my father, Kenneth P. O’Donnell.” [Author’s Note]) In addition, former agent’s Godfrey and Kinney denounced the “staff/ O’Donnell” notion (see above). It is interesting to note that, like JFK, O’Donnell was not blamed for any security deficiencies and the like until only after his death (in 1977), when he was thus unable to refute any allegations as such.

Breaking news: Author Helen O'Donnell, the daughter of the late Ken O'Donnell, told me in October 2010, based on her memory AND her father's many audio tapes, that JFK did not order the agents off the car and neither did her father!

THE best book EVER written on the Secret Service is available NOW: "Within Arm's Length: The Extraordinary Life and Career of a Special Agent in the United States Secret Service" by Dan Emmett

2012-01-17T15:19:00.000-08:00

THE best book EVER written on the Secret Service is available NOW: "Within Arm's Length: The Extraordinary Life and Career of a Special Agent in the United States Secret Service" by Dan Emmett

Available at Amazon.Com:
http://www.amazon.com/Within-Arms-Length-Extraordinary-Special/dp/1462070728/ref=cm_rdp_product

Also Available at iUniverse:
softcover-

http://bookstore.iuniverse.com/Products/SKU-000455072/Within-Arms-Length.aspx

as an E-book-

http://bookstore.iuniverse.com/Products/SKU-000455074/Within-Arms-Length.aspx

in hardcover-
http://bookstore.iuniverse.com/Products/Default.aspx?bookId=SKU-000455073

Available in late February from Barnes and Noble, Books a Million, Kendall, Nook and others.

Dan Emmett was just eight years old when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. The events surrounding the president’s death shaped the course of young Emmett’s life as he set a goal of becoming a US Secret Service agent—one of a special group of people willing to trade their lives for that of the president, if necessary.

Within Arm’s Length narrates the story of Emmett’s journey in this coveted job—from the application process to his retirement as assistant to the special agent in charge on the elite Presidential Protective Division (PPD). Here he discusses some of his more high-profile assignments in his twenty-one years of service, including the PPD and the Counter Assault Team where he provided arm’s length protection worldwide for Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, and George W. Bush.

This memoir describes the professional challenges faced by Secret Service agents as well as the physical and emotional toll that can be inflicted on both agents and their families. Within Arm’s Length also shares firsthand details about the duties and challenges of conducting presidential advances, dealing with the media, driving the president in a bullet-proof limousine, running alongside him through the streets of Washington, and flying with him on Air Force One.

With fascinating anecdotes, Emmett weaves keen insight into the unique culture and history of the Secret Service

The best book on the Secret Service ever written! A must have! Outstanding!

Former Secret Service agent Dan Emmett, author of "Within Arm's Length", is to be commended on putting together a refreshing take on a well-worn subject as of late: the United States Secret Service. While many of the books written by former agents are ghost-written, dry, dull, and are often dated, Emmett's is exciting, never boring, compelling, and employed no co-author or ghost-writer; this work is solely his own. After the recent debacle of best-selling author Ronald Kessler's dubious tome "In The President's Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect", a book that seemingly betrayed the trust of the agents, past and present, that the author took into his confidence, littering the literary landscape with dubious tawdry tales of presidential sex, alleged agency incompetence, or worse, Emmett's book will be embraced by scholars, the public and, perhaps most important of all, his colleagues.

Someone needed to take up the mantle and do away with all the controversy, poor writing, myopic outlook, and compromising information out there on the Secret Service and write a book the agency would be proud of AND that would also appeal to the lay public, as well. Dan Emmett took up the quest and succeeded admirably. In short, "Within Arm's Length" is the antidote to Kessler, McCarthy, and all the silly and overwrought books and television specials that violate the agency's code of being Worthy of Trust and Confidence. If there was a literary Medal of Valor the Secret Service could award Emmett for his book, they should hold the ceremony tomorrow. Emmett's book truly reads like he had this epiphany: "I have had enough with Kessler, the hero worship, the gossip, the untruths, and all the crap---here is the TRUE story of an agent without the junk... and no compromising information, dammit!" Mission accomplished.

In short, Dan Emmett provides the reader with the nuts and bolts without giving away the game, so to speak.

"Within Arm's Length" grabs the reader from the very first sentence and doesn't ever let up.

"Within Arm's Length" is, without question, the best book ever written about the Secret Service: current, well-written, classy, very informative, but, most importantly, does not indulge in hero worship of presidents or reveal "inside secrets" or other compromising details. In short, "WITHIN ARM'S LENGTH" makes you feel like you are THERE! Emmett is a great guy with an impressive background who truly represents the valor of the Secret Service. Emmett has given a blueprint for all agents---past, present, and future---to follow and admire. Worthy of Trust & Confidence indeed! Dan Emmett is an example of a great American.

Vince Palamara, literary Secret Service expert

"Mrs. Kennedy & Me"- Jacqueline Kennedy & Clint Hill: yet another new book

2012-01-16T10:39:00.001-08:00

"Mrs. Kennedy & Me"- Jacqueline Kennedy & Secret Service Agent Clint Hill: yet another new book by "The Kennedy Detail" crew. JFK did not order the agents off his limo! Narrated by Vince Palamara- an informal, off the cuff, spontaneous video chat

BEST Secret Service book EVER, 'Within Arm's Length", coming out very soon

2012-01-14T11:54:00.000-08:00

An honor to be on the cover of former Secret Service Agent Dan Emmett's new book "Within Arm's Length", due out in late January 2012 (Emmett served from 1983-2004 and frequently jogged with President Clinton)

Great tidbits from the NEW edition of "Murder From Within" (1974/ 2011)- blames LBJ & the Secret Service for JFK's death

2012-01-06T16:00:00.000-08:00

PAGE 104:

"Indeed, the Secret Service made an effort "...to ascertain whether any [movie news] film could be found showing special agents on the ground alongside the Presidential automobile at any point along the parade route." [Commission Document No. 87, page 434]

PAGE 142:

"A new story at Connally's death on June 15, 1993, quoted a friend about Connally's concern for security [Connally was wounded on 11/22/63 and was later the Secretary of the Treasury during the Nixon years!]. When he ran for president as a Republican he refused Secret Service protection. "I don't want Secret Service protection that's going to get you killed", Connally told his fiend." [NPR Radio Austin Texas 6/16/93 Wade Goodwin reporter]

"Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir" by Clint Hill & Lisa McCubbin, The Kennedy Detail profiteers are back for more money grubbing

2012-01-05T10:19:00.000-08:00

Book Description
Publication Date: April 3, 2012
An intimate and fascinating memoir by Clint Hill, who spent four years as First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy’s Secret Service agent. Even today, decades after JFK’s presidency and Jackie’s death, the public continues to be fascinated with the former First Lady. Clint Hill will forever be remembered as the agent who jumped onto the car after President Kennedy was shot and clung to the sides of the car as it sped toward the hospital. Now, in Mrs. Kennedy and Me, he recounts those painful memories along with his fonder recollections of the First Lady’s strength, class, dignity, and beauty during the time he was assigned as her personal agent.

Hill was by Mrs. Kennedy’s side for some of the happiest moments in her life as well as the darkest. He was there for the birth of John, Jr. as well as for the birth and sudden death of Patrick Bouvier Kennedy on August 8, 1963. Hill was there for Jackie’s first meetings with men like Aristotle Onassis, Gianni Agnelli, and Andre Malraux; Jackie’s trips to Europe, Asia, and South America; Kennedy-family holidays in Hyannis Port; and the dark days following the assassination. They addressed each other as “Mrs. Kennedy” and “Mr. Hill,” even though they were often closer to each other than they were to their respective spouses—yet their relationship remained professional. An astonishing and intimate portrait, told for the first time, Mrs. Kennedy and Me is a remarkable and true story of heroism, heartbreak, and humanity.

"Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath" by Mimi Alford

2012-01-05T09:56:00.000-08:00

"Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath" by Mimi Alford

Product Description
In the summer of 1962, nineteen-year-old Mimi Beardsley arrived by train in Washington, D.C., to begin an internship in the White House press office. The Kennedy Administration had reinvigorated the capital and the country—and Mimi was eager to contribute. For a young woman from a privileged but sheltered upbringing, the job was the chance of a lifetime. Although she started as a lowly intern, Mimi made an impression on Kennedy’s inner circle and, after just three days at the White House, she was presented to the President himself.

Almost immediately, the two began an affair that would continue for the next eighteen months.

In an era when women in the workplace were still considered “girls,” Mimi was literally a girl herself—naïve, innocent, emotionally unprepared for the thrill that came when the President’s charisma and power were turned on her full-force. She was also unprepared for the feelings of isolation that would follow as she fell into the double life of a college student who was also the secret lover of the most powerful man in the world. Then, after the President’s tragic death in Dallas, she grieved in private, locked her secret away, and tried to start her life anew, only to find that her past would cast a long shadow—and ultimately destroy her relationship with the man she married.

In 2003, a Kennedy biographer mentioned “a tall, slender, beautiful nineteen-year-old college sophomore and White House intern, who worked in the press office” in reference to one of the President’s affairs. The disclosure set off a tabloid frenzy and soon exposed Mimi and the secret that she had kept for forty-one years. Because her past had been revealed in such a shocking, public way, she was forced, for the first time, to examine the choices she’d made. She came to understand that shutting down one part of her life so completely had closed her off from so much more.

No longer defined by silence or shame, Mimi Alford has finally unburdened herself with this searingly honest account of her life and her extremely private moments with a very public man. Once Upon a Secret offers a new and personal depiction of one of our most iconic leaders and a powerful, moving story of a woman coming to terms with her past and moving out of the shadows to reclaim the truth.

From the Hardcover edition.
About the Author
Mimi Alford lives in western Massachusetts with her husband, Dick. Together they have seven grandchildren. This is her first book.

Excellent review of "Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero" by James DiEugenio+ comment from David Lifton

2012-01-04T12:14:00.000-08:00

Why Mr. Hardball Found JFK Elusive

January 3, 2012

Exclusive: For weeks, Chris Matthews has been flogging his book, Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero, driving it up the ranks of best-seller lists, but the biography is as superficial and clueless as the MSNBC pundit often is, missing Kennedy’s true complexity, writes James DiEugenio.

By James DiEugenio

Chris Matthews, author of Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero, has had a long and plodding career as a Washington political insider, surviving and indeed prospering by staying safely within the bounds of the city’s conventional wisdom.

In his new biography of President John F. Kennedy, the host of MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews brought this shallowness to his analysis of an extraordinarily complex historical figure, with the effect of reinforcing the Establishment’s eroded – and outmoded – interpretation of who JFK was.

MSNBC's "Hardball" host Chris Matthews
Matthews either set out with this goal in mind or was unqualified to take on such a difficult mission. Clearly, the fast-talking and opinionated TV host did not master the latest scholarship about Kennedy’s views and actions on a variety of topics, from the Bay of Pigs to Vietnam.

Matthews began his career in Washington as a police officer with the United States Capitol Police, according to his earlier book, Now Let Me Tell You What I Really Think. Matthews then went to work as an aide for four Democratic members of Congress before a failed attempt in 1974 to win a congressional seat from his home state of Pennsylvania.

He next became a speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter and – after Carter lost the 1980 election – Matthews went to work for House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, serving as an aide in O’Neill’s rather quixotic battles against President Ronald Reagan’s reshaping of the American agenda, a war that O’Neill decisively lost.

After O’Neill’s losing struggle with Reagan, Matthews was employed in print journalism for 15 years. He was the Washington D.C. bureau chief for the San Francisco Examiner from 1987-2000. And for two years he was the nationally syndicated columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle.

Slamming Stone

During this era, when liberalism was distinctly passé in Washington, Matthews repackaged himself as a more conservative, Establishment-defending media figure. For instance, on Dec. 6, 1995, he wrote a column criticizing Oliver Stone’s film Nixon for using a passage from H. R. Haldeman’s book The Ends of Power.

In Haldeman’s book, Richard Nixon’s former White House chief of staff describes a dramatic confrontation with CIA Director Richard Helms, after which Haldeman came to believe that Nixon knew that, somehow, the CIA was involved in the JFK assassination.

After Stone used this information in his film, Matthews went to interview a dying Haldeman, who denied originating the passage and blamed it on his co-writer, Joseph DiMona. But Matthews overlooked the fact that in a paperback version of the book, Haldeman had written that the “writing style is DiMona’s. The opinions and conclusions are essentially mine.” (p. 422)

Further, in an interview with Dr. Gary Aguilar in December of 1995, DiMona said the book went through five drafts. Haldeman made many changes, but none to that passage. In fact, on Feb. 15, 1978, DiMona made a similar comment to the Washington Post about Haldeman’s editorial control, which Matthews either missed or ignored.

Less than two years later, when Matthews wrote a (very poor) dual biography called Kennedy and Nixon, the Los Angeles Times saw an angle and let Oliver Stone write an unflattering review of the book. Two weeks later, on June 30, 1996, the Los Angeles Times allowed Matthews to respond. In his reply, he said he had nothing but contempt for Stone and called him a liar. Matthews went after Stone again in an Examiner column. (Jan. 1, 1998)

Having polished his Establishment credentials by attacking one of Official Washington’s least favorite Americans, Matthews soon became a presence on TV, first as a commentator for ABC’s Good Morning America and then on his own CNBC show called Politics with Chris Matthews.

That program morphed into Hardball, which is known for obsessing over the trivia of political tactics. Ever sensitive to the prevailing political winds, Matthews also announced on Hardball that he voted for George W. Bush in 2000. In 2002, he began a syndicated weekend program called The Chris Matthews Show.

Hardball eventually moved to MSNBC, and many have observed that, as Keith Olbermann began to be the big ratings winner at MSNBC, there seemed to be friction between the crusading progressive with a vision and Matthews, who had settled into greased rail success and become a shill for Business as Usual.

Yet the odd thing is that when Olbermann left MSNBC, his imprint was much wider than Matthews’s at the cable channel, for MSNBC is by far the most progressive major TV outlet. And today, Matthews’s program is the most conservative in MSNBC’s evening line-up.

Measuring Kennedy

Over the years, Matthews also has written six books, two of them are focused on John Kennedy, the aforementioned dual biography with Nixon and his new one.

To begin with faint praise, John Kennedy: Elusive Hero is a better book than Kennedy and Nixon. It almost had to be since the earlier 1996 effort was one of the worst Kennedy biographies this side of Seymour Hersh’s The Dark Side of Camelot.

In Elusive Hero, Matthews does a good enough job describing Kennedy’s famous military service and his rescue mission on PT 109. He also does serviceable sketches of Kennedy’s first runs for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The book is adequate, too, on the 1960 Democratic presidential primary and the 1960 convention.

But here begins the problems. There is little that is new in this book. And Matthews more or less admits this when he discusses his footnotes. (See pgs. 411-12) On those pages he states that his main sources for the work were the “collection of great books written about John F. Kennedy.”

On the previous page, he stated that his other main source was the interviews he did for his 1996 book. But in reality it’s worse than that. For if one looks at the footnotes and reads Matthews’s own comments on the subject, one of his favorite book sources is Herbert Parmet’s two-volume biography of Kennedy, which first appeared in 1982. This consisted of Jack: The Struggles of John F. Kennedy, and JFK: The Presidency of John F. Kennedy.

I am familiar with these books since I used them in writing my first book entitled Destiny Betrayed. Looking back, I should not have. Parmet is a conventional historian in the manner and method of say David McCullough and the late Stephen Ambrose. He is not the kind of man who, as historians say, pushes the envelope or forges a new frontier for others to follow.

And with Kennedy, that is necessary since many of the things he was doing were rather unconventional – to the point that new information was still being discovered 40 years after his death. And we are still learning about them today; many years after Parmet published his rather obsolete books. Yet, in the face of that, Matthews still swears by Parmet.

Let me name just four books that do push the envelope and forge a new frontier, all of them released since Parmet’s. They are: JFK: Ordeal in Africa, The Kennedy Tapes, Battling Wall Street, and JFK and Vietnam. These books deepen our understanding of both John Kennedy and that turbulent age much more than the Parmet study does.

Considering who Matthews is, the reader will not be surprised to learn that there is not one footnote in the entire book related to any of these sources. This is remarkable because, as many Kennedy experts would say, those four books are in the forefront of Kennedy scholarship today.

Respectively, they deal with his policies on Africa — particularly the Congo crisis; his steering of the Cuban Missile Crisis; his economic policies; and his actions during the epochal Vietnam War.

Ignoring Evidence

What is particularly surprising is that, early on, Matthews writes that one of the things that attracted him to Kennedy and made him write this book was JFK’s management of the Missile Crisis. (See p. 9) But then why ignore The Kennedy Tapes? Since it is, from the American side, the most complete chronicling of the crisis we have today.

It is made up of the actual transcribed tapes that were made during those dangerous thirteen days when the world stood on the precipice of nuclear war. Any true historian always consults primary sources recorded during the actual event as his baseline. You can then supplement that with things like interviews after the fact, or memoirs written later. Matthews’s curious choice in historiography tells us something about his book.

What further illuminates Elusive Hero is its imbalance. The book is 406 pages long. Yet Matthews’ discussion of Kennedy’s presidency does not begin until page 321. Which means he deals with those rather eventful years in just 85 pages.

