"A Closer Look at the Secret Service"

A Closer Look at the Secret Service Apr. 30, 2012, 8:00 AM | Secret Service agents are one category of law enforcement whose agents typically get the glory treatment. Recent books by members of JFK’s secret service detail, almost devoid of revelations or candor, have nevertheless received lots of positive coverage. Meanwhile, legitimate questions about the service—how it works, what kinds of people it employs, how effective it is—are pushed aside. Maybe that’s why the media reacted with such astonishment to learn that Secret Service agents preparing for Obama’s visit to Cartagena, Colombia, consorted with prostitutes. Eight agents have been forced out of their jobs, and a ninth is on his way out. Military personnel along on the trip are under investigation as well. The activity raised questions not only about the appropriateness of such conduct, but of whether this behavior threatened the President’s safety. Just a One-Time Thing, Folks Now the government is saying that the Cartagena hijinks were an aberration. Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano assured the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that the Secret Service’s Office of Professional Responsibility had received zero complaints of agent misconduct in the last two and a half years. That means total good behavior in roughly 900 foreign and 13,000 domestic trips. But here’s the problem: it’s the Secret Service assuring us that the Secret Service is squeaky clean. The matter of self-policing came up last week when Napolitano faced the Senate committee. As ABC reports, Napolitano claimed that the Homeland Security Inspector General was supervising the investigation, but the IG’s own office said it was merely “monitoring” the Secret Service’s self-examination, and would review it when it was complete. Since the events of April 12, a probe has grown, and investigators are very much just getting started. And not just about Colombia: the Associated Press reported on inquiries into possible Secret Service liaisons with strippers and prostitutes leading up to an Obama visit to El Salvador last year. And some agents are contending that cavorting and drinking heavily is actually quite common. In fact, there are many other questions about the Secret Service and about presidential security that are not being properly addressed. Coming as we approach the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s violent death, these are not idle concerns. Obama and Kennedy As we have noted here previously, the agency has been involved in serious security lapses and misjudgment before. For example, in Obama’s first year in office, the agency failed to keep an unauthorized couple with a hankering for publicity from getting into the White House and close to the President—and there may be more to the story. Then, in 2011, a classified booklet containing Obama’s schedule, down to the minute, along with details on his security contingent, was found lying in a Canberra, Australia, gutter during an Obama visit to that country. Those incidents are reported to have upset Obama—and that’s certainly understandable. Meanwhile, his trip to Colombia, intended to showcase new trade initiatives with Latin America, was totally overshadowed by the scandal. Presidential trips are carefully calculated to generate positive publicity and create goodwill at home and abroad, so the prostitution sideshow just wiped that one out. Such incidents are not just bad for image—they raise all kinds of issues in the safety area. For one thing, the agents themselves are compromised, even made susceptible to pressure and blackmail, particularly if they want to keep their jobs and if, as in numerous cases, the agents were married. But this is not new. Go back almost half a century, and look at the most shocking dereliction of duty ever—the failures that made it easy for someone (or someones) to assassinate John F Kennedy. The failings are endless, from not insisting that the bubble top go on Kennedy’s car, to having too few Secret Service agents protecting the president, to authorizing a particularly dangerous route that slowed the car way down, to allowing it to go through a canyon of windows—and then not checking or securing the windows or installing spotters or sharpshooters. A grade school kid could have done a more serious job of protecting the president. Here’s an excerpt from Warren Commission questions to Special Agent Winston Lawson, who headed the Secret Service detail for Kennedy’s Dallas trip: Mr. McCloy: During the course of the motorcade while the motorcade was in motion, no matter how slowly, you had no provision for anyone on the roofs? Mr. Lawson: No, sir. Mr. McCloy: Or no one to watch the windows? Mr. Lawson: Oh, yes. The police along the area were to watch the crowds and their general area. The agents riding in the followup car as well as myself in the lead car were watching the crowds and the windows and the rooftops as we progressed. [snip] Mr. Stern: What were the instructions that you asked be given to the police who were stationed on overpasses and railroad crossings? Mr. Lawson: They were requested to keep the people to the sides of the bridge or the overpass so that-or underpass– so that people viewing from a vantage point like that would not be directly over the President’s car so that they could either inadvertently