How can an author adequately describe things like the Congo crisis and the murder of Patrice Lumumba; the Laotian crisis; the construction of the Berlin Wall; the Bay of Pigs disaster; the debates over whether or not to insert combat troops into Vietnam; the tank faceoff at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin; the launching of the Peace Corps; the siege at Ole Miss over James Meredith; the Freedom Riders; the launching of the Mercury mission; Kennedy’s attempts to reconcile with Sukarno of Indonesia; and his bold and unprecedented firings of CIA Director Allen Dulles, Deputy Director Charles Cabell and Director of Plans Richard Bissell in just 85 pages?

And, incredibly, my list stops at the end of 1961! There’s almost two years to deal with yet. To give just one point of actual comparison: Ted Sorenson’s biography Kennedy is over 800 pages long. Yet he begins his discussion of Kennedy’s presidency on page 255.

So here is my question to Matthews: If you were a playwright, would you spend, say, 90 minutes of exposition in Act I and only 30 minutes for the tension-building and explosive climax in Acts II and III? Why would you do such a thing?

Matthews’s problematic approach might have some value if the author was trying to relate past formative events to later presidential decisions. That is, what did Kennedy do as a younger man that impacted his policy decisions while he was president? But this is what Matthews really does not do.

Resisting Vietnam

Take, for example, Kennedy’s consistent refusal to commit combat troops into Vietnam. This 1961 decision was made despite the fact that almost all his advisers urged Kennedy to do just that. (John Newman, JFK and Vietnam, p. 138) It is a choice Kennedy never wavered on while he was in office.

Yet, it was reversed by President Lyndon Johnson in early 1965, just 14 months after Kennedy’s assassination. And Johnson’s decision was backed by former President Dwight Eisenhower. (Gordon Goldstein, Lessons in Disaster, p. 206)

Now, any fairly inquisitive biographer would want to delve into this question. That is, why did Kennedy adamantly refuse to do what both his predecessor and his successor had no qualms about doing? Matthews does little delving or explaining. In fact, he does not even note the difference.

For instance, in Richard Mahoney’s work on Kennedy, he makes the young congressman’s trip to Saigon in 1951 a keystone of his milestone book JFK: Ordeal in Africa. He spends four pages dealing with both the journey and its aftermath. And he quotes Kennedy’s brother Robert as saying that this excursion had “a very, very major” impact on JFK’s thinking. (Mahoney, p. 12)

That’s because, while in Saigon, JFK met a man who was working for the State Department named Edmund Gullion, who had such an impact on Kennedy’s thinking about the Third World that President Kennedy brought him into the White House in 1961. There, Gullion became a central figure in Kennedy’s policy on the huge Congo crisis and other African and Asian trouble spots like Laos and Vietnam.

A Prescient Warning

The reason for Kennedy’s faith in Gullion related to the fact that he had explained to the young Kennedy that France could not win in Vietnam because they had no one to match the nationalistic appeal of Ho Chi Minh. And Gullion impressed upon Kennedy that this war was not about Communism versus capitalism; it was about colonialism versus independence.

Ho’s emotional appeal to the latter convinced tens of thousands of Vietnamese to the point that they would die rather than stay a colony of France. The French could never win that kind of guerrilla war of attrition.

So when Kennedy returned to America he expressed these ideas in a speech he gave in November of 1951: “This is an area of human conflict between civilizations striving to be born and those desperately trying to retain what they had had for so long.” He then added, “the fires of nationalism so long dormant have been kindled and are now ablaze. … Here colonialism is not a topic for tea-talk discussion but is the daily fare for millions of men.” (Mahoney, p. 14)

Any responsible biographer who had spent so many pages on Kennedy before he became president would understand that this Gullion acquaintance would be important to Kennedy’s future thinking on Vietnam. So what did Matthews do with these important materials?

First off, he completely omits the 1961 debates in the White House over the commitment of U.S. troops to Vietnam, an omission that is quite a feat in itself. As Gordon Goldstein notes, Kennedy’s advisers brought it up no less than nine times. Each time, Kennedy beat it back. (Lessons in Disaster, pgs. 52-60)

And Kennedy himself made the parallel to 1951. He told Arthur Schlesinger, “The war in Vietnam could be won only so long as it was their war. If it were ever converted into a white man’s war, we would lose as the French had lost a decade earlier.” (ibid p. 63.) Therefore, the linkage is made explicit.

It is telling to note that Matthews does include this exchange between JFK and Schlesinger in his book – but he edits out the part I have quoted. (Matthews, p. 393) As per the 1951 trip to Southeast Asia, Matthews treats it only cursorily. He deals with its impact on Kennedy in two paragraphs. (ibid, p. 119) And notably, he never even mentions the name of Edmund Gullion.

Threatened Nukes

Now, another important incident in explaining Kennedy’s later policy on Vietnam is his reaction to 1954’s Operation Vulture. This was the plan put together by President Eisenhower, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, CIA Director Allen Dulles, and Vice President Richard Nixon to relieve the doomed French garrison surrounded by Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu. (See John Prados, The Sky Would Fall).

The plan was to fly over 150 American air sorties, to be climaxed by the use of three tactical atomic weapons. When word leaked out about this mission, Sen. Kennedy rose up and challenged the Secretary of State directly. He wanted to know how “the new Dulles policy and its dependence upon the threat of atomic retaliation will fare in these areas of guerrilla warfare.” (Mahoney, p. 16)

Kennedy said no amount of U.S. firepower would ever quell the Vietnamese rebellion because the Viet Minh were everywhere and nowhere at the same time. But further, these guerrillas had the “sympathy and support of the people.” (ibid)

Operation Vulture was called off, but Eisenhower predicted that the fall of Vietnam would trigger a domino effect of communist takeovers in Southeast Asia. (ibid) Therefore, he set up a coalition of anticommunist states in the area called SEATO.

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles then used this front to have the U.S. represented at the Geneva Conference that planned the future of Vietnam. This plan sealed America’s future involvement there.

Again, it is revealing to see what Matthews does with this episode. He deals with it in just four paragraphs. (p. 173) He says that here, for the first time, Kennedy “broke with the Eurocentric view of the Cold War.”

This is a strange — and strangely false — statement for two reasons. First of all, the Europeans did not instigate the Cold War. Most commentators would date its origins from the transmittal to Washington of the so-called Long Telegram from Russia. This was written by American diplomat George Kennan in February of 1946.

The construction of the Cold War was then led by President Harry Truman on the American side and Josef Stalin on the Russian side. The Europeans were in the middle.

Secondly, Matthews himself had (briefly) noted Kennedy’s Saigon visit in 1951. Consequently, Kennedy’s first attacks on the Dulles-Acheson view of the Cold War took place in November of that year. He kept up this attack through 1953. This included a May 1953 letter to John Foster Dulles asking him 47 questions about his present and future plans for American involvement in Southeast Asia. (Mahoney, p. 15)

Harkening Back to Munich

So this was not the first time Kennedy broke with the American Establishment on the Cold War. Matthews then does something even stranger. He tries to compare Kennedy’s views on Dien Bien Phu with his 1940 book Why England Slept, about the failure of English readiness to stop Nazi Germany.

But it is clear that in the 1940 book, Kennedy understood that World War II in Europe was a conventional big-power war. This is why he employed things like budgetary figures and graphs of arms growth from 1931 forward.

On the other hand, Kennedy understood that the war Ho Chi Minh was fighting was anything but conventional. It used classic guerrilla-style tactics that could not really be analyzed with data charts and graphs, as President Johnson would later so painfully discover. So this comparison is very misleading about Kennedy’s thinking on the subject.

Matthews then makes things worse by throwing in a Munich Conference analogy. (He interpolates the Munich analogy inaptly, but repeatedly, throughout the book.) Again, this makes no sense, because the thesis of Kennedy’s book was that England could not have resisted Hitler in 1938 even if she tried.

The reason being that she had not armed herself heavily enough in the prior years. England was therefore fortunate that the war did not come to its territory until late 1940, when she did have the military might to resist Germany.

Since the meeting with Gullion in 1951, Kennedy never thought the U.S. — or France — could defeat Ho Chi Minh. In fact, in 1963, he pegged the odds of an American victory at 100-1. (Goldstein p. 239) But further, as Kennedy’s National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy wrote before he died, Kennedy never saw Vietnam — as Munich was — as an East-West test of the balance of power.

Lessons of Algeria

Let us now jump forward to another distortion by Matthews. On July 2, 1957, Kennedy took the floor of the Senate to deliver what the New York Times called the next day “the most comprehensive arraignment of Western policy toward Algeria yet presented by an American in public office.”

It was a blistering, unsparing indictment of the French refusal to acknowledge that she was repeating the mistakes of Vietnam just three years later, except this time in North Africa. She was again trying to hang on to a Third World colony, in a civil war she could not win, since it was not fought on conventional terms. And the colonized peoples were willing to die by the thousands for their independence.

But further, Kennedy also attacked the Eisenhower administration, and Richard Nixon by name, for not being a true friend of France. For a true friend would have escorted France to the negotiating table before she was forcibly kicked out. (The entire speech is contained in The Strategy of Peace, edited by Allan Nevins.)

The White House was not pleased. Nixon called the speech a political move to embarrass the administration. He further added that “Ike and his staff held a full fledged policy meeting to pool their thinking on the whys underlying Kennedy’s damaging fishing in troubled waters.” (Mahoney, p. 29) Kennedy’s speech was also directly attacked by both Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles.

How does Matthews characterize this powerful and profound address? He calls it Kennedy’s “first curtsy to the Democratic Left … a semaphore signaling that he shared the liberals’ more sophisticated attitudes.” (Matthews, p. 227)

Again, in the face of the adduced record, this is absurd. By then, Kennedy had been making these kinds of statements about imperialism for six years. And he had specifically attacked familiar liberal targets like Richard Nixon. So this was not a “first curtsy.”

But further, for many liberals, what Kennedy was saying was too incendiary even for them. For as Mahoney notes, when Kennedy made one of these Third World liberation themed speeches for Adlai Stevenson’s 1956 presidential campaign, the candidate’s office wired him to “make no more statements in any way associated with the campaign.” (Mahoney, p. 18)

Matthews’s Motives

The question now becomes: Why does the author perform this consistent biographical distortion and misrepresentation on key episodes?

After reading the book and taking 12 pages of notes, it is my conclusion that Matthews had an agenda. That agenda was made pretty clear in his previous book, Kennedy and Nixon. And it continues here, in slightly more disguised form.

Matthews wants the reader to believe that JFK was not all what he is cracked up to be, that he was really just a classic Cold Warrior who wasn’t all that different from Nixon. This, of course, has been the message of most of the Establishment and the mainstream media from approximately the time of Oliver Stone’s film JFK in 1991. (And strangely, the message coincides with alleged icons of the traditional Left like Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn.)

As shown above, the problem is that one can only make that argument by either distorting things, or completely omitting them. And Matthews is systematically rigorous in omitting key points.

For instance, in JFK: Ordeal in Africa, the reason Mahoney illuminates Kennedy’s thinking on Third World colonialism is as background to his actions in Congo in 1961. There, Kennedy pretty much reversed Eisenhower’s policy on Patrice Lumumba versus the Belgian colonialists.

And, in fact, Gullion played a key part in this reversal. There, Kennedy did something that would be considered exceptional today: He allied himself with Lumumba’s followers at the United Nations under the great Swedish statesman Dag Hammarskjold and against the Belgian colonizers.

In fact, CIA Director Allen Dulles understood that Kennedy would be sympathetic to Lumumba. This is why it appears that he hurried up the CIA’s assassination attempt on the African leader so it would occur before Kennedy was inaugurated. (John Morton Blum, Years of Discord, pgs. 23-24)

Dulles was correct in that analysis. For a photo snapped by a White House photographer at the moment Kennedy got the news of Lumumba’s death reveals his face contorted in anguish. Amazingly, there is not one single word about either Congo or Lumumba in Matthews’s book.

Misrepresenting Cuba

On Cuba, Matthews does go into the Bay of Pigs disaster (pgs. 331-38). He says, that “Quickly, in the aftermath, Kennedy asked for the resignations of both Dulles and [CIA Director of Plans Richard] Bissell.” (Matthews, p. 332) This is not accurate.

First, he asked for their resignations plus that of Deputy Director Charles Cabell. Secondly, he did not ask them to resign, “quickly in the aftermath.” And by leaving that fact out, Matthews omits why Kennedy took the unprecedented step of terminating the entire top level of the CIA.

By the time of the firings, in late 1961, Kennedy had read the CIA’s own internal report on the debacle, written by Inspector General Lyman Kirkpatrick. He also read one he commissioned himself. This was done by General Maxwell Taylor. They were both quite harsh on the CIA’s planning and execution of the ill-fated operation.

In fact, Kirkpatrick’s report states that the CIA’s excuse for the failure, that Kennedy canceled the D-Day air strikes — which, predictably, Matthews uses against Kennedy here — was not tenable. In fact, these strikes were contingent upon the establishment of a beachhead, something that did not happen. (Peter Kornbluh, Bay of Pigs Declassified, pgs 127-28)

But as Kirkpatrick pointed out, this question about the D-Day air strikes is really a distraction from the real point. He wrote, “It is essential to keep in mind that the invasion was doomed in advance, that an initially successful landing by 1, 500 men would eventually have been crushed by Castro’s combined military resources strengthened by Soviet bloc supplied military personnel.” (ibid p. 41) Kirkpatrick goes on to estimate the combined size of all of Castro’s forces at over 200, 000 men, plus Soviet armor, tanks, mortar and cannon.

So the question then becomes, did the CIA actually think the invasion would succeed? Or did they have a hidden agenda? Many years later, scholar Lucien Vandenbroucke shed light on this key question in an important article for Diplomatic History (Fall, 1984), after discovering — among the papers of Allen Dulles at the Princeton Library — coffee-stained notes made by Dulles.

The notes were the remnants of an article the Director was going to write about the Bay of Pigs. In them, Dulles confessed that he and other CIA officers drew Kennedy into a plan they knew violated the President’s preannounced rules of engagement, namely that there was to be no direct intervention by American forces.

Although Dulles understood that this stricture doomed the plan, he went ahead with it anyway, deceiving Kennedy by telling him it would work on its own, as a similar CIA plan had succeeded in Guatemala in 1954. Dulles admitted in these notes that what they were really banking on was that the emerging “realities of the situation” would force Kennedy into violating his own pledge.

Or, as Dulles wrote, “We felt that when the chips were down — when the crisis rose to reality, any action required for success would be authorized rather than permit the enterprise to fail.” How Matthews missed this crucial article by perhaps the disaster’s most important participant baffles me. Especially since it figures in Jim Douglass’s excellent and popular book JFK and the Unspeakable, which was published back in 2008.

Further, Matthews criticizes Kennedy for not knowing that the only escape from the beach was to the Escambray Mountains, 80 miles away, and through a very heavy swamp. (Matthews, p. 332)

What the author does not explain is that Dulles would not let Kennedy take the operational plans home overnight for study, even though he asked to do so. (Kornbluh, p. 53) In light of Dulles’s later confession, one has to wonder if the CIA Director understood that if a former military man had studied these plans at length and at home, he probably would have pulled the plug very early, thus depriving Dulles of his hidden agenda. By cutting out those two points, Matthews forecloses that conclusion for the reader.

No-Invasion Pledge

But there is an even more surprising omission as far as Kennedy’s Cuba policy is concerned. After the conclusion of the Missile Crisis in October of 1962, Kennedy made a “no-invasion of the island” pledge to the Russians.

He then altered his Cuba policy in two significant ways. First, all operations against Cuba were to be made from outside the United States. And the operations were greatly cut back. In fact, as declassified documents reveal, in the last half of 1963, there were five raids total.

But more importantly, Kennedy decided to open a back-channel communication to Fidel Castro. This went on for 11 months, right up until Kennedy’s assassination. It was conducted for Kennedy by ABC reporter Lisa Howard, diplomat William Attwood, and French journalist Jean Daniel.

Against all odds, the talks were quite productive. The problem was that both the CIA and the Cuban exiles found out about them and tried to obstruct them. In fact, one of the exiles, Jose Miro Cardona stated that, “The struggle for Cuba was in the process of being liquidated.” (Douglass, p. 59)

In April 1963, an AP report from Miami stated that, “The dispute between the Cuban exile leaders and the Kennedy administration was symbolized here today by black crepe hung from the doors of exiles’ homes.” (ibid) But the talks continued. Yet, inexplicably, and unbeknownst to Kennedy, the CIA started another Castro assassination attempt. This time using disgruntled Cuban diplomat Rolando Cubela.

Negotiations continued and Castro expressed a willingness to bargain his most valuable chip: Russian influence in Cuba, even extending to Soviet personnel and military hardware. When Kennedy became aware of this, he sent diplomat Attwood to make contact with Carlos Lechuga, the Cuban ambassador to the United Nations.

Lechuga told Attwood that Castro liked Kennedy’s American University speech and he would be interested in arranging a visit by Attwood to Cuba — a significant milestone. In advance of this historic visit, Kennedy called in Daniel, the French journalist/intermediary.

What Kennedy told Daniel is somewhat stunning for that time. Kennedy said he understood the toll that colonization and imperialism had taken on Cuba. He even understood that America had been a part of that. He then said that he approved of many of Castro’s early declarations while in the Sierra Maestra Mountains. And he even agreed with Castro about the corruption of the Batista regime.

But now those sentiments were complicated by the Russian presence – and this had led to the Missile Crisis. Kennedy concluded with the fact that he thought the Russians now understood this, but he was not sure if Castro did. Kennedy then told Daniel to relay Castro’s answer when he returned.

On Nov. 19, 1963, when Castro got this message, he was overjoyed. He even suggested that Che Guevara be left out of these talks since he was opposed to them. And he also suggested that Attwood fly into Cuba through Mexico.

Castro said that “Suddenly, a president arrives on the scene who tries to support the interest of another class.” He added that Kennedy would now go down in history as the greatest president since Lincoln.

Three days later, Castro and Daniel got the news that Kennedy was dead. Castro was grief stricken. He repeated three times, “This is bad news.” He then declared, “Everything is changed. Everything is going to change.” (Douglass, pgs. 85-90)

And it did. By Dec. 17, it was clear to Attwood that President Johnson had no interest in continuing the talks. Attwood later wrote, “There is no doubt in my mind. If there had been no assassination we probably would have moved into negotiations leading toward normalization of relations with Cuba.” (Ibid, p. 177) An historic diplomatic opportunity had been shunted aside.

Now, this is as close as any president has come in over 50 years of achieving a détente with Cuba. That takes in 11 presidential administrations. If you can believe it – and by now you will not be surprised – Matthews’s book contains not one sentence about this startling moment of Kennedy’s presidency and its reversal by Johnson. It’s kind of easy to make heroism “elusive” if you don’t tell the reader about it.

NSAM 263

By now, you also will not be surprised to learn that the author does not mention another landmark move by Kennedy made around this time. That is the signing of National Security Action Memorandum 263 in October of 1963.

This ordered the evacuation of all American advisers from Vietnam to begin in December 1963 and to be completed by the end of 1965. For as Kennedy told his friend Larry Newman, “I’m going to get those guys out because we’re not going to find ourselves in a war that it’s impossible to win.” (Ibid, . 189)

In fact, the move towards this decision had begun in April and May of 1962. As John Newman noted in his milestone book, just five months after facing down a debate over troops versus advisers in Vietnam, Kennedy had deftly turned that debate to reducing the number of advisers. He did this by sending Ambassador to India John Kenneth Galbraith to Saigon, knowing he would return with a negative report on American involvement, which he did. (Newman pgs. 236-37)

This was then turned over to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. Kennedy’s wishes were then relayed to the in-country team by McNamara in May 1962 at a meeting in Hawaii. There, McNamara made clear to the military that the American mission was not to assume responsibility for the war, but to train the South Vietnamese to fight the war themselves.

McNamara wanted a plan submitted to him with that end in mind. The reduction of American personnel should be achieved and he wanted this plan presented at the next such meeting in May of 1963. (Newman, p. 254) As Douglass notes, the plan was so presented to McNamara then. But he wanted it speeded up to make sure the forces would be out in 1965. (Douglass, p. 126)

The next step in the withdrawal plan was the Taylor-McNamara Report of Oct. 2, 1963. Although it has those two names on it – and the two men had just returned from Vietnam – it was not written by either man. The report was already awaiting them on their arrival. It was written by another military man, Victor Krulak, who had been supervised by President Kennedy. (Newman, p. 401)

The idea was that the report would present a rather rosy view of military conflict in Vietnam. And that positive assessment would provide the pretext for the now announced – through NSAM 263 – American withdrawal.

As John Newman notes, Kennedy essentially steamrollered his advisers to sign on to the policy and then sent McNamara out to announce the withdrawal plan to the press. His last-second instructions to the Secretary were, “And tell them that means all of the helicopter pilots too.” (Newman p. 407)

Not one step in this chain of Kennedy’s withdrawal plan is dealt with by Matthews. Quoting Ted Sorenson, he concludes that we cannot be certain what Kennedy would have done in Vietnam. (Matthews, p. 394)

Well, if you leave out all the above, ignore numerous declassified documents — which convinced even the New York Times that Kennedy had a plan to withdraw — and if you do not reference any of the new books on the subject, then yes, you can then cherry-pick a quote from an old man who was not in the midst of the maneuvering.

And you can then use that to come to a conclusion that does not at all coincide with the voluminously adduced record. In fact, it runs counter to it.

Summing Up Kennedy

What Matthews does do in these closing pages about Kennedy and Vietnam is another example of his agenda. He decides to concentrate on the coup against Ngo Dinh Diem.

Matthews introduces this section by saying that Kennedy could not risk being the president who lost South Vietnam. If he did, he would be in the same position Harry Truman was when he “lost” China.

By eliminating all the details of Kennedy’s withdrawal plan, Matthews can ignore the fact that this is just what Kennedy was prepared to do: lose South Vietnam. And he also ignores that this parallels his actions in the Bay of Pigs. There, he was not willing to use direct American power in the previously colonized Third World. He chose defeat.

As outlined above, the same standard applied in Vietnam. Kennedy was willing to commit advisers, for a period of time. He was willing to aid South Vietnam, but not to fight the war for them directly.

Secondly, Kennedy understood that losing South Vietnam was not in any way equivalent to losing China. Here, Matthews makes Kennedy sound like LBJ, who was obsessed with that idea. And this is one of the reasons that Johnson did what Kennedy would never have done: commit American combat troops to fight the war for South Vietnam.

Matthews then writes that the problem was President Diem. This is a very short-sighted and narrow view. The actual problem was that the U.S. should have never been there. But if Matthews admitted that, then he would have had to lay the blame where it belonged: at the feet of the Dulles brothers and President Eisenhower.

Instead, Matthews says Kennedy appointed Henry Cabot Lodge to be the new ambassador to Saigon because Lodge had no sentimental feelings toward Diem and he could make the crisis there a bipartisan one. As do many of the problems we have today in understanding Vietnam, this error about Lodge’s appointment began with David Halberstam’s rather obsolete book The Best and the Brightest.

Kennedy’s actual choice for the appointment to Saigon was Gullion. This was objected to by Secretary of State Dean Rusk, who wanted Lodge. (Douglass, p. 152)

Matthews then writes that Kennedy approved the Aug. 24, 1963, cable to Lodge authorizing the approval of a coup by the military against Diem. (Matthews, p. 387) Technically, this is true. But in all practical terms it is not. For, that weekend, while out of town, Kennedy had instructed State Department assistant Michael Forrestal that the cable had to be cleared in advance through proper channels. This included CIA Director John McCone. (Newman, p. 347)

Kennedy very likely said this because he knew that McCone favored Diem, and therefore would not approve the cable. Kennedy was then deceived by the cabal in the State Department — led by Averell Harriman — who wanted to get rid of Diem. This group claimed the cable had been properly cleared. It had not been, a deception that caused the cable to be sent. (ibid, p. 348)

When Kennedy returned to Washington and learned what had happened, he was enraged: “This shit has got to stop!” (Douglass, p. 164) Forrestal, who was one of the plotters, offered to resign. Kennedy snapped at him, “You’re not worth firing. You owe me something.” (ibid, p. 165)

But the problem was that Lodge was part of this secret plan. Therefore, he had shown the cable to the opposing military faction that Sunday night, before Kennedy got back. (Newman p. 350) And Lodge revised part of the cable. The original, the one read to Kennedy over the phone, said that Lodge should approach Diem first. He should ask him forcefully to remove his brother Nhu as the chief of security forces. Lodge did not do this. He instead went straight to the opposing generals. (ibid) The coup was now on.

My review could go on and on. Matthews’s book is essentially a cut-and-paste job. And it is a cut-and-paste job with a not very well disguised agenda, the one I described above: to paint Kennedy as a classic Cold Warrior. Which as the reader can see, he was not.

Biography is one of the most difficult literary categories to do well in. And when one writes a biography of a political figure who was controversial and unconventional, then the job becomes that much harder.

The task becomes impossible to do well if one is not willing to properly sketch in what came before him and what came after. Again, this is another grievous fault in Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero. Matthews tries to paint the Cold War in purely ideological terms. This is not accurate.

The battle for the Third World was not just fought over communist ideology. Belgium did not want to hang on to Congo simply because the Belgians thought Lumumba was a communist, for he was not. They wanted to hang on because Congo was immensely wealthy in valuable minerals and natural resources.

The Dutch did not want to hang on to Indonesia after World War II to keep it from the Soviet Union. They wanted to exploit its vast repository of oil, rubber and gold.

The Dulles brothers represented these kinds of interests when John Foster was managing partner and Allen was senior partner at the giant corporate law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell. Therefore, when they came to power under Eisenhower, they were eager to extend that representation to corporate clients as part of their public service.

So under Allen Dulles, the CIA got into both the assassination business and the coup d’état business. In short order, they represented the Anglo/American oil interests versus Iran’s nationalist Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. They represented United Fruit against Guatemala’s nationalist President Jacobo Arbenz.

The brothers then tried to overthrow Indonesia’s President Sukarno in 1958. After John Foster’s death in 1959, Eisenhower and Allen Dulles plotted to overthrow Castro and assassinate Lumumba.

This is the backdrop into which Kennedy, with his nationalistic and anti-imperialist views, ascended in 1961. And in that year he tried to turn around this Dulles-Eisenhower policy in Congo, Indonesia, Laos and Vietnam. And this is the real story that Matthews finds so elusive. Because he does not want to deal with it.

Professor Donald Gibson began his fine book Battling Wall Street with the various images the casual reader is presented of the figure of John Kennedy. He writes that not all of them can be accurate. If so, Kennedy would be a chameleon of the stature of Lon Chaney. But if one digs, and digs hard enough, a consistent baseline does emerge. And the historian can then begin his job from there.

As we have seen, Chris Matthews never found that baseline. In fact, the evidence I adduce here says he never wanted to find it. But other authors have.

Cable TV hosts are not cut out to be good biographers or historians. They simply don’t have the vision or the attention for detail that those two disciplines need in order to be of value. And they have an investment in not having those qualities. That way they keep up the ersatz liberal/conservative and Democrat/Republican debates.

In that light, a man as complex, unique and unconventional as John Kennedy was not suitable for the miniscule talents of Chris Matthews, whose stab at explaining John Kennedy tells us more about Matthews than it does John Kennedy or the United States. And that is about the worst thing one can say about a biography.

James DiEugenio is a researcher and writer on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and other mysteries of that era

David S. Lifton on January 4, 2012 at 12:39 am
I think this is a really good review and Chris Mathews ought to pay attention to what it says. The reason Mathews finds JFK “elusive” is because Mathews has failed to study his subject properly. JFK had an “anti-Colonial” worldview going back to the early 1950s, as set forth in the book “Ordeal in Africa.” I also agree with Theodore Sorensen that JFK kept us out of a nuclear war (over Cuba) and would certainly have pulled the plug in Vietnam had he lived. As I blurbed for John Newman’s book when it was first published (in 1993), the real tragedy in the Vietnam situation was that the only dove in the White House was John Kennedy, himself. Again and again, Kennedy turned down the military (as established in Virtual JFK). He paid for this with his life, in Dallas. Chris Mathews still doesn’t “get it.” He doesn’t understand what Kennedy’s policies were all about–and he certainly doesn’t understand what Dallas was all about. And that’s too bad–because if he would enlighten himself on these matters, he’s in a position to make a difference.

"Bureaucratic BS"- "The Kennedy Detail"

2012-01-04T04:32:00.000-08:00

1.0 out of 5 stars Please!, January 3, 2012
By GP BOOKS - See all my reviews
This review is from: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence (Hardcover)

Bureaucratic BS. Why don't those who believe in a lone gunman examine the most damning evidence? That being: how does the back of someones head blow off if they were shot from behind? Impossible! I bought this book on the recommendation of an employee of the Sixth Floor Gift Shop/Bookstore across the street from the Texas Bookstore Depository. What a letdown. When will people realize that the fatal shot could not possibly have come from the Depository. Shame on you Gerald Blaine for a book of lies and wasting my time.

CHIEFS/ DIRECTORS+JFK'S LIMO

2012-01-02T08:10:00.001-08:00

CHIEFS/ DIRECTORS (complete [22 to date]):
#1 William P. Wood (1865-5/5/1869)
#2 Herman C. Whitley (1869-1874)
#3 Elmer Washburn (1874-1876)
#4 James J. Brooks (1876-1888)
#5 John S. Bell (1888-1890)
#6 A.L. Drummond (1891-1894)
#7 William P. Hazen (1894-1898)
#8 John E. Wilkie (1898-1911)
#9 William J. Flynn (1912-1917)
#10 William Henry Moran (1917-1936)
#11 Frank J. Wilson (1/1/36-12/31/46) FDR/ Truman; Manchester, his own book; deceased
#12 James J. Maloney (1947-1948)
#13 U.E. Baughman (1948-1961)---his own book; deceased 11/78
#14 James J. Rowley (Sept. 1961-1973)---deceased 11/1/92
#15 H. Stuart "Stu" Knight (1973-1981)---retired
#16 John R. Simpson (1981-1992)---Director of U.S. Parole Commission
#17 John W. Magaw (2/2/1992-9/30/1993)---Director of ATF
#18 Eljay B. Bowron (12/7/1993-1997)---Inspector General for the Interior Department
#19 Lewis C. Merletti (6/6/97-11/12/98)---Director of security for the
Cleveland Browns
#20 Brian L. Stafford (3/4/99-2003)
#21 W. Ralph Basham (1/27/03-2006)
#22 Mark J. Sullivan (2006-
----------------------------------------
PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE (1961 MODIFIED STRETCH LINCOLN CONTINENTAL, SS-100-X, license # GG 300) AND SECRET SERVICE FOLLOW-UP CAR (1956 CADILLAC CONVERTIBLE, SS-679-X, A.KA. "THE QUEEN MARY," license # GG 678):
11/22/63 UP TO/INC. PARKLAND HOSPITAL- SS-100-X: DRIVEN BY SA WILLIAM R. GREER; SS-679-X: DRIVEN BY SA SAMUEL A. KINNEY;
PARKLAND HOSPITAL TO LOVE FIELD/ C-130 CARGO PLANE:
Kinney places bubbletop and fabric top on SS-100-X with the help of a DPD motorcycle officer; Hickey stands by; Kinney given permission to drive the cars back to Love Field by ASAIC (#3) Roy H. Kellerman
SS-100-X: DRIVEN BY SA GEORGE W. HICKEY, JR. WITH DALLAS SA JOHN JOE HOWLETT BESIDE HIM [Hickey would go on to drive the SS-679-X during the May 1964 Warren Commission reenactments, while Howlett participated in the Commission's Texas School Book Depository stairway reenactment] SS-679-X: DRIVEN BY SA SAMUEL A. KINNEY

C-130: KINNEY, HICKEY, SS-100-X. SS-679-X, + THE 76TH AIR TRANSPORT SQUADRON FROM CHARLESTON (S.C.) AIR FORCE BASE:
CAPT. ROLAND THOMASON (PILOT); WAYNE SCHAKE; VINCENT GULLO; HERSAL WOOSLEY; DAVID CONN; STEPHEN BENING; FRANK ROBERSON
(Kinney finds the back part of JFK's skull lying in the rear of the car and puts in a phone patch to Dr. Burkley aboard Air Force One hours before "official" limousine inspection)
CARS ARRIVED AT ANDREWS AFB AT 8:00 P.M.
Kellerman tells Chief James J. Rowley (also at AAFB) that the cars should be looked over; independent of this, ASAIC (#2) Floyd M. Boring (also at AAFB) and Deputy Chief Paul J. Paterni have the very same thoughts [note: Paterni would later become involved in the investigation of LHO's Income Tax Check, along with WFO SAIC Robert Powis (later, Asst. Dir. under Reagan), SAIC J. Leroy Lewis of the Forgery Section, and Dallas SAIC Forrest V. Sorrels]
CARS ARRIVE AT WHITE HOUSE GARAGE AT 9:00 P.M.:
KINNEY DROVE SS-100-X BACK TO GARAGE WITH WFO (Washington Field Office) AND FORMER LBJ AGENT CHARLES E. TAYLOR, JR. BESIDE HIM; HICKEY DROVE SS-679-X BACK TO GARAGE WITH WFO SA'S RICHARD "DICK" E. KEISER AND DONALD F. BRETT BESIDE HIM
"OFFICIAL" LIMOUSINE INSPECTION BEGINS AT 10:10 P.M.:
BORING, PATERNI, KINNEY+ REPRESENTATIVES FROM DR. BURKLEY'S OFFICE (PART OF THE WH MEDICAL STAFF):
CHIEF PETTY OFFICER WILLIAM MARTINELL; CHIEF PETTY OFFICER THOMAS MILLS
ALSO: TAYLOR, IN HIS REPORT TO WFO SAIC HARRY W. GEIGLEIN [CD 80], NOTES THAT HE SAW A "SMALL HOLE" IN THE WINDSHIELD OF SS-100-X (TAYLOR WAS THERE FROM 9:00 P.M. UNTIL 12 MID)
OTHERS WHO SAW/ KNEW OF HOLE:
CHICAGO SA ABRAHAM W. BOLDEN, SR- INTERVIEW 9/16/93; DPD OFFICERS STAVIS ELLIS AND H.R. FREEMAN- CFTR RADIO INTERVIEW, 1976; NEWSMEN RICHARD DUDMAN AND FRANK CORMIER- ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 12/1/63; SPECTATORS EVALEA GLANGES AND CARL RENAS- "JFK CONSPIRACY OF
SILENCE", PP. 105-106; NICK PRENCIPE, UNITED STATES PARK POLICE MOTORCYCLE OFFICER-“CAR CRASH CULTURE,” PAGES 171 & 173; TWO DIFFERENT CALLERS: TO THE "JIM BOHANNON" RADIO SHOW, 11/22/93, AND TO "LARRY KING" TV SHOW, JANUARY 1992.
OTHERS WHO NOTED OTHER THINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
SAIC GERALD A. BEHN- SKULL FOUND IN REAR SEAT (FBI/S&O INTERVIEW, 11/27/63); GREER- CLAIMED TO NOT NOTICE WINDSHIELD DAMAGE AND CHROME DENTING RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM UNTIL AN UNNAMED AGENT POINTED IT OUT TO HIM ON 11/23/63 (2 H 122); KELLERMAN- FELT WINDSHIELD ON 11/27/63, BUT IT "FEELS SMOOTH TODAY", 3/9/64 (2 H 89); SKULL IN REAR SEAT (2 H 85); FRAGMENTS (2 H 90); WH GARAGE SAIC MORGAN L. GIES- "THE DAY KENNEDY WAS SHOT" BY JIM BISHOP, P. 511, 1992 EDITION; CLINTON J. HILL- BACK OF SKULL IN REAR SEAT (2 H 141)