knock something off or drop something on purpose or do some other kind of harm. And yet we continue to let this agency off the hook. We forgot that even LBJ, a direct beneficiary of the agency’s sloppiness with his former boss, trusted the outfit so little himself that he inquired at one point whether he could have the FBI protect him instead. A Telling Bumper Sticker It is foolish to ignore the worldviews and attitudes of people expected to protect presidents. Former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden has described rampant racism and widespread contempt for Kennedy and his policies among Bolden’s fellow officers. Now, here are a few salient details about the Secret Service today that go beyond trying to get a little “R&R”: When Washington Post reporters visited the Virginia home of Texas native David R. Chaney, one of the Secret Service supervisors on the Colombia trip, they found a silver pickup truck parked in front. On the vehicle they spotted a bumper sticker with an outline of the state of Texas, and the word “secede.” It is interesting to note that Chaney’s father served in the Secret Service when Kennedy was in office. As assistant agent in charge of personnel, he was friends with many of the agents who were in Dallas in November, 1963. Speaking of Dallas, consider these excerpts from a Warren Commission affidavit of Texas Sen. Ralph Yarborough, who was riding in the motorcade: After the shooting, one of the secret service men sitting down in the car in front of us pulled out an automatic rifle or weapon and looked backward. However, all of the secret service men seemed to me to respond very slowly, with no more than a puzzled look. In fact, until the automatic weapon was uncovered, I had been lulled into a sense of false hope for the President’s safety, by the lack of motion, excitement, or apparent visible knowledge by the secret service men, that anything so dreadful was happening. Knowing something of the training that combat infantrymen and Marines receive, I am amazed at the lack of instantaneous response by the Secret Service, when the rifle fire began. I make this statement in this paragraph reluctantly, not to add to the anguish of anyone, but it is my firm opinion, and I write it out in the hope that it might be of service in the better protection of our Presidents in the future. In the early 60s, Secret Service protection was downright awful. Henry Bosworth, the late editor of the Quincy Sun newspaper in Massachusetts, used to recount how he climbed aboard a press bus with no credentials, was asked no questions nor frisked for weapons, and found himself inside Hyannisport having drinks with JFK himself. And how is it now? Here’s an account of a WhoWhatWhy friend, from an Obama campaign stop in Grand Forks, North Dakota, in April, 2008. The night before I went to the convention center/domed stadium about 10pm & was walking the convention center concourse when I encountered a private security guard. We made small talk & soon he volunteered that his job the next day was to escort Obama from the ballroom through the kitchen into the main arena for the speech. I said to him that sounds like the scenario from the RFK scene in 1968. He didn’t know what I meant. I clued him in. The point is the SS was stupid enough to allow an amateur to be a part of security. The next day I positioned myself by the kitchen exit, not that close but in a position to be the 1st person that Obama would greet if he were to go toward those seats. I reminded an SS agent about the discussion with the security guard from the night before & he agreed that it shouldn’t have happened but he wasn’t in the area when Obama did walk out as I had been told he would. The security guard actually walked over to me & thanked me for giving him a story to tell his grandkids. I guess the glitches in security are more common than we imagine—but more likely if you have hookers on your mind. Oh, by the way: during renewed government inquiries into JFK’s death in the 1990s, the Secret Service destroyed crucial assassination-related records. WHOWHATWHY http://www.businessinsider.com/a-closer-look-at-the-secret-service-2012-4

Great new "Kennedy Detail" review

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful 1.0 out of 5 stars Boring, April 28, 2012 By S. P. Fitzgerald (Plymouth, Michigan) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME) Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?) This review is from: The Kennedy Detail (Kindle Edition) Boring is about the worst thing that could be said of a story with so much potential. Bought this expecting an insider's account of JFK or Jackie or the Secret Service or the assassination or gossip or .... something. Instead what the reader gets is several hundred pages of low-level bureaucratic whining about being overworked. If I wanted to hear that I'd just go hang around the DMV. Which, in truth, would have been about as interesting as this book. You can almost hear yourself sighing at the prospect of another report. Did I mention the author, Blaine, wasn't even in Dallas? No mention of Fiddle or Faddle or Mimi or Mariyn either. Did I mention that the author almost drilled LBJ with a Tommy gun the night of the assassination but didn't? That is not far off from the author's own description and about as dramatic.

BAN the Blaine & Atchity "Kennedy Detail" movie!