WHP (White House Police/ Uniformed Division of Secret Service) ON SECURITY:
J.W. EDWARDS; J.C. ROWE; [fnu] SNYDER (FROM 3:25 P.M. TO 11:25 P.M.); [fnu] RUBENSTAL (FROM 12:30 P.M. TO 11:00 P.M.); SGT. [fnu] BURKE (7:25 A.M. TO 11:00
P.M.); [fnu] EDMUNDS (11:25 P.M. TO 7:25 A.M.)
WFO AGENTS ON SECURITY:
KEISER (9:00 P.M. TO 12 MID) [Later, became SAIC of WHD, Nixon- Carter]; BRETT (9:00 P.M. TO 12 MID); GILBERT J. PARASCHOS (11/23: 12:01 A.M. TO 8:00 A.M.); MARTIN J. KENNEDY (11/23: 12:01 A.M. TO 8:00 A.M.); FRANK HANCOCK (11/23: 8:00 A.M. TO 12 NOON); CLAUDE E. DAVIS, JR (11/23: 8:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M.) [Originally from Charlotte, N.C. office; temporarily assigned to Dallas office 12/23/63 tp 2/2/64 (41 days)] VICTOR J.
GONZALEZ (11/23: 12:00 P.M. TO 5:00 P.M.); JOHN R. SIMPSON (11/23: 4:00 P.M. TO 5:00 P.M.) [Later, SAIC of WHD, Carter era; Director of Secret Service, 1981 to 1992]
FBI INSPECTION BEGINS AT 1:00 A.M. 11/23/63: [SEE 5H71]
ORRIN H. BARTLETT (1:05 A.M. TO 1:55 A.M)- DROVE LIMO OUT OF THE GARAGE BIN A FEW FEET; CHARLES L. KILLIAN (1:05 A.M. TO 4:35 A.M.); CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM (SAME AS ABOVE); ROBERT A. FRAZIER (SAME AS ABOVE); WALTER E. THOMAS (SAME AS ABOVE)
PRS SAIC ROBERT I. BOUCK- CONTACTED BY GONZALEZ; BY REQUEST, MISC. DEBRIS ON REAR FLOOR OF LIMO SENT TO WFO
PRS PHOTOGRAPHERS JAMES "JACK" K. FOX AND HOWARD K. NORTON
(NORTON HAD BEEN IN AUSTIN ON 11/22)- PHOTOGRAPHED SS-100-X AT 4:00 P.M. ON 11/23/63

Limo Clean-Up/ Secret Service actions re: limo at Parkland Hospital:
1) "TheWay We Were-1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot" by Robert MacNeil (1988, Carrol & Graf), p. 197:"The president's car was there [Parkland Hospital], still at the point where it had pulled up, and they had taken the president out into that emergency entrance...I remember that the Secret Service men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK SEAT OF THE BIG LINCOLN THE PRESIDENT WAS PUT IN, and a few minutes later they started putting the fabric top on it. And when I went over to look at it a little closer, one of the agents waved me aside and said, 'You can't look.' Later, of course, it seemed ironic that this wall of protection went up when it of course could do no good..."
2) 21 H 226: Parkland Hospital Orderly Joe L. Richards: asked to get a bucket of water; he complied.
3) 21 H 217: Nurse Shirley Randall: was asked if she "would get someone to come and wash the blood out of the car." She said that she would, but was so nervous and excited she forgot about it.
4) "Time" Magazine, 11/29/63, p. 24---reporter Hugh Sidey: "A guard was set up around the Lincoln as Secret Service men got a pail of water and tried to wash the blood from the car."
5) ABC, 11/22/63---reporter Don Gardner:"Outside the hospital, blood had to be wiped from the limousine";
6) "New York Times", 11/23/63, p. 2---reporter Tom Wicker:"...the police were guarding the Presidential car closely. A bucket of water stood by the car, suggesting that the back seat had been scrubbed out."
7) "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" by Jim Bishop, p. 352 [1992 edition]: "...the Secret Service detail was sorry that hospital orderlies had sponged it [the limousine] out."
8) "The Death of a President" by William Manchester, p. 180n [1988 edition]: "An inaccurate [?] story reported that they washed out the back seat with a bucket of water. Actually, this was contemplated."
9) "That Day In Dallas" by Richard Trask (1998), page 35 [based off a 7/10/85 interview with Stoughton; same as page 42 of Trask's "Pictures of the Pain"]---"[Cecil] Stoughton recalls that a man was washing the seat "with a cloth, and he had a bucket. There was blood all over the seat, and flower petals and stuff on the floor." On page 37 there is a Stoughton photo with the caption "A bucket at his feet, an agent [Kinney] is seen leaning into the back seat of the Lincoln cleaning up some of the gore." [Same photo, without this caption, appears on page 41 of "Pictures Of The Pain"];
10) "Pictures of The Pain" by Richard Trask (1994), pages 377 and 383 [based off a 5/23/85 interview with Thomas Craven, Jr.]---"The Secret Service cleaning the blood out of the car---the flowers still lying in the back seat---and just chaos until the police figured out what was happening, and then they started to push us off."
11)-12) 18 H 731-732---SS Agent Sam Kinney; 18 H 763-764---SS Agent George Hickey:
The two agents who put on the bubbletop---with the assistance of a DPD motorcycle officer---at Parkland: they are pictured in the infamous photos/films of the bucket beside the limousine: "JFK Assassination File" by DPD Chief Jesse Curry, p. 36 (see also p. 34: same photo, different angle in UPI's "Four Days", p. 25); Texas News newsreel ("Kennedy In Texas" video); WFAA/ ABC video 11/22/63; Cooper/ Sturges film; "Reasonable Doubt" by Henry Hurt (1985), p. 84;
13) 10/14/98 letter to Vince Palamara from Henry Burroughs--- “The limousines that had carried the Presidential party and the Vice-Presidential party were askew. An agent with a stainless steel hospital bucket was cleaning up the rear seat of the President's limousine. Flowers were strewn over rear seats of both limos.”
14) DPD Bobby Joe Dale---"No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), pp. 135-136"…the President was on the gurney beside the car, and they were wheeling him in. At that time, it was obvious that nobody could have survived a wound like that…Blood and matter was everywhere inside the car including a bone fragment which was oblong shaped, probably an inch to an inch and a half long by three-quarters of an inch wide. As I turned it over and looked at it, I determined that it came from some part of the forehead because there was hair on it which appeared to be near the hairline. There were other fragments around, but that was the largest piece that grabbed my attention. What stood out in my mind was that there was makeup up to the hairline. Apparently he had used makeup for the cameras to knock down the glare. It was fairly distinct where it stopped and the wrap of skin took up. Other than that, nobody messed with anything inside the car in any manner, shape, or form. Nobody said, "Clean this up!" We then put the top up and secured it."
15) 2/26/78 HSCA interview of Kinney—“someone wanted to wash the (Presidential) car [at Parkland]. I said no one touch.”
16) 18 H 801: Hurchel Jacks, Texas Highway Patrolman assigned to drive LBJ’s car in Dallas motorcade---“ We were assigned by the [Secret Service] to prevent any pictures of any kind to be taken of the President’s car or the inside.” 8/31/98 letter to author from Mrs. H.D. (Bobbie) Jacks, widow of Hurchel Jacks (Jacks passed away 12/19/95): “…he guarded Kennedy’s car to make sure that no photos were taken.” (See also “Encyclopedia of the JFK Assassination,” page 121)
17) CD 3 Exhibits: Milton Wright, Texas Highway Patrolman assigned to drive Mayor Cabell’s car in the Dallas motorcade---“…we were instructed to keep the news media away from the car.”
18) DPD James W. Courson & DPD Stavis Ellis---told author Larry Sneed about an incident whereupon a Secret Service agent destroyed the film of a young boy who took pictures of the limousine at Parkland [“No More Silence”, pages 130 & 148].

Skull Fragments:
FIRST LADY JACKIE KENNEDY---5 H 180 / testimony [see also "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams (1974), pp. 138-139: what comes from the unedited transcript is in parentheses]---“And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull (sort of wedge-shaped like that), and I remember it was flesh colored (with little ridges at the top). I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything. And then he sort of did this [indicating], put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap… [Reference to wounds deleted]”---! 4/11/72 declassified testimony excerpts (as reproduced in “Post Mortem” by Harold Weisberg, pp. 380-381 [Groden quotes this in the program “JFK: An Unsolved Murder”, KRON, 11/18/88, which was repeated in “JFK: The Case for Conspiracy” video 1993,as well as "The Killing of a President", p. 38)---“I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.” 1/29/63 interview with writer Theodore H. White: his notes released 5/26/95---"I could see a piece of his skull coming off; it was flesh colored not white---he was holding out his hand---and I can see this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap…” SAIC GERALD A. BEHN- SKULL FOUND IN REAR SEAT (FBI/S&O INTERVIEW, 11/27/63)[Behn: 9/27/92 interviews (3) by Vince Palamara; deceased 4/93]; KELLERMAN-; SKULL IN REAR SEAT (2H85); CLINTON J. HILL- BACK OF SKULL IN REAR SEAT (2H141); THREE pieces of skull found by none other than ASAIC FLOYD BORING during the "official" Secret Service limousine inspection late on 11/22/63(CD 80. p.3), four hours before the FBI did the same- this is separate from the finding made by Kinney on the C-130 will en route to Andrews Air Force Base; the “Harper fragment” CD 5, pp. 150-151, CD 1269 and FBI 89-43-479 (11/25/63); DPD STAVIS ELLIS: 9/8/98 letter to Vince Palamara---"Yes, I did see a hole in the limousine windshield at Parkland Hospital. I did not see the bone fragment. The officer on the escort with me said there was one fragment, approximately 6 or 7 inches around." DPD BOBBY JOE DALE:"No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), pp.135-136"…the President was on the gurney beside the car, and they were wheeling him in. At that time, it was obvious that nobody could have survived a wound like that…Blood and matter was everywhere inside the car including a bone fragment which was oblong shaped, probably an inch to an inch and a half long by three-quarters of an inch wide. As I turned it over and looked at it, I determined that it came from some part of the forehead because there was hair on it which appeared to be near the hairline. There were other fragments around, but that was the largest piece that grabbed my attention. What stood out in my mind was that there was makeup up to the hairline. Apparently he had used makeup for the cameras to knock down the glare. It was fairly distinct where it stopped and the wrap of skin took up. Other than that, nobody messed with anything inside the car in any manner, shape, or form. Nobody said, "Clean this up!" We then put the top up and secured it." DPD JAMES W. COURSON: "No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), pp. 127-131+photos] "The driver immediately got out into the center lane with me on his left rear and another officer on the right. Mrs. Kennedy had, by that time, gotten back down in the seat and was holding the President's head in her lap. I was able to see that his head was horribly mangled. Skull, brain, and blood material was all along the seat…Flowers were scattered all around the car… Two other officers and I helped take the President out of the car and put him onto the stretcher. From what I was able to see of the wound, the damage seemed to be in the right rear of his head, but it was hard to tell because there was so much blood. The back part of the skull seemed to be laying over the forehead. I didn't actually see an exit wound since I saw only the back part of his head”; DPD H.B. McCLAIN: "No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p.164: "I figured at the time that the wound was fatal. Part of the skull was laying on the floorboard. Blood and brain material was splattered all over as if a ripe watermelon had been dropped. It was a pretty gory scene." FBI AGENTS SIBERT & O’NEILL AT THE AUTOPSY +FBI AGENT VINCENT E. DRAIN: "No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), p. 246 "When I arrived in the trauma room, the doctors were working with President Kennedy. They were trying to do what they could to stop the gurgling sound he was making by performing a tracheotomy on him. Despite the fact, as I later learned, that he was dead, his body reflexes were still working. I wasn't up close to the body, but I could still see fairly well the large amount of blood from the head wound. The head was badly damaged from the lower right base across the top extending across the top of the ear. It appeared to me as though the bullet traveled upward and had taken off the right portion of his skull. It may have been the security officer or one of the other officers who gave me a portion of the skull which was about the size of a teacup, much larger than a silver dollar. Apparently the explosion had jerked it because the hair was still on it. I carried that back to Washington later that night and turned it over to the FBI laboratory."3 DEPUTY SHERIFFS SEYMOUR WEITZMAN: found a small piece of skull in the plaza---7 H 107; JACK FAULKNER: "No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), pp. 215-223+photos: page 216] "As we were crossing Elm Street, [A.D.] McCurley picked up a white piece of bone near the north curb. He asked me, "Do you suppose that could be part of his skull?" I said, "There's no blood on it," and he put it down. Later, we got to thinking, and somebody said your skull doesn't necessarily have to be touching something that's bloody. We went back and looked for it later but never found it. To this day, I believe it was a piece of John Kennedy's skull." AND AL MADDOX: "No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), pp. 507, 517+photo: page 509] "…I also saw human tissue lying in the street which was being wiped and cleaned up at the time. That was right about where the President was said to have been hit. I also saw one of the motorcycle officers who was splattered with blood." 3 SPECTATORS---CHARLES BREHM: saw the skull fragment fly back and to the left of where he was standing---: NBC 11/22/63 (familiar newsreel interview); Mark Lane “Rush To Judgment” film 1967 (clip repeated in Lane’s “Two Men In Dallas” video); DPD JOE CODY: "No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), page467: "…we jumped in our car and arrived at the scene where Kennedy was shot and killed in just three or four minutes. By that time, it was probably ten minutes after the shooting. While we were there, I searched the plaza and found a bone lying in the gutter that apparently came out of the back of the President's head." AND POSTAL INSPECTOR HARY HOLMES: "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, p. 213 (based off an early 1970's interview)--- "A postal inspector [Holmes] picked up a piece of skull from the Elm St. pavement. He said it was as “...big as the end of my finger..." Furthermore, it was one of many: "...there was just pieces of skull and bone and corruption all over the place..." He later discarded it [!]"

2011: what a year! (and please "View My Complete Profile" for MANY more blogs!)

2011-12-29T15:13:00.000-08:00

194 BLOGS IN 2011-INCREDIBLE! More than the last two years COMBINED (for those doing the math, 123+68=191)...and almost DOUBLE the first three years combined (13+19+68=100)...and that is NOT including all the many NEW blog sites I created.

Let's see: I heard from Mark Lane, then I appear in his great book; I hear from (my favorite) former agent Robert DeProspero and, later, his daughter-and current Secret Service employee-Robin---quite a thrill for me (and my name was added to the nomination for a prestigious award in Bob's honor!!!); former agent Dan Emmett seeks out my input for his forthcoming book (read on); I appear in several other books; my PA Cable Access show continues from 2010 into early 2011; I visit Washington D.C. and the White House; many more videos were produced for my booming You Tube channel; and my C-SPAN appearance from November 2010 is shown at least one more time in 2011. Pretty damn good.

Alas, it's ultimately not about QUANTITY, but QUALITY. I hope I have achieved a good measure of that here. And yes: it is quite obvious that the news of the forthcoming publication of Gerald Blaine's "The Kennedy Detail" [Nov 2010] in late 2009 was the reason for the sharp spike in blog activity from that point onward...that and Gerald Blaine's attorney sending me that pesky letter LOL :)

The coming year promises a whole lot, as well: my C-SPAN "sparring partner", former agent Clint Hill, is coming out with a book entitled "Mrs. Kennedy & Me" in May (co-written with "Kennedy Detail" co-author Lisa McCubbin); former agent and newfound friend Dan Emmett is coming out with his outstanding book "Within Arm's Length" in late January (my positive blurb will be on the cover and, among many former agents who will read the book, President Clinton is getting a copy, as well); author David Wayne's book should be out (using my research materials); and a whole lot more.

HAVE A SAFE AND HAPPY NEW YEAR! ALL THE BEST IN 2012 AND BEYOND! :o)

Vince Palamara :O)

MARK LANE’S BOOK, LAST WORD, PRAISED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEWERS AND LEGAL EXPERTS

2011-12-27T15:34:00.000-08:00

MARK LANE’S BOOK, LAST WORD, PRAISED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEWERS AND LEGAL EXPERTS

6 Dec, 2011 05:18 CET

CENSORED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA

Last Word, written by the leading JFK assassination historian and the author of the number one New York Times bestselling book, Rush to Judgment, that refuted the Warren Commission Report and changed the way Americans understood the assassination, has been unanimously lauded by independent reviewers and by legal experts in the field.

The Hartford Book Examiner wrote:

Last Word was released earlier this month, and has since created quite a bit of buzz among readers…. Lane’s “first book, Rush to Judgment, has been credited with changing America’s perception of the Warren Report and resulting in skepticism of unproven governmental assertions.” In a recent interview with examiner.com, Lane states, “it is in its analysis of all of the relevant factors, from former President Truman's warning and fears about the growing power of the CIA published in The New York Times one month to the day after the assassination of President Kennedy, to the facts establishing that a then secret group within the CIA engaged in planning assassinations of heads of state was also responsible for creating and distributing Secret Service credentials used by that organization for President Kennedy's visit to Dallas, that the book (Last Word) makes its contribution to the record.

Read the interview in its entirety:

http://www.examiner.com/books-in-hartford/last-word#ixzz1emWgAs47
The review published by the Library Journal Xpress follows:

Attorney Lane (Rush to Judgment) has since 1966 relentlessly challenged the Warren Commission Report's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald solely murdered President Kennedy. Here, Lane sums up his lifetime investigations that conclude that the CIA, not Oswald, killed Kennedy because of JFK's peace overtures to Vietnam and Cuba and for his plan to replace the CIA with an organization that would not operate like a separate government. The author, who is no crackpot conspiracy honcho and presents his case in a disturbingly convincing manner, also deems that special agents framed and killed Oswald. Lane's … spirited defense of Abraham Bolden's The Echo from Dealey Plaza, with its claims that a racist and lax security detail led to Kennedy's death, is gripping.

Verdict: Both readers who have followed the JFK assassination for years and those new to one of the great debates of the 20th century will find much to contemplate here; but despite Lane's title, this will not be the "last word" on the assassination. — Karl Helicher, Upper Merion Twp. Lib., King of Prussia, PA

The foremost authority in the United States on the question of the Secret Service and the assassination of President Kennedy, Vince Palamara, wrote:

Attorney Mark Lane thoroughly destroys Gerald Blaine & Lisa McCubbin's book "The Kennedy Detail": on the merit of this alone, every person who purchased and/or read that book needs to read this as the antidote. Lane saves his best JFK work for last with his appropriately titled tome "The Last Word", a book that joins Jim Douglass "JFK & The Unspeakable" and Douglas Horne's 5-volume series "Inside The Assassination Records Review Board" in the "holy troika" of essential, must-read (and own) Kennedy assassination books. Lane skillfully takes apart Vincent Bugliosi's magnum opus on the Oswald-did-it side entitled "Reclaiming History" and, most of all, Gerald Blaine's fraudulent "JFK-told-us-not-to" book "The Kennedy Detail"---for the latter, Lane used my research materials, for which I am most grateful. In addition, Lane adds further credibility to the tale of former Secret Service Agent Abraham Bolden and his book "The Echo From Dealey Plaza." It never ceases to amaze me how much great literature and research has come forth in the last 5-10 years. Mark Lane's book "The Last Word" adds to his legacy greatly. Get this one asap---Bugliosi, Blaine, and the CIA have a lot to answer for! Highly recommended; fantastic!— Vince Palamara, Secret Service Expert

The most prominent former prosecutor, Robert K. Tanenbaum, who ran the Homicide Bureau for the District Attorney’s Office in New York, reviewed Last Word. Tanenbaum was also chosen to investigate the Kennedy assassination by the United States Congressional Committee, the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Tanenbaum concluded:

Lane’s Last Word reveals his courageous challenge to the Warren Commission report and his scathing critique of unconscionable CIA outrages. The penetrating accuracy of his reportage may be measured by the personal attacks he endured that were orchestrated by upper-echelon rogue CIA operatives…. Whether one agrees with Mark Lane’s conclusions or not, everyone should read Last Word. His courageous efforts, his scholarly research and remarkable advocacy are a tribute to his enormous capacity to seek the truth. We are all better people because of that he has done.
Last Word is the most important book ever written about the assassination of JFK. More than that, it is one of the most important books written about where we are as a nation and what we are required to do to save our democracy.

Yet, apparently because Last Word demonstrated the role of the CIA in the murder of President Kennedy, the establishment television programs and establishment book reviewers have neither commented about the book nor permitted Lane to be heard. A possible explanation appears in Last Word in a CIA dispatch to book reviewers and the media stating that Lane’s work in this area should be censored. That document, no longer Top Secret, is published in Last Word.

For more information or to schedule a speaking engagement with Mr. Lane, contact Sue Herndon (sue@marklane.com).

Skyhorse Publishing, November, 2011. Available on Amazon.com, BarnesandNoble.com, and wherever fine books are sold.

Contact Sue Herndon (sue@marklane.com) for more information or to schedule a speaking engagement with Mr. Lane.

Special Agent In Charge (SAIC) of White House Detail (WHD), later known as the Presidential Protective Division (PPD)

2011-12-22T12:34:00.001-08:00

Special Agent In Charge (SAIC) of White House Detail (WHD), later known as the Presidential Protective Division (PPD)---***compiled*** by Vince Palamara

The Associated Press, 7/18/98: "[Larry] Cockell is one of only 24 special agents to be in charge of the presidential protective division since it started in 1901 and is the first black to hold the job."--- SAIC's [24 from 1901 to 1999]:

1 Joseph E. Murphy (Teddy Roosevelt [1901]-Taft; became Asst. Chief in 1919 under Wilson)

2 Dick Jervis Wilson; his asst.: Col. Edmund W. Starling)

3 Col. Edmund W. Starling (1935; ASAIC: Michael F. Reilly; his own book "Starling of the White House")

4 Michael F. Reilly (1943-1946/47; had been ASAIC 1941-1943, along with Guy H. Spaman and Thomas J. Qualters; his own book "Reilly of the White House")

5 George C. Drescher (joined the Secret Service in 1919; worked in the Philadelphia, and Washington field offices; SAIC 4/12/45-5/3/46 when replaced by Rowley; 5/46: SAIC of Baltimore office; retired in 1953; Herbert Hoover Library 6/1/67; mentioned by Boring and Rowley during their Truman Library Oral Histories in 1988; deceased; nephew Earl L. Drescher became the deputy chief of the Executive Protective Service in the late 1970's)

6 James J. Rowley (1946-Sept. 1961; during late Ike into early JFK era: Behn & Campion: ASAIC; Boring, Kellerman, Stout & Roberts: ATSAIC) ; became Director 1961-1973; Secret Service training facility in Beltsville, MD named after Rowley

7 Gerald A. Behn (Sept. 1961-Jan. 1965; ASAIC's: Boring, Campion [replaced by Kellerman 10/62], and Kellerman; after 11/22/63, ASAIC's inc. Youngblood; ATSAIC's: Roberts, Godfrey, & Stout)

8 Rufus W. Youngblood (Jan. 1965; ASAIC's: Kellerman [2] + Johns & Taylor); later, became an Asst. Director

9 Thomas "Lem" Johns (Fall 1965; ASAIC: Robert H. Taylor); son later served on PPD

10 Clinton J. Hill (Approx. 1966-1968; Became SAIC of V.P. Agnew's Detail in 1969); later, bnecame an Asst. Director; on "60 Minutes" 12/75 and 11/93; "The Secret Service", 1995; "Inside The Secret Service", 1995; "Inside The U.S. Secret Service", 2004; Larry King, 2006

11 Robert H. Taylor (LBJ & NIXON: 1969-Feb. 1973/Nixon; ASAIC: William L. Duncan)

12Richard E. Keiser (Feb. 1973-1978; Nixon, Ford [Keiser bore a resemblance to Ford], Carter; ASAIC: Warren "Woody" Taylor; ASAIC of V.P. Detail: David B. Grant; Ronald M. Pontius; Robert L. Kollar: was ASAIC of Ford Detail in 1978)

13John R. Simpson (Carter) later, became Director; "Inside The Secret Service", 1995

14Gerald S. Parr (Carter-Reagan; ATSAIC: Ray Shaddick; ASAIC: Robert DeProspero; SAIC of Nancy Reagan's Detail: George Opfer); "The Secret Service", 1995; "Inside The Secret Service", 1995; Larry King 1998; "Inside The U.S. Secret Service", 2004; etc.

15Robert DeProspero (Reagan, Jan. 1982-approx. April 1985; pictured on pages 110, 111, 114, 122, 123, 126, & 127 of AFAUSSS book from 1991; later, became the Assistant to the Director [Simpson]; ASAIC: Joe Petro) see this wikipedia which I created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_DeProspero

16Ray Shaddick (Reagan/ Bush)

17John W. Magaw (Bush) later, became Director

18Rich "Skip" Miller (Bush/ Clinton); later, became an Assistant Director; pictured in Petro's book and President Bill Clinton's book

19David Carpenter (Clinton) ; "Inside The U.S. Secret Service", 2004; pictured in President Bill Clinton's book

20Don Flynn (Clinton); "Inside The U.S. Secret Service", 2004; pictured in President Bill Clinton's book

21Lewis C. Merletti (Clinton; appears in "The Secret Service" video 1995[un-credited]); later, became Director; pictured in President Bill Clinton's book

22Brian L. Stafford (Clinton); later, became Director; "Inside The U.S. Secret Service", 2004; pictured in President Bill Clinton's book

23Larry Cockell (Clinton; testified before Kenneth Starr's investigation into the Monica Lewinsky matter); later, became an Assistant Director; "Inside The U.S. Secret Service", 2004; ; pictured in President Bill Clinton's book

24 Carl Truscott

Eddie Marinzel

Nick Trotta (at least since 2004 to the present [2007]; George W. Bush)

Don White

Joe Clancy (Obama)

Vic Erevia (Obama)

From Dale Thorn's review of Mark Lane's excellent book "The Last Word"

2011-12-21T16:03:00.001-08:00

BOOK THREE - The Secret Service (Chapters 14 to 19):

I thought by now I had read everything on the JFK assassination, especially about the rather obvious and visible Secret Service. Be prepared for some surprises. Where the Warren Commission glossed over the Secret Service "failures" the day of the assassination, the HSCA set the record straighter: "No actions were taken by the agent in the right front seat of the Presidential limousine to cover the President..." In fact, the two agents in the President's car and the eight agents in the car immediately behind the President did nothing between the first shot and the final shot more than six seconds later. By contrast, the agents in the Vice-President's car acted immediately on the first shot to protect the Vice-President, jumping on him and covering him completely.

A fascinating tidbit I had been unaware of is that 11 of the most experienced members of the White House Secret Service detail were transferred to other assignments in the 60 days preceding the assassination. There is no explanation for that as far as I know.

One former Secret Service member, Gerald Blaine wrote the book The Kennedy Detail in 2009, endorsing the Warren Report and offering explanations for the behaviors of the various agents the day of the assassination, although Blaine was not in Dallas that day. Errors and omissions abound in Blaine's book, among which are not knowing the nature of Drew Pearson's employment or reputation when they dismissed his newspaper column criticizing the Secret Service on December 1, 1963. Worse is Blaine's assertion that Pearson got it all wrong in his column about the agents' behavior the night before the assassination, when Pearson stated that the agents were out drinking until the wee hours of the morning.

Blaine's accusations against former agent Abraham Bolden are also telling, where Blaine states that there was no corroboration of any of Bolden's stories about the Secret Service and the virulent racism he encountered there. According to Mark Lane, Blaine states several times in his book that there was never a hint of racism in the Secret Service, although nearly 10 years before Blaine's book the Washington Post reported that a number of African-American Secret Service agents had applied to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to file a class action lawsuit against the Secret Service for racial discrimination. In 2007, National Public Radio reported that "58 African-American Secret Service agents issued sworn statements in a class action lawsuit claiming racial discrimination by the agency."

In memoriam: Robert R. Faison, 1929-2011

2011-12-17T11:11:00.000-08:00

In memoriam: Robert R. Faison, 1929-2011

By Robin Rose Parker, Published: December 15

In the spring of 1963, Special Agent Robert R. Faison was permanently assigned to President John Kennedy’s Secret Service protection detail. For any agent, rising to this elite level was an undeniable achievement, but for Faison, as the first African American to hold this post, it was groundbreaking [he was NOT: ABRAHAM BOLDEN beat him by 2+ years...unless she means "permanently", then that is acceptable]. Hardworking and strongly convinced, as he told his son, that a black man must push to be better than average, Faison reached this position by employing the same determination that made him one of the youngest first sergeants in the Korean War at the age of 22.

Faison was hired by the Secret Service in 1962 and by the next year quickly promoted to the ultimate assignment: protecting the president. Still, he was not exempt from America’s harsh racial climate. He received the prestigious appointment the same year that four black girls were killed in the Birmingham bombing; the same year civil rights activist Medgar Evers was murdered. It was also the year the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.

As one of the first black men ever hired as a special agent [others: CHARLIE GITTENS, ABRAHAM BOLDEN, CONRAD CROSS], he faced challenges being perceived as an equal among peers. He learned that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover questioned Kennedy on the wisdom of trusting his life to a black man. And for Faison, traveling also proved difficult. The night before Kennedy was assassinated, the protection detail checked into the Hotel Texas in Fort Worth to await Kennedy’s arrival from Dallas. A clerk told them they would have to make other arrangements for the Negro, according to Gerald Blaine, a former special agent and co-author of the book “The Kennedy Detail.” One of the agents informed the hotel clerk that if Faison couldn’t stay, the detail wouldn’t stay, and if they didn’t, neither would Kennedy. The clerk quickly changed his mind.

While Faison had close relationships with his wife and two sons, his professional life was largely a mystery to his family and friends. They asked him about the presidents he protected, but Faison refused to answer. He kept piles of career mementos that begged for accompanying stories, such as a signed photograph of Jacqueline Kennedy or the picture of Faison running alongside President Lyndon Johnson’s motorcade. But his sons learned to be satisfied with shirts brought home from around the world — and no details.

In 1995, cancer claimed Faison’s first wife, Dorothy. Two years later, he married Jacquelyn McGee. “Coming into his life in the last 16 years, I had a lot of questions,” she says. “I learned early on in my relationship with him that there were some things that he was simply not going to talk about.” His reticence, however, never created problems for his conversations; people found him easy to talk to. “He would much rather listen than speak,” Jacquelyn Faison says. “He always gave you the chance to talk about yourself, rather than for him to talk.”

Though Faison was reluctant to share the particulars of his professional life, it was clear that he loved his work. In fact, he had difficulty transitioning into retirement. For weeks after leaving his position in 1982, he continued to get up in the morning and dress for business, sitting around the house in a shirt and tie. It wasn’t long before he returned to the Secret Service, where he spent the next several years as a contractor, conducting background investigations for prospective agents from his basement office.

Former Secret Service agent gives perspective on terrorism, assassinations

2011-12-12T04:35:00.000-08:00

Former Secret Service agent gives perspective on terrorism, assassinations
By Andrew Benore | Dec 10, 2011

Courtesy of: Camden Public Library
Tom McCarthy is a retired U.S. Secret Service agent who also provided training to security forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Israel and the Philippines. Terrorism and assassinations can change the world’s balance of power, and alter the course of history. Tom McCarthy, a former Secret Service agent who retired to Camden, recently taught a class and delivered presentations on those topics.

He brings a “personal perspective” to the talks as a former agent and someone who has traveled with the U.S. State Department to the world’s hot spots to provide training for security forces. He recently discussed his thoughts in a phone interview.

“It’s not just Iraq and Afghanistan,” McCarthy said. “You’ve got places like Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers, the southern Philippines with Abu Sayyaf — all locations where I’ve trained at. You’re around the atmosphere that would lend a sense of flavor and maybe a little bit of credibility in terms of what you’re talking about.”

McCarthy is not the only person living in Camden with those experiences, and that may be part of the reason he moved to the Midcoast town. He can find neighbors with similar service backgrounds at the monthly meetings of the Mid-Coast Forum on Foreign Relations and the Camden Conference.

For his presentations and classes, McCarthy goes back to his nearly 25 years of Secret Service experience with investigations and 15 years of training security forces around the world. He takes that background and applied it to current reading and research to make his assessment on issues such as security, threats, violence, power and politics.

Terror seems to rock Iraq and Afghanistan on a regular basis, while attacks on U.S. soil have been more rare but more severe. Obviously, it is easier for al-Qaida to strike close to where it is based. But there are parallels to terrorism abroad and at home: Where the training comes from, financing source, indoctrination, and the motivations.

McCarthy discussed Faisal Shahzad, who is accused of trying to blow up a bomb in a Nissan Pathfinder in Times Square. Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen who worked for several years in Connecticut, traveled to Pakistan prior to the terror plot where he reportedly received training from the Taliban.

“The worry is we’re going to see more and more homegrown terrorists and once you have that you’ve got a dynamic there that’s difficult to deal with investigatively,” McCarthy said. “They’re not looking to subvert the situation in terms of access because they’re already here.”