- "The Kennedy Detail" book [co-written with Lisa McCubbin] WAS written because of my 22-page letter to Clint Hill in June 2005: Hill (whom I spoke to) and Blaine (whom I spoke to twice and corresponded with) were angry at my findings (because the truth hurts), Blaine's attorney sent me a letter, Blaine & Hill spoke about me on C-SPAN, and I am mentioned on pages 359-360 of their crap book (which they got all wrong; typical). THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER: their book did not sway public opinion at all, reviews were decidedly mixed, and it was only an "extended list" NY Times Best Seller (many of the pro conspiracy books released during the "JFK" movie fared far better, and on smaller publishing houses, to boot). Please see: http://www.ctka.net/reviews/kennedydetailreview.html EPIC FAIL---next... -"The Kennedy Detail" documentary was an improvement, as far as the NON-assassination/ NON-Tampa information (almost a visual sneak preview of the Clint Hill book to come), but, despite an EMMY nomination (they lost+remember: even crappy sitcoms get "Emmy nominations"), the ratings were not very good, it was never released on DVD and, quite frankly, from a public opinion standpoint, the documentary sank without a trace. Please see: http://ctka.net/reviews/slick_propaganda.html EPIC FAIL---next... -Whenever a book does reasonably well, the publisher will often ask for a follow-up work...so Lisa McCubbin decided to get Clint Hill to "tell his story" (nothing new but, in extended form, interesting). The result was a MUCH better book, "Mrs Kennedy and Me", a much better selling NY Times best-seller with far better reviews. Please see: http://www.ctka.net/reviews/MrsKennedy_Hill_Review_Palamara.html However, the 11/18-11/22 blame-the-victim mantra from the first book reappears on a couple pages...but, since this is essentially a JACKIE KENNEDY book and NOT an assassination book, per se, no one seems to notice or care. SUCCESS (Jackie Kennedy anecdotes and, to a lesser extent, Hill's story [although, as many have noticed, Gwen Hill is virtually ignored and we are left to wonder: did they divorce? Is she still alive?])...but EPIC FAIL as far as swaying the public opinion of the assassination and so forth (to be fair, THIS project does not seem to have been written for that purpose)---next... -Now, Blaine & Atchity, obviously enjoying the success and profit ($$$$$$) from their products related to the Secret Service failing to protect JFK, yet having to know that their efforts to date have FAILED to change public opinion one iota, are now going to try their hand at a movie version of "The Kennedy Detail" timed for the 50th anniversary of the assassination (Fall 2013). However, to COUNTER THEIR MOVIE, a slew of PRO conspiracy books and movies will be released: LEONARDO DICAPRIO IS COMING OUT WITH A MAJOR PRO CONSPIRACY MOVIE, BASED ON A BOOK I AM IN , "LEGACY OF SECRECY"! Also, Mark Lane and Abraham Bolden (both of whom are in a book I am in, "Last Word", with several chapters that debunk Blaine's work) have a major movie of their own coming out! I can see it all now---Blaine will have some cheesey actor portraying JFK---scene: Tampa, FL, 11/18/63---reading from his script: "I command you, and this is a firm command: get the hell off my limousine, dammit! I have a rendezvous with death- that IS my favorite poem, after all. Don't worry if something happens a few days from now-drink up and party, you have done your best. Oh, another thing: when some young whippersnapper named Palamara ruffles your feathers in 2005, be sure to write a book all about this." Prediction for Blaine's movie: EPIC FAIL P.S. Preliminary response from OTHERS to Blaine's projected movie so far: http://www.deadline.com/2012/04/jfk-film-planned-for-50th-anniversary-of-assignation/ COMMENTS (19) Is this movie going to detail (excuse the pun) how bad of a job they did? JFK closed the book on all other Kennedy movies. Nothing can come close to that. Please spare us this one. Comment by x — Monday April 16, 2012 @ 11:05am PDT Reply to this post Couldn’t agree more. JFK might be the best film of its decade. Comment by Dave — Monday April 16, 2012 @ 11:53am PDT Reply to this post Oliver Stone has probably stated 100x that his movie is a “counter myth” to the “Warren Commission myth.” The movie never presents any facts incorrectly, it merely speculates on the connections between them. And it does that brilliantly. As does Don Delillo’s book LIBRA. People who believe the Warren Commission are complete suckers. Comment by jack — Monday April 16, 2012 @ 12:29pm PDT Reply to this post I agree. I feel bad for Caroline. This movie is only being made because of the anniversary. Sad. This is blood money. Comment by Stan — Monday April 16, 2012 @ 12:55pm PDT Reply to this post The book and the documentary were self serving, full of self pitty and excuses. Basically what it boils down to is “except for the President getting shot and killed we did everything right and it wasn’t our fault”. Comment by RPF — Monday April 16, 2012 @ 