In McCarthy’s terrorism presentation, he discusses n radical Islamic fundamentalism. One of the anecdotes he told was based on his experience talking about that subject in an undisclosed Middle Eastern country. He said a student in that class asked — in Arabic, through a translator — if a Christian who was killing people in the name of a Christian god would still be considered a Christian.

That student told McCarthy he doesn’t consider violent fundamentalists to be Muslim because there is nothing in the Koran that would justify killing innocent people in the name of God.

“It was interesting,” McCarthy said. “You’re not going to change the perception and the labeling on the part of the West — it’s still going to be radical Islamic fundamentalism…. But it was interesting to hear this guy’s perspective and it was enlightening to me.”

To McCarthy, this human rights/understanding/teaching is a big deal. He said government-sponsored classes taught overseas have a requirement by the State Department to incorporate human rights lessons.

“That’s a pretty tough situation, in light of our history, especially Abu Ghraib,” McCarthy said, referring to the abuse of prisoners at the hands of American personnel at the Iraqi prison.

“When you go out there and you demean somebody, when you torture somebody, you’re on thin ice. You’ve made an enemy forever,” McCarthy said. “If you humiliate somebody, that person is a force-multiplier — whomever they contact, there is no way they are going to be saying anything good about the U.S.”

He noted that some candidates running for their party’s nomination for president have said it is acceptable to use water-boarding as part of interrogations. It is a contradiction: On one hand the U.S. wants to win hearts and minds; on the other, prominent politicians advocate torture.

“I make a case for human rights not only being ethical, but an absolute element of pragmatism in terms of the image we’re projecting around the world,” McCarthy said.

He said al-Qaida’s message is bolstered when, for example, interrogators flush the Koran down the toilet.

More than 10 years ago, the U.S. launched the global war on terror. But terrorism is a tactic — “the use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate and subjugate,” according to the dictionary. So how does the U.S. fight terror?

“You fight terrorism asymmetrically,” McCarthy said. As a veteran of the Vietnam War, he saw how the Viet Cong used guerrilla warfare strategies to defeat a larger, conventional force.

“Terrorism is a tactic of the weak against the strong,” McCarthy said. “If you look at any insurgency, they’re not concerned about winning battles. Al-Qaida in Afghanistan will never win a conventional battle.”

He said battles are second to the insurgent’s message, and their goal is to collapse the moral will of the people in the U.S.

In McCarthy’s presentation on assassination, he talked about the history and effect a killing has on a country. He mentioned Ahmed Wali Karzai, half-brother to Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Two assassinations that dramatically affected the Middle East were the killings of Anwar al-Sadat in 1981 and Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, he said.

“Both of those individuals were big players in terms of some sense of reconciliation,” McCarthy said. “They had the charisma and the will. These people really were heroes because they put themselves in the line of fire. They paid the ultimate price.”

The killing of President John F. Kennedy raises similar questions: Would the Vietnam War have escalated if JFK was not assassinated?

One of the last people McCarthy was assigned to protect was the president of Rwanda while he was in the U.S. About six months after that protection detail ended, the plane carrying Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana was shot down in Africa. Genocide followed the death of the Rwandan president.

“Again, it’s the consequence of assassination and what that can generate in terms of anger — the spark that just goes crazy,” McCarthy said.

McCarthy was also assigned to President Gerald Ford, and stood post for politicians of the Watergate era.

Now retired, McCarthy said he wanted to contribute something interesting, something of substance. Terrorism will continue to be an issue, he said. It will also affect how the country responds to conflicts throughout the world.

“One of the things I worry about is we may be confronted with situations that we really need to be involved in based on vital interests that we may back away from because of the frame of reference from Afghanistan and Iraq,” McCarthy said. “The reason we didn’t go into Rwanda — the frame of reference there was Somalia. Black Hawk down.”

McCarthy mentioned a prominent theme of the 2010 Camden Conference: Using soft power (diplomacy) and hard power (military might) in the right balance. Otherwise, instability (from global warming or population imbalances or who gets the most resources) will feed into al-Qaida's plan to "harness somebody’s anger," McCarthy said.

“Unfortunately, with the world the way it is, terrorism is never going to go away,” McCarthy said. “The best we can do is make the right choices, use our power in a smart fashion, use hard power and soft power, and use it proportionately so it translates to smart power.”

McCarthy isn’t going to write a tell-all book about the things he saw in the Secret Service and his travels around the world. But he continues to study and think about these issues. And he’s willing to share facts, videos and views with his Midcoast community.

MOST reviews of "The Kennedy Detail" are terrible!

2011-12-11T11:34:00.000-08:00

MOST reviews of "The Kennedy Detail" are terrible!

THE TOP THREE MOST HELPFUL REVIEWS ON AMAZON--HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE ARE SELLING OFF THEIR COPIES!

14 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars Clearly written to seek and give absolution for failing, December 27, 2010
By Dawn Alger - See all my reviewsAmazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence (Hardcover)
I have always been a "Kennedy buff" so reading the gripping details of peoples perceptions that fateful day and lining them up with what I have learned, knew, and even thought I knew was absolutely fascinating. While reading your sense of "why was Kennedy killedon November 22 1963" is replaced with the knowledge that it is a miracle it hadn't happened sooner. There is a point, from "6 seconds in Dallas" through some part of the funeral that is as utterly gripping as it was heartbreaking. That being said, it becomes painfully obvious, especially toward the end of the book, that the writer Gerald Blaine (who writes the book in the third person, and was NOT in the motorcade) is seeking absolution for himself, Clint Hill, and the Secret Service as a whole.

Blaine wasn't there at the moment of the assassination so absolution for himself seems unnecessary. Clint Hill was Jackie Kennedy's agent and the only person to try and DO something that day, jumping onto the presidents limousine. But this brings us directly to the failure of the Secret Service.

We read excuse after excuse as to why 1 out of the 4 Secret Service agents ran to the car when the shots were fired and while many of the explanations make sense, you simply can not absolve the Secret Service for failing miserably. ie: If it was the policy of the Secret Service follow-up-car to "turn away" from an agent jumping off the left running board, thereby blocking the agent on the right running board from assisting lest he be run over by the turning vehicle as is claimed in the book, then what you have is a moronic policy that may have cost the president his life.

Under what training regiment would a Secret Service agent hear a loud bang and assume it was a firecracker, tire blowout, or motorcycle backfire and not assume a gunshot given your entire life revolves around protecting the president from a gunshot? Yet we read that Kennedy's driver, William Greer, HIT THE BRAKES of the presidential limousine to see "if the vehicle was responding properly." While I believe the explanation, it vividly demonstrates how woefully under-trained the agent was and that is a failure of the Secret Service. This continues beyond Kennedy as the author describes a time they flew President Johnson into a mob... as if that was a good idea.

All in all a good read, if you keep in mind that this is the perceptions of a man who wasn't there for some of what happened. A man who wouldn't have knowledge of a "conspiracy" unless he were involved in one, and who glosses over any theory but his own as to what happened that day. He does clear up a few issues (like the motorcade route's inability to drive straight down Main and why) whitch definitely shed light on the chaos of that day, but nothing will ever take away the fact that the Secret Service had one job, to protect the president. A job on which November 22, 1963 they failed spectacularly.

I closed the book, closed my eyes and prayed that the Secret Service is a better, more competent agency today than it was back then.

325 of 445 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars The coverup continues, November 6, 2010
By Fmr. Agent Abraham Bolden - See all my reviewsThis review is from: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence (Hardcover)
I just finished reading the 448 page "Cover Your Ass" book by agent Blaine. As a former Secret Service Agent and the first African American to be appointed to the White House Detail, I was dismayed at the continued attempts by former agents to deny culpability in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The attack upon my credibility in the book, "The Kennedy Detail" was expected; but I was hoping that the former Kennedy body guards would show a modicum of contriteness in the book instead of trying to blame Kennedy's assassination on the President himself. Unlike the general reading public, I was an agent during the critical period on November 22, 1963. In my book, "The Echo from Dealey Plaza", I relate to the public what I saw while serving on the white house detail and the disrespect and hatred towards the President that I heard expressed by some of my fellow agents.

Although, Blaine refers my claims of racism in the secret service white house detail in 1961 as being unfounded, on page 25 of my book, I document by secret service file memo 3-11-602-111 the stark racism that prevented me from carrying out my protective responsibilities in Miami Florida. Mr. Blaine also states in his "cya" book that Agent Faison, who was the first African American permanently, assigned to the White House Detail in 1963 took issue with my "unbelievable" charges of racism in the secret service. If there was no racism in the secret service in 1963 then how is it that just eight years ago, 57 African American Agents filed a class action suit, (that is still pending in federal district court) charging overt racism by the agency.(see [...])?

Blaine and other agents can feed the public with the "cya" account of the secret service actions during the Kennedy area but I was there and was a witness to the incompetence, laxity of certain agents surrounding the president, the drinking and cavalier attitude among many of the agents on the detail, the references to President Kennedy as being a Ni---r lover and their disdain for his stand for racial justice and equal opportunity for All Americans. I was present among a few agents who were discussing the protection of President Kennedy in which the statement was made that if an attempt were made on the life of the President, they would take no action.

Blaine states in his book that I said that I discussed the conduct of my fellow agents on the detail with Chief James Rowley. I make no such claim. On page 45 of The Echo from Dealey Plaza, I specifically state that I discussed the problems of Kennedy's protection with Chief U. E. Baughman. I did not go to Rowley because I knew that he already knew of the conduct of the agents and would do nothing about it.

As far as agents being forbidden to ride on the special running boards of the presidential vehicle, that rumor was not circulated until "after" the assassination of the president. There was no official memorandum or other notification of such an order advising agents of this change in protective policy. This rumor is no more than a scandalous assertion put forth by agents who failed in their duty to properly protect the President of these United States.

Lastly, Blaine derides me concerning the Kennedy investigations that took place in Chicago during November, 1963; however, he has no knowledge of the chicanery that took place in the Chicago office of the secret service during that time. Unlike Blaine, I was there. I was there when in early November, 1963 the Chicago office of the secret service investigated a character named Echevarria. Echevarria stated that President Kennedy was about to be assassinated. I heard the investigating agent dictating the reports in early November, 1963. The investigation took place prior to the assassination in Dallas. On the afternoon of November 26, 1963, Inspector Kelly, SAIC James Burke,and representatives of the FBI had a meeting in the Chicago office of the secret service. Kelly and Burke were the lead investigators representing the secret service in Dallas prior to the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald. The Echevarria investigation took place during the first two weeks in November. I was there in the office when the reports that had already been dictated by the investigating agents and typed by the secretaries were rounded up and banded in a single stack in the office of SAIC Martineau. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that these collected investigative reports were dictated by the agents PRIOR to the assassination of Kennedy. However, after Kelly and Burke ended their conference, these same reports were restructured and the dates of the investigation were changed to indicate that the Echevarria investigation was conducted AFTER the assassination and had reference to the concern for the protection of President Johnson as Blaine claims in his "CYA" book. I was there. I know what happened and Blaine may fool the general public, but he can't fool me.

Blaine refers to me as the convicted felon and uses that phrase in an attempt to discredit me and my autobiography, The Echo from Dealey Plaza. I may well be a convicted felon but 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 doubt it. They know the truth too.

362 of 433 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars Depending on your vantage point - maybe great read, maybe not !!!!, November 4, 2010
By A Customer (Westport, CT) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE) (TOP 500 REVIEWER) Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence (Hardcover)

I am ambivalent about the Kennedy Detail. This review was ready to go a week ago, and frankly I did not want to send it in. I have written 100 plus reviews and this is the first time I experienced this feeling.

If you are new to an understanding of the Kennedy Assassination, or the Kennedy Administration then I would tell you that you should absolutely read this book, and you will LOVE it. You will have an understanding of the adoration felt by the Secret Service agents who guarded him, as well as the American people who voted for this extraordinary man. I say extraordinary because there is no question he had a charisma which very few people possess. The manner of his death left an indelible impression on anyone who was intellectually alive at the time, and elevated him to an exalted status that he would never have obtained, had he lived. This is no different than the effect of FDR's death on America in April of 1945, or Lincoln's in April of 1865.

Now this book, "The Kennedy Detail" comes along and promises to tell us about JFK's Secret Service Agents breaking their silence. The book has a strange narrative to it. It is written by Gerald Blaine with Lisa McCubbin. Gerald Blaine was a Special Agent in the Secret Service assigned to the White House detail that guarded John Kennedy. Lisa McCubbin is a journalist that has been associated with three major television news networks. She is obviously writing the book for Blaine, but oddly enough the book is completely written in the third person. It is not Gerald Blaine's voice we are hearing. For me, this was a problem.

My real problems with the book were two fold.

PROBLEM NUMBER 1

We all understand that President Kennedy was a flawed man. Whether it was the issue of his flagrant womanizing, or any other inappropriate behavior, the Secret Service would have had to be completely aware of it, and or complicit to it. There is not a single word about individuals such as Marilyn Monroe, Judith Exner, Mary Meyer or any other liaison that all of us are aware of, and history recognizes to be true. Now this is perfectly respectable, because the Secret Service relationship to its President should be as a lawyer is to a client, one of confidentiality.

Now having said that, I believe at the very least that the authors should have issued a disclaimer stating that many allegations were made about President Kennedy and his personal behavior. The authors will not confirm or deny the validity of these stories. Instead the authors choose to portray a fairy tale type existence inside the White House. I simply find it less than honest, and in fact hurtful to historical accuracy. It is a disservice to the record, and not forgivable. It is fraudulent, and phony.

It would have still been all right except there are a series of photographs following page 140. On the top of the 9th page of the photographs there's a great one of JFK looking down at Marilyn Monroe's breasts on the night of his birthday party at Madison Square Garden, May 19th, 1962. If you are going to include the photograph, now you have an obligation to tell the story.

PROBLEM NUMBER 2

The authors are completely sympathetic towards the Warren Commission interpretation of the assassination. I have a problem with this attitude. I feel much stronger about this than I will express here. We must remember that President Johnson within hours of the Assassination felt the Secret Service was incompetent according to tapes of LBJ's conversation, and talked to J. Edgar Hoover about having the FBI take over Presidential protection. There is no disagreement on this point.

Second, Lyndon Johnson and other members of the Warren Commission including Robert Kennedy himself did not believe the lone assassin theory. Please check Arthur Schlesinger and Walter Sheridan who worked for Bobby Kennedy at the Justice department on the historical record. Why does Blaine find it necessary to frankly shove it down the reader's throat about the lone assassain theory? I would remind Mr. Blaine that the President's Lincoln Continental that he died in was a crime scene. Secret Service agents are not crime scene experts, but any crime scene detective would tell you that the first rule or procedure in a crime scene is to PRESERVE THE CRIME SCENE.

The Presidential vehicle was basically ripped apart and destroyed and reconstructed. A partial cleaning occurred at the hospital in Dallas The evidence was gone forever. Who in their right mind would have ordered such a thing? In the next five years, some 4 million assassination related documents will be released relevant to the death of JFK and we may finally get to the bottom of this terrible crime against our country.

One final point is that I resent that at different times in the book, the Secret Service wants to make us aware that President Kennedy did not want the Secret Service physically blocking him from the voters during a motorcade. When I have stood in Dealey Plaza, I realized that anybody could have pulled a handgun and shot 5 feet into the car and killed this man. He was WIDE OPEN, and this is unforgivable.

What I LIKED about this book:

This is the finest book ever written about the Secret Service or the President's protection. Nothing comes close and I have seen everything. If you want to understand how the President is protected, this is the book for you. If you want to know how Secret Service protection differs today from what it was like back then in the 1960's, there is no better way to find out than through this book. The difference is like night and day. You need to understand practices and procedures back then, to understand what they are like today.

What you will realize is that these agents are highly professional, dedicated men, who swear an oath to place their bodies in the line of fire between those they protect, and those who seek to do harm. One has to have tremendous respect for these agents. Now having said that, there is a difference between those who protected FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and all those who came later. The organization has moved from a 3 or 4 car motorcade to a 50 to 54 car motorcade. Overworked agents who did consecutive multiple shifts with a commensurate decrease in their capacity to function were a norm back then. Now there is an abundance of agents protecting POTUS.

Overall protection for the President including costs of Air Force One, and Marine One approaches several hundred million dollars per year. This estimate is in the public area, and will not be verified by the Secret Service. The dollars spent is even shielded from Congress through budgetary hocus pocus. JFK had 30 to 40 Secret Service agents assigned to his detail - that's it. Heads of many American corporations routinely have a 24 man protection detail which includes 8 men per 8 hour shift. The rap star P. Diddy spends $30,000 per day on protection. Today Secret Service protection is exponentially bigger than back then. It's a different world.

CONCLUSION

Read this book to understand the workings of Presidential protection in the old days, and a less than honest understanding of who is responsible for the death of a President that only the voters of the United States had a right to remove from office. There are distortions, deletions, and misstatement of facts in this book, but I would read it anyway. You simply have to decide for yourself what is true and what is not true. Thank you for reading this review.

Richard C. Stoyeck
-------------

AND MORE OF THE MOST HELPFUL:

2 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars This is NOT worth One Penny, November 17, 2011
By Stephen Courts "StephenJames" (Columbus, Ohio) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME) This review is from: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence (Hardcover)
I have not and will not read this book. As a serious student studying the murder of President Kennedy, this is not a book that offers one single new fact to the millions of pages in 1000's of books. If you want to read about the Secret Service and the JFK detail I highly recommend Abraham Bolden's, The Echo From Dealy Plaza. This is written by Mr. Bolden and is full of the real facts about the attitude of the Secret Service in the early 1960's. Racism, lax security, drinking on the job, cover-ups, new credentials following the murder issued to the entire Secret Service. Mr. Bolden was falsely imprisoned by low lifes like Blaine for attempting to speak to the "Johnson Commission" about the terrible work habits of the Secret Service andd their lack of protection of JFK. Most reseachers believe, rightly, that it was the Secret Service that allowed the conspirators to kill President Kennedy. I consider most of this agency to be a disgrace, Mr. Bolden and perhaps Clint Hill and a few others being the exception to the rule. Don't purchase this crap, read The Echo From Dealy Plaza.

3 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars Banal, like a PR piece for Secret Service, October 5, 2011
By David A. Woerner (Houston, Texas area) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME) Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence (Hardcover)
This book is very boring and banal, and reads like a public relations piece for the Secret Service. Everyone is competent and a complete professional. Not a word about Kennedy's private activities. Not worth your time to read, nothing to learn here.

4 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars A Continuation of the Myth, October 1, 2011
By John B. Howarth (Richland washington) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME) This review is from: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence (Hardcover)
Although it was heartwarming to read Clint Hill's preface, this book is truly a disappointment in its lack of objectivity. JFK was a medicore President at best, whose personal risk-taking (covered up throughout his Presidency by his- self-appointed Co-President Bobby, and a worshipful media) placed both his office and nation in great peril due to his association with Mafia Kingpins and his moral degeneracy.As a result, Gerald Blain's blindness and Kennedy veneration made this entire book lacking in credibility.

I do not consider myself a conspiracy nut by dismissing the findings of the fairy tale explanation offered up by the Warren Commission. As a retired Police Officer I simply view the assassination as a crime requiring cold and calculating objective investigation- regardless of the emotional attachments that clouded the event and still to this day have rendered sober analysis a near impossibility with a great number of people.

In November 1963, the murder of a POTUS was not a Federal crime and therefore regardless of the desire to spare Mrs. Kennedy any further grief by remaining in Dallas, the Secret Service, and particularly people like Kenny O'Donnell, Dave Powers and Robert Kennedy had absolutely no authority to have JFK's corpse illegally removed from the Texas authorities prior to an autopsy, and coupled with the destruction of physical evidence in the Limo was itself obstruction of justice.

Even if Oswald had survived his own assassination, it would have been interesting to see how the prosecution would explain the contamination of physical evidence and total destruction of the chain of custody. The botched and questionable autopsy at Bethesda was in itself a farce and a sham to any forensic scientist conducted by unqualified military syncopates.

Blaine and his Kennedy worshiping co-author did not do reality any favors with this whitewashed and sterile attempt at explaining the truth and should be ashamed.

2 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars Not Enough Objectivity, September 27, 2011
By Donald G. Zeiter (St. Louis, MO USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME) This review is from: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence (Hardcover)
The most glaring thing about this book is how the agents practically worshiped at the feet of JFK and his wife. Reading this book you get the impression that they had the most romantic marriage and were hopelessly devoted to each other as they were the only people on earth good enough for each other.

The reality, as we all know now with decades of hindsight, is that their marriage was hardly deserving of Camelot. Yet reading this book you would never know JFK had eyes for any other woman. The book talks about his 'off the record' trips but Blaine must be leaving out a lot of details everyone is aware of today and hopefully the SS agents were fully aware of at the time. If Blaine and the other agents were as clueless about JFK's liaisons as portrayed in this book they were the worst personal security agents ever.

If the agents knew of JFK's liaisons, the worship shown in this book seems strange. Blaine is described as a happy family man as are the other married agents so why were they so in awe of someone they knew slept around on his wife? It's a strange disconnect. If this book had come out in 1964 it couldn't have been more worshipful of the President and First Lady.

Of course, the shooting in Dallas is the main reason to read this book. The men protecting the president should have a different take on what happened than journalists investigating after the fact. Fortunately, the actions of the agents are detailed as are the gory and bloody descriptions of what happened after the shots hit JFK.

Reading this book and knowing what happened in Dallas it is a wonder it didn't happened sooner as the security of the president in these motorcades was practically non-existent. An 'off the record' trip to New York is described where the president is being driven through traffic like any other motorist with no police protection. 30 mile long motorcades where they slowed down among heavy crowds and tall office buildings made it impossible to stop even a half-hearted killer. Ironically, when the book talks about groups or people expected to be a threat they are described as right wing or conservatives. But of course Oswald was a lefty and Communist sympathizer.

Had the book toned down the hero worship of Kennedy and presented him as a normal human being that cannot walk on water while healing sick kids and puppies it would have been a better read. But for giving some inside details about what happened in Dallas and not adding to the stupid conspiracy theories I give it two stars.

4 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars Detailed, but boring, August 4, 2011
By Penelope D. Debarge "nanatosix" (Palm Coast, FL) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME) Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence (Hardcover)
While it was interesting to hear the facts that led up to the assassination I found the book tedious and drawn out. Too much explaining of how the planning of each trip (which is the same for each trip) is done. I'd pass on this one, or just take it out from the library. Not worth a purchase.

4 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars A couple of key facts incorrect, July 4, 2011
By Marshmallow3706 - See all my reviewsAmazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence (Hardcover)
Overall a decent book, but the shooting sequence has two major inaccuracies. First, Governor Connally and the President were struck by the same bullet (the second fired by Oswald). Anyone watching the Zapruder film can see this. The authors claim this is two different shots when history and more technical analysis have shown that it was indeed one bullet that struck both the President and Governor Connally. Oswald's first shot glanced off a tree branch and missed the motorcade all together. His third shot was of course the fatal head shot. I understand conspiracy theorists aren't going to like hearing that, but facts are stubborn things.

Secondly (and even worse in my opinion), is that the authors state that the driver of the presidential limo, Bill Greer, stepped on the gas after the second shot. Watching the Zapruder film you can see Greer, who for some reason looks back to Kennedy TWO TIMES after he has already been struck - so that he is also looking right at the president when the fatal head shot occurs. Only then does he step on the gas as Agent Hill struggles to climb on board. The book also states that Greer was not looking at the president during the fatal shot - proven wrong by the Zapruder film.

Now, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not believe that the Secret Service, including driver agent Bill Greer were complicit in the assassination. But clearly this book is meant as a way to cover up incompetent behavior on the agents' part. This shouldn't really be unexpected from a book written in part by a member of Kennedy's Secret Service detail, but the reader may want to know this up front.

3 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars Kennedy Detail, June 15, 2011
By VMI man (Richmond, Virginia) - See all my reviewsThis review is from: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence (Hardcover)
Did the author have a tape recorder to record verbatIm all conversations? Not historical fiction, but not entirely historical either. Interesting, but could have been shorter. He says that they preserved the car as evidence, but isn't there a photo showing the agents washing the interior of the car in front of the Parkland ER?

9 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars This book was written to counter Vince Palamara's work: epic FAIL, October 31, 2010
By r-devic-saint (Pittsburgh, PA) - See all my reviewsThis review is from: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence (Hardcover)
Researcher Vince Palamara interviewed and corresponded with many former agents, including Gerald Blaine. They ALL told him that JFK never interfered with their actions at all and DID NOT order the agents off his limousine. Blaine, in a panic because the truth hurts, hastily wrote this book as a result. Notice how defensive it is in tone and how Blaine goes on and on about the fraudulent notion that President Kennedy ordered the agents off his limo on 11/18/63, which somehow became a standing order to be applied to the upcoming Dallas trip...false! SAIC Gerald Behn, ASAIC Floyd Boring, ATSAIC Art Godfrey, GERALD BLAINE, and many other former agents and non-agency personnel debunked this years before this book was written. What's more, Blaine, without having the courage to name Palamara (pages 359-360), seeks to denigrate his massively researched work via the alleged misidentification of the agent who was recalled at Love Field...as if THAT alone overrides all the damning evidence of Blaine's lies about JFK throughout the work. Mr. Blaine, with all due respect, you should be ashamed of yourself for this book. You know the real story, as does Palamara and many of your colleagues. The agents who protected President Reagan on 3/30/81 put your men to shame. Irony: you have made major amounts of money on this case, much more than 99 percent of the critical research community you seek to denigrate. No one is buying it, but they sure are BUYING it...guess huge profits are nice, huh?

139 of 140 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Oswald did it...and JFK helped, too?, October 28, 2010
By Vince Palamara "SECRET SERVICE/JFK/STEELERS/M... (South Park/Bethel Park, PA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME) This review is from: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence (Hardcover)
As the leading civilian authority on the Secret Service, especially regarding the JFK/ LBJ era, and as someone who interviewed and/ or corresponded with close to 80 former agents between 1990-2006 (roughly double the number of former agents interviewed for this book), I was, needless to say, very much interested in what former agent and author Gerald Blaine (a nice gentleman I spoke to twice and corresponded with several times via e-mail), along with co-author Lisa McCubbin and fellow former agent Clint Hill (a very close friend of Blaine's to whom I had sent a 22-page letter to and spoke to very briefly and who also wrote the Foreword), had to say about President Kennedy and the tragic events of November 22, 1963, when the Secret Service failed in the worst way, costing the nation the life of our President. As a total stranger and an outsider, my contacts with the former agents were very much in the "cross examination" mode (often eliciting begrudging, not-too-friendly responses), while, as a trusted insider, it is fair to say that Blaine's contacts would be of the "direct/ friendly examination" variety. This dichotomy will become important for a number of reasons.

I am as certain as a human being can be that it was my lengthy letter to Clint Hill that led to the genesis of this book----I sent it in June of 2005 and received a very cantankerous "non-reply" when I phoned the gentleman this same time period. Also, during this very same time period, as Blaine admitted to the Daily Sentinel's Bob Silbernagel for his 5/23/10 article, Blaine began contacting as many living former agents who served President Kennedy for his book as he could (it is important to note that I also made contacts with Mr. Blaine during this time period, as well). Why am I so certain that my letter was a catalyst? As an ardent critic of the Secret Service's performance in Dallas (going much further than the two government "investigations", the Warren Commission and the HSCA), I sent Mr. Hill, in effect, a "Cliff Notes" version of my research for my own book ("Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service & The Failure To Protect The President"), spelling out why I came to be certain that fellow former agents 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 on 11/22/63) were grossly negligent before, during, and after JFK was assassinated. Judging by Mr. Hill's "response" (or lack thereof), my attempt to address my concerns did not go over very well, to put it mildly.

As it bears directly on "The Kennedy Detail" , just what specifically are my concerns? Simply put: many of these former agents (and several White House aides), including several who passed away years before this book was even a thought, such as the number one agent on the Kennedy Detail, Gerald Behn; one of the three Shift Leaders, Arthur Godfrey; the number two agent on LBJ's detail (who ALSO had protected JFK), Rufus Youngblood; Sam Kinney, the driver of the follow-up car in Dallas; Robert Bouck, the Special-Agent-In-Charge of the Protective Research Section; Frank Stoner of the Protective Research Section; Maurice Martineau, the Acting-Special- Agent- In- Charge of the Chicago Office who protected JFK from '61-'63 whenever he came to the area; John Norris of the Uniformed Division; Dave Powers, the former curator of the JFK Library who rode in the follow-up car many times, including on 11/22/63; author Helen O'Donnell, daughter of the late Ken O'Donnell, JFK's Chief of Staff (based on her memory and her father's many audio tapes); and many others, told me, in no uncertain terms, that President Kennedy was a very nice man, NEVER interfered with the actions of the Secret Service, and, most importantly, DID NOT ORDER THE AGENTS OFF HIS CAR (nor did O'Donnell, as verified by the aforementioned Helen O'Donnell, Art Godfrey, and Sam Kinney and, by extension, Dave Powers)! With regard to the Tampa, FL trip of 11/18/63, not only do many existing films and photos all along the long motorcade route depict agents on the rear of JFK's car, Congressman Sam Gibbons, who RODE IN THE CAR WITH JFK, told me that he heard no such order from JFK for the agents to be removed in the first place AND that the agents rode the rear bumper all the way. Surprisingly, the number two agent, Floyd Boring (who passed away 2/1/08 and to whom I spoke to twice and corresponded with once), told me the same thing: namely, that the "Get-The-Ivy-League-Charlatans-Off-The-Limo" tale (first told by the late author William Manchester, who had interviewed Gerald Blaine, Clint Hill, and Emory Roberts, but not Boring) is false---Boring never said that to him, never spoke to Manchester in any case, the tale is not true, and that, once again, JFK was a very nice man, very cooperative with the Secret Service, and never interfered with their actions at all! Agents of the Kennedy Detail who conveyed similar knowledge to myself---that JFK never interfered with their actions--- were Walt Coughlin, Winston Lawson (the lead advance agent for Dallas), Don Lawton (who rode on the rear of the car 11/18/63), Abe Bolden, Robert Lilley, Frank Yeager, Gerald O'Rourke, Sam Sulliman, Vince Mroz (now deceased), Larry Newman, and, quite surprisingly, Gerald Blaine himself, a little over a year before he began writing his book!

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. Floyd Boring, as agency planner of the fateful trip, in spite of what he forcefully stated to me, did indeed convey the exaggerated---some would say false--notion that JFK had asked that the agents remove themselves from the car 4 short days before Dallas, taking it upon himself to tell several Dallas agents, depending on who you choose to believe, either as an "anecdote" of alleged presidential kindness and consideration in not wanting to have the agents "over exert" themselves (what Boring told the ARRB's Doug Horne in 1996) or a strict "presidential admonition" to stay off the car (as Clint Hill conveyed to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, under oath, in 1964). In addition, the motorcycle escort was reduced to (as the HSCA put it) a "uniquely insecure" smaller formation for Dallas, allegedly because, as Boring told the ARRB (and as Win Lawson, assigned to the Dallas trip by Boring [and who would have been merely following orders], told the Warren Commission under oath), JFK allegedly didn't like alot of noise from motorcycles, although he had no problem in countless prior motorcades, including that very same morning in Fort Worth and the day before in San Antonio and Houston. Emory Roberts ordered an agent back from JFK's limo at Love Field (as this reviewer discovered back in 1991 and had popularized for the first time back in 1995 and, again, in 2003 on The History Channel, long before this clip became something of an internet sensation), recalled an agent during the shooting and, as Sam Kinney told me, ordered the men on the follow-up car not to move! For his part, Bill Greer slowed the President's car down during the shooting, twice looked back at JFK, and disobeyed Roy Kellerman's order to get out line (and denied all of this to the Warren Commission). Coupled with several---many?---of the agent's stated anger about JFK's private life (as stated to author Seymour Hersh, among others), these actions, inactions, and feelings are cause for concern.

That said, the vast majority of these men (Blaine included) are honorable former government employees that were merely following orders on that fateful day in Dallas. 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".

Blaine keeps posting these planted, phoney 5-star reviews on his blog LOL

2011-12-09T04:34:00.000-08:00

Blaine keeps posting these planted, phoney 5-star Amazon "reviews" on his blog LOL:

"The Kennedy Detail Reader's Review
If you only read 1 book about JFK... Make it this one.[what a joke!]

By Rancho relaxo [nice fake name]
Compelling and well written, this book makes the 'conspiracy theorists' look pitiful and deluded [haha---like there is ANY evidence in Blaine's book to dispute the evidence of conspiracy---? Blaine offers NOTHING but opinion; no facts. These are the same guys who got JFK killed and, by his own admission, almost got LBJ killed, as well. I am supposed to believe his "word" that Oswald acted alone??? Give me a break; no one is that stupid or naive]. The fact that the 'conspiracy theory' JFK notion is so huge, seems in many peoples mind to imbue it with credibility [nope---it is based on facts and the overwhelming, worldwide public's belief]. Sorry, but fact's have credibility, emotional pandering to widesread paranoia does not [haha]. I wanted to know more about JFK and the assasination, and not have to put up with annoying theories that rely on the weakest evidence [my research relies on the AGENT's words and writing BEFORE Blaine's book came out], I read this book and was glad I did [good for you]. Furthermore, upon having read it I feel sure that JFK himself would rather the story be told by his most trusted aides [the same ones who let him get killed, several of whom were angry at him due to his sexual proclivities???] rather than some half baked 'author' trying to make a name for himself in history in rather the same way as Oswald himself was [Hahahaha---this is a lame jab at me :O) ]. The fact Clint Hill, Mrs Kennedys trusted agent, put his name to this book speaks for itself. [nope-only speaks to the fact that he is best friends with Blaine, money talks, and my 22-page letter to Hill pissed him and Blaine off something fierce]

Vince...the "V" is for the victor :O)

I am an infinitely better Secret Service expert than Blaine will ever be...I also did not let JFK get killed or ALMOST kill LBJ, either. Live with that one and collect your blood money. Blaine's book is like a forgotten storm that passed and is gone...the internet is forever. I win! I could tell ole Jer was all cocky when he got his book deal and had a minor, extended best-seller---thanks to my research, of course [if it wasn't for me, no book would have been written in the first place]: he actually thought THAT would erase or supercede my work...NOT! I still crack up when I see Blaine and Hill debate my work on C-SPAN, especially when Jer says "my assessment of Mr. Palamara..." LOL. On a more somber note, very sorry to hear about the passing of your daughter [this is politics; nothing personal]

P.S. Even rancid tv comedies are Emmy nominated...