11:35am PDT Reply to this post Will the movie depict heavy drinking reportedly done by members of the detail at Jack Ruby’s bar “The Cellar” the night before the assassination? Comment by scrivener — Monday April 16, 2012 @ 11:39am PDT Reply to this post Very good scrivener. Nice. Comment by Hollywood Dodger Mark — Friday April 20, 2012 @ 1:16am PDT Reply to this post If done right, this could be a great movie. Clint Hill’s story is a very dramatic one. Comment by Adam — Monday April 16, 2012 @ 12:15pm PDT Reply to this post The Secret Service was drinking heavily? Were they frequenting the company of prostitutes, too? Comment by Next Stop, Cartagena! — Monday April 16, 2012 @ 12:30pm PDT Reply to this post I’m a big fan of the theory that Castro, having survived several (very silly) plots on his life, ordered the hit on Kennedy in retaliation. Comment by SimAlex2000 — Monday April 16, 2012 @ 1:23pm PDT Reply to this post Or, in other words, round up the usual suspects. Comment by scrivener — Monday April 16, 2012 @ 1:57pm PDT Reply to this post Kennedy and a few choice cabinet members were the only ones standing in the way of that exact thing happening to Castro. Bay of Pigs was the “disaster” it was because Kennedy was trying to avoid the all out war blatantly assassinating Castro would have caused. Bottom line is, and this is according to E.Howard Hunt himself, the CIA was the front runner in Kennedy’s death and cover up. Comment by VRam — Monday April 16, 2012 @ 2:05pm PDT Reply to this post “Kennedy and a few choice cabinet members were the only ones standing in the way of that exact thing happening to Castro.” correction: Both John and Robert Kennedy were the ones who ordered the hit(s). Comment by SimAlex2000 — Monday April 16, 2012 @ 8:10pm PDT Reply to this post You are half right. The other half is he mob. And two other things that are very possible is that the actual hit team was the one hired to kill Castro but then shut down by JFK. Part of Bobby’s remorse is that he was part of the group that hired the team for the Castro job. Another interesting theory is that Howard Hughes might have put up the money. Comment by Jerry — Monday April 16, 2012 @ 8:39pm PDT Reply to this post Hey, I’m just happy for Ken Atchity that he has a “go” gig. Comment by Santayana — Monday April 16, 2012 @ 1:59pm PDT Reply to this post Comment by Dennis Patten — Tuesday April 17, 2012 @ 12:23am PDT Reply to this post Jfk rfk both had so many enemies: the mob, the military, the rightwing…big oil…it goes on and on…as soon as jfk was dead..Bobby probably thought….what hell hath we wrought? Comment by larry Arnette — Wednesday April 18, 2012 @ 3:54pm PDT Reply to this post The plot was hatched ion the midst of the plot to get Castro and backfired when many participants realized JFK and RFK were the ones standiing in the way; at this point, Oliver Stone’s movie does have relevance as the powers that be realized, with LBJ at the top, they could get their way Comment by larry Arnette — Wednesday April 18, 2012 @ 3:59pm PDT Reply to this post Forthcoming Film To Coincide With JFK Assassination 50th Anniversary http://www.boomtron.com/2012/04/film-jfk-assassination-50th-anniversary/ by John Converse The more I think about it, the more I think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Not so much because I believe the cooked-up testimonials and ballistics of the Warren Commision Report, but because if I can convince myself of the theory of a Lone Gunman, I can cease giving a shit about the whole thing. All right, so I’m full of shit. Of course I can’t convince myself of the theory of a Lone Gunman. First of all, the words “Dallas, Texas” inherently imply the presence of more than a single manned rifle in any given space. Second, if I have to stop believing in Shadow Government, in a way, I have to start believing in Dick Cheney, and that’s something that I can never allow to happen. So I will embrace this latest foray into That Fateful Day In Dallas, based upon the book, The Kennedy Detail, which retells the story from the perspective of the Secret Service agents who were on duty at the time of the assassination. This may, once and for all, be the last conceivable angle from which this particular event can be covered. And if you are a particularly jaded sonofabitch, as I am, you might say that this is also the least relevant angle, because if the Secret Service had ever had any particularly valid perspective on the assassination of President Kennedy, they would have done something to stop it. Like closing a couple of windows. Maybe leaving the top on the Lincoln. According to Deadline, the plan is to get the thing shot, edited, and into theaters in late 2013 to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the assassination. I suppose as far as your cold, calculated, exploitative business decisions go, this is probably a sound little bit of business strategy. Never mind that a documentary based upon the same source material was put out in 2010. I mean, duh. Like, who the fuck watches documentaries anyway?