NEW--SOMEONE POSTED A GOOD REBUTTAL:
Initial post: Nov 17, 2011 6:50:51 AM PST
Craig says:

Propaganda is telling lies to people by telling them things they are already inclined to believe. You are a great target for propaganda.

You are in no position, based on your comments, to criticize the more informed people on the assassination, who you call names.

You need to not read 'just 1 book on JFK' as you mention in your subject. By doing so, for example by reading the book by the first black Secret Service agent to guard a President, hand-selected by President Kennedy, "The Echo from Dealey Plaza" by Abraham Bolden, you would learn his story which is vastly different than this book's about the Secret Service detail - about the culture on the team of racism, of hostility to JFK by a number of agents who said they would not jump in front of a bullet for him, about how this agent was set up to be killed and when he refused the assignment, was framed for a crime and imprisoned.

If you read other books, you would read how the head of the Secret Service admitted a number of Kennedy agents had been out drinking, visiting a bar well after midnight, the night before the assassination - while drinking was supposed to be cause for termination, and was not for any of the agents.

But you are determined to believe false stories. Others should not get bad advice on this book, apparently written to 'spin a story' for the reputations of the agents.

J.F.K.’s Legacy, as Seen by His Grandson - NYTimes.com

2011-12-05T15:25:00.000-08:00

As a young man inspired by politics and history who has spent time studying the Kennedy administration, I take issue with Ross Douthat’s Nov. 27 column, “The Enduring Cult of Kennedy ,” about President John F. Kennedy, my grandfather.
Mr. Douthat suggests that President Kennedy was a “near disaster.” He criticizes Kennedy on civil rights; Kennedy was the first president to deem civil rights “a moral issue,” and applied federal authority to force desegregation.
The president described as “famously hawkish” resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis peacefully. Mr. Douthat does not mention what President Kennedy called his proudest accomplishment: the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Contrary to what Mr. Douthat asserts about the Vietnam War, in 1963, at American University, Kennedy stated that America would never start a war. Many who served in his administration, including Ted Sorensen and McGeorge Bundy, long argued that my grandfather would have never invaded Vietnam as Lyndon B. Johnson did.
Finally, I take issue with Mr. Douthat’s condescending view of the American people. He suggests that Americans who admire President Kennedy — and as Mr. Douthat points out, the majority of Americans rank him among our best presidents — do not understand their own history.
Instead, I suggest that President Kennedy’s legacy remains relevant today not because of Camelot or conspiracy, but because Americans find inspiration and meaning there.
JOHN KENNEDY SCHLOSSBERG
New Haven, Nov. 30, 2011

"WITHIN ARM'S LENGTH" by Dan Emmett: A Literary Triumph- The Best Book on the Secret Service ; Available From iUniverse Publications In late January 2012

2011-12-05T09:12:00.001-08:00

"WITHIN ARM'S LENGTH" by Dan Emmett: A Literary Triumph- The Best Book on the Secret Service ; Available From iUniverse Publications In late January 2012- Book Review by Vince Palamara:

Former Secret Service agent Dan Emmett, author of “Within Arm’s Length”, is to be commended on putting together a refreshing take on a well-worn subject as of late: the United States Secret Service. While many of the books written by former agents are ghost-written, dry, dull, and are often dated, Emmett’s is exciting, never boring, compelling, and employed no co-author or ghost-writer; this work is solely his own. After the recent debacle of best-selling author Ronald Kessler’s dubious tome “In The President's Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect", a book that seemingly betrayed the trust of the agents, past and present, that the author took into his confidence, littering the literary landscape with dubious tawdry tales of presidential sex, alleged agency incompetence, or worse, Emmett’s book will be embraced by scholars, the public and, perhaps most important of all, his colleagues.

Someone needed to take up the mantle and do away with all the controversy, poor writing, myopic outlook, and compromising information out there on the Secret Service and write a book the agency would be proud of AND that would also appeal to the lay public, as well. Dan Emmett took up the quest and succeeded admirably. In short, “Within Arm’s Length” is the antidote to Kessler, McCarthy, and all the silly and overwrought books and television specials that violate the agency’s code of being Worthy of Trust and Confidence. If there was a literary Medal of Valor the Secret Service could award Emmett for his book, they should hold the ceremony tomorrow. Emmett’s book truly reads like he had this epiphany: "I have had enough with Kessler, the hero worship, the gossip, the untruths, and all the crap---here is the TRUE story of an agent without the junk... and no compromising information, dammit!" Mission accomplished.

In short, Dan Emmett provides the reader with the nuts and bolts without giving away the game, so to speak.

“Within Arm’s Length” grabs the reader from the very first sentence and doesn’t ever let up. Beginning with a fascinating Preface about an experience he had while protecting Senator Edward Kennedy, Emmett cleverly starts the reader off properly on his journey (and ours), leading to catalysts for his eventual career in the Secret Service such as his upbringing in a good home with a strong work ethic, the powerful and world-changing events of November 22, 1963, and, in that regard, the heroic actions of Secret Service Agent Clint Hill on that terrible day in our Nation’s history. After a brief look at his college years, a very compelling and memorable overview of his career in the United States Marine Corps, which led him to become a proud officer, is powerfully rendered. The reader will already find himself impressed with Emmett’s strength of character and abilities, long before he was an actual Secret Service employee.

Another catalyst, in the form of the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981, further cements Emmett’s resolve to satisfy his childhood goal of becoming a bona fide Secret Service agent. Ironically, it was another agency veteran of 11/22/63, Jerry Kivett (interviewed by this reviewer), a colleague of Clint Hill, who gave Emmett his formal start in the Secret Service on 5/16/83 (other long-time agents involved in Emmett’s formative agency beginnings were Grady Askew, a long time veteran of the Atlanta Field Office, and Frank Hancock, another veteran agent who famously guarded the JFK limousine the day after the assassination). Emmett describes his life as a rookie agent in the Charlotte, NC field office, as well as his Secret Service training in firearms, follow-up vehicle maneuvers, and so forth at the James J Rowley Training Center in Beltsville, MD (in another irony, Rowley was the Secret Service Chief at the time of the Kennedy assassination).

After getting a taste of presidential security as a post stander at an Atlanta event for President Reagan in the Fall of 1983, Emmett discovers a desire to become a member of “one of the most elite counter terrorist units in the world”: a United States Counter Assault Team (CAT) agent. While waiting for that dream to be fulfilled, Dan joins the team that guards Senator Edward Kennedy in 1984 and, ultimately (and against his true desires), becomes a member of the New York Field Office in 1986, “a bottomless black hole of despair that knows no limits”, as one fellow agent so aptly depicted it. Dan provides an excellent description of the drive into New York, the World Trade Center complex (made infamous by the cataclysmic events of 9/11/01), and life in this agency outpost, as well. In addition, Emmett ‘s superior description of life as a ‘street agent’ in New York is superb, including a heart-stopping close call he had coming within mere seconds of shooting a young suspect.

The New York Field Office agents, despite their drudgery, were well respected members of the agency who much preferred the investigation side of the Service (counterfeiters, credit card thieves, and check forgers) than the protection side, which was king and the most important aspect the Service is known for, to which they often performed security functions for the President of the United States (POTUS) and the UN General Assembly, with the many foreign heads of state involved with it. While doing an exemplary job there, Emmett still yearned to be a member of CAT, a dream which was ultimately fulfilled in 1989. But, first, CAT school beckoned in 1988.

With regard to CAT, as Emmett so aptly put it, “weapons proficiency was everything.” In this regard, with his superior training in the Marines, Emmett had a leg up and was well suited to this schooling. Interestingly, one of his CAT classmates was future colleague Joe Clancy, the SAIC of the Presidential Protective Division (PPD) for President Obama. Along with his aforementioned Marine Corps background, one becomes very impressed and humbled with Emmett’s training and abilities in CAT.

After a trip back to the NY Field Office in the Spring of 1989, Emmett saw his CAT team dreams realized in August of that same year, protecting President George H.W. Bush (Bush 41). Along the way, Emmett provides an exemplary description of CAT, including its humble beginnings and agency resistance to change. Only someone who has walked in those giant shoes could have so accurately and compellingly portrayed the inner workings of this elite unit and the culture of the Service during that time.

A riveting tale of the CAT team’s protection of President Clinton in Korea in 1993 at the “Bridge of No Return”---involving a close call with North Koreans---is breathlessly portrayed to stunning effect. Once again, we see the appearance of CAT school classmate, command post agent, and “good friend” Joe Clancy in the story. There follows a good description of the merging of CAT and PPD, as well as the training they took together, in addition to CAT missions with Vice President Dan Quayle in Haiti and the Phillippines. Throughout the book, Dan is honest and forthright without ever becoming petty or revealing too much. He keeps the lay reader interested and shows proper respect to his former colleagues by his respectful portrayal.

Chapter 9 is the tale of Dan’s meeting of fellow agent Donnelle in 1988, to whom he married in 1990. It is touching, honest, not overwrought, and to the point. In short, it merely adds to the power of the book. Only a woman who was a fellow agent herself (former deputy sheriff and a 21-year veteran of the Service) could begin to understand the long separations and all that encompassed being a member of the elite CAT/ PPD nexus. One can only continue to admire Dan’s “career choices”!

Chapter 10, “Human Shields and Operant Conditioning”, is another outstanding look at what it takes to become a Secret Service agent and all that it entails. Emmett provides an excellent historical summary of the attempts on Presidents Ford and Reagan; specifically, the valor of agent’s Larry Beundorf and Jerry Parr (events that happened while Emmett was a member of the Marine Corps and no doubt led him further along his Secret Service career dream). The training of the agents truly becomes a muscle memory, as these courageous examples duly depict. Like the other chapters in the book, Dan is careful not to be too long-winded or clinical; he makes his points then he covers and evacuates, to use agency vernacular. Well done.

Emmett was a member of CAT for four years, the last 18 months of which were spent as a section of PPD. It was in the Old Executive Office Building in June of 1993 that Emmett had a meeting with Clinton PPD ASAIC’s Pete Dowling and Tommy Farrell which culminated with Dan becoming a member of the PPD working shift (Dowling, by the way, was one of the agents depicted in and betrayed by Kessler’s book, but this author digresses). It was at W-16, the command post in the West Wing of the White House, where Dan was reunited with former CAT team members Tony Meeks and the aforementioned Joe Clancy (Jim Knodell was the senior agent on the shift, officially known as the shift”whip”).

From here, Emmett convincingly and impressively portrays the push and pull he and the agents had with Clinton’s White House staff, non- agency personnel who typically put protection on the back burner of their collective agendas. Trips to Jordan and Israel with President Clinton are duly noted, as is the chore of covering the media who were tasked with covering the president in their own right and who, like the president’s staff, had THEIR own agendas, as well. As with magnetometer coverage and the need to have a “hospital agent”, the events of 3/30/81 led the agency to invoke the use of (as Emmett describes) the “press agent”, a duty he once nobly fulfilled. What would be a scurrilous or clinical telling in some other author’s book becomes fascinating in Emmett’s.

A terrific section (aren’t they all?) follows describing the “journalistic media”---those that seek to cover the Secret Service, often to ill effect. Dan describes with riveting prose the “irresponsibly detailed documentaries” from Joan Lunden, the History Channel, National Geographic, and the Discovery Channel. His verdict? Guilty…of misrepresenting the agency and potentially doing harm to the working agents and protectees. This reviewer could not agree more. Another section of the book that Director Sullivan, yet another official betrayed by Kessler, would do well to read multiple times before agreeing to get involved in another “tell-all” ‘documentary (or book) again.

There are some light-hearted and funny moments along the way (the book isn’t all guns and glory, you know), and, in that regard, the section on being “relieved” and helping to “secure” the restroom for President Clinton is top notch, indeed. These segments of the book remind us all that, in the final analysis, in spite of their superior training and stamina, these agents ARE merely human like the rest of us. Sometimes the bridge between being and agent and being human (“normal”) is a slippery slope, indeed, so to speak. It is these human interest vignettes that are essential components to making this book so readable, compelling, and fascinating. Otherwise, what could become a great book would digress into a mere training volume. It is truly amazing that Dan is a first time author- he has the skill of a full time, lunch pail novelist or true crime author.

Emmett then regales the reader with the “not-so-exotic foreign travel” that the agents experienced, stating that, with the different shifts, the hours, the jet lag, and the fatigue, “Budapest could have been Cleveland.” With regard to the president’s trips to various foreign lands, Emmett provides a detailed portrayal of yet another heart-stopping moment that occurred in Switzerland that involved the Syrians and their meeting with President Clinton. Dan’s training, skill and resolve are in full expanse here; there is a reason, after all, that Shift Leader Bob Byers picked him to handle this delicate situation.

Dan provides an excellent history of presidential travel, Air Force One, and Marine One, Emmett having experienced his first presidential helicopter and airplane travels in the Summer of 1993 with Clinton. You truly feel like you are there with Dan as he describes what life is like as a working agent on a shift. Dan also ably details the Service’s use of various cargo planes that carried the various limousines and personnel at home and abroad, including the curious habit of agents who brought home various foreign treasures and sundry items. Again, these men were human and had lives away from protecting the leader of the free world.

In a section titled “Running With The President”, Emmett describes just how much fitness and being in shape became a requirement of the agents who protected Clinton, as compared to prior, older presidents who often resorted to golf and other lesser exertions (CAT had to augment PPD). “There was no such thing as an uneventful run with Bill Clinton”, Emmett states, and he would know: he ran with the president a lot in the Winter of 1993 as a CAT agent and then in the Summer of 1993 as a member of PPD. Emmett and the aforementioned Meeks and Clancy, as well as another agent, Roland McCamis, ran with Clinton. This is truly fascinating reading.

Dan makes note of the unofficial collateral duty of the Service: taking blame for things it is not responsible for (i.e. the staff was actually to blame). It is here, and elsewhere, that one truly gets the impression of what a thankless job being a working agent of the Secret Service can become. The line between politics and protection is sometimes a balancing act of dubious scope; Emmett succeeds admirably in his honest depiction of what the agents had to handle.

In another irony, it was former Reagan PPD agent Danny Spriggs, one of the heroes of 3/30/81 that so inspired Emmett, that informed Dan that he would be joining the Transportation Section of the Service, thus having the duty of driving President Clinton. Agent Emmett ended up driving the president scores of times, in the United States and abroad, and has some interesting anecdotes to share, including his very first time driving the president.

After 5 years of constant travel and no true days off, Emmett, as was customary of the vast majority of the working shift agents, began to feel the strain and requested a transfer out of PPD, which became a reality in the Fall of 1994. Emmett then began another interesting and important part of his career in the agency, perhaps most important and far reaching of all, when he joined the Special Agent Training Education Division (SATED), thus being in a position to share his wealth of knowledge and experience and help shape the next generation of special agents, a task he performed with relish and vigor, leading by example, until 2003. All told, Dan spent nine years in training, helping to lead nearly 2000 men and women, many of whom were hired in record numbers as a result of the tragic events of 9/11/01, on to bright careers as agents and leaders of men. In fact, Dan even trained Ben Stafford, the son of former Director Brian Stafford!

After receiving a well-earned promotion (a GS14: ATSAIC in the Division of Training), not very long after, Dan received a reassignment back to PPD as one of two supervisors in charge of CAT. It was in November of 2003 when Emmett reported back to PPD and CAT as an agent protecting his third sitting president, George W Bush. It was Dan’s first day back at PPD, during a meeting with SAIC of PPD Eddie Marinzel, that Emmett was reunited with a veritable who’s who of the best agents in protection- men who started the job with him way back in 1983 (most were, like him, former CAT and PPD shift mates). That said, Dan’s new job was essentially administrative- he was one of two ATSAICs (Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge/ Shift Leader) in the CAT program in charge of 6 of the 12 teams. In essence, Dan was managing, not leading, which he loved to do and had great skill at doing.

Since this newfound position seemed to entail a never-ending series of meetings, Emmett felt the inner voice to retire, which he did, in April 2004, after accepting an offer from the CIA, yet another impressive chapter of his life (which, he says, he will leave for another day). It was on 5/16/04, 21 years to the day that he became an agent, that Dan officially retired during a small ceremony at the Executive Office Building. The reader is left impressed and in awe of Emmett’s illustrious career.

The book ends with an important Epilogue and Afterword, as well as 3 fascinating and useful Appendixes: Myths and Truths about the Secret Service, A Brief History of the Secret Service, and a Glossary of Terms.

In short, "WITHIN ARM'S LENGTH" is, without question, the best book ever written about the Secret Service: current, well-written, classy, very informative, but, most importantly, does not indulge in hero worship of presidents or reveal "inside secrets" or other compromising details. In short, "WITHIN ARM'S LENGTH" makes you feel like you are THERE! Emmett is a great guy with an impressive background who truly represents the valor of the Secret Service. Emmett has given a blueprint for all agents---past, present, and future---to follow and admire. Worthy of Trust & Confidence indeed! Dan Emmett is an example of a great American.”

Vince Palamara, literary Secret Service expert (History Channel, C-SPAN, ARRB Government Report, and quoted in over 60 related books)