Daily Kos article

This article quotes my work: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/24/1085819/-Lincoln-Kennedy-Obama-and-the-Secret-Service Tue Apr 24, 2012 at 06:21 AM PDT. Lincoln, Kennedy, Obama and the Secret Serviceby Michael Alton Gottlieb Follow . Tweet permalink 16 Comments In November 1864 the Washington police force created the first security detail to protect the President of the United States. The man who was supposed to protect the President at Ford's Theater on April 14th 1865 was three hours late for duty and had been drinking at the same tavern John Wilkes Booth had been. Needless to say, the president's security detail failed and Lincoln was shot in the head. . On November 22 1963, the Secret Service suffered catastrophic failure to the point many Kennedy Assassination researchers [VMP- HERE, THE ARTICLE REFERENCES JUST MY JFK LANCER ARTICLE: http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/limo.html#.T5al98RShXc] believe the Secret Service was involved in the conspiracy to murder JFK. Others believe it was their heavy drinking, carousing and arrogance. But drinking didn't cause Kennedy's Limo to be the lead car in the motorcade against protocol and not have a single agent riding on the car: Though maybe it accounts for the fact the Secret Service agent riding shotgun in the presidential limo made no move to protect the President during the nearly six seconds of shooting or the Secret Service driver of the limo who slowed down in the kill zone instead of stepping on the gas when they knew shots were being fired. According to Abraham Bolden, the first African American Secret Service agent assigned to the White House, the Secret Service agents assigned to protect President Kennedy in conversation amongst themselves said they would not lift a finger to protect Kennedy if there was an assassination attempt. And indeed, on 11/22/63 that is exactly what they did. Bolden claims many agents in JFK's personal security detail were Southern rednecks. I bring this up because I wonder at the safety of our current President given the history of the Secret Service's culture of debauchery and history of failure. Considering how many assassination attempts and plots have been hatched over the years, perhaps only four actual assassinated Presidents is success. But I get the feeling most attempts have failed due to the poor quality of the assassin rather than the excellence of the Secret Service. The recent scandal in Colombia only highlights the dangers to the Commander-in-Chief. The pundits and other Serious People will have you believe this was an exception to the rule carried out by a few rogue agents. Pretty much what they told us about the torturers at Abu Ghraib. A few rogue soldiers. But this was a lie. What happened at Abu Ghraib was policy. Torture was American policy and not some crazy shit done by a few sexual deviants and drunken soldiers. Fully a dozen Secret Service agents and perhaps a dozen other government employees were caught with their pants down. Was this a rogue occurrence or par for the course? We'll never know. The only time the Public is told anything is when folks get caught with their pants down. Then Serious People tend to cover things up, lie, obfuscate – tell us this was a one-off. A few bad apples. But it's not a few rogue bad apples – it's the culture of power and arrogance. It's the hubris of empire. We got soldiers doing unspeakable things to innocent men, women and children. We have a political class co-opted by greed and stupidity. We have a corporate class drunk on money and entitlement. We have rigged markets, not free markets. We have a bread and circuses nightmare of talent shows and white trash Realty TV millionaires. We have an industrial prison system which lobbies for more laws to throw more people in jail. And we have consumers who trample each other to death to get Black Friday deals while two billion people on the planet live on less than two dollars a day. For the last ten years at least the military has been recruiting right-wing nutjobs to kill Muslims with impunity and without remorse. Our police forces around the country have been militarized and propagandized to stun, shoot and beat first and ask questions later. We have an epidemic of bullying and just plain mean nastiness among the people who strive to fix blame on the decrepit society they find themselves in. The great empire of America is bankrupt, corrupt and cruel. 45 million folks on food-stamps. 50 million without healthcare. One in five American children live in poverty. But the elites and Serious People have money to burn and a culture of arrogance and indifference toward their fellow human beings. Is it any wonder the Secret Service, the Military, the CIA, the NSA and Americas's police forces are seriously debauched? No. It's not. It's expected. Aren't they all just playing catch up to politicians, lobbyists and CEOs? I don't know if the Secret Service is still filled with right-wing, racist bigots. It doesn't sound like the culture has changed too much since those heady days when they failed to protect a President's life. A president who stood up to the War Machine and the oil lobby. A man who dreamed of going to the moon, ending the Cold War and usher in an age of world peace. Prosecuting the Abu Ghraib “rogues” did not end torture, rendition, secret prisons and American war crimes. Dumping a dozen Secret Service agents for drinking and whoring will not stop American arrogance and entitlement. Abraham Bolden's boss at the Secret Service pulled him aside one day and told him he was a born a nigger and would never be anything but a nigger and to never forget it. Does the Secret Service have the same culture it did in 1963? I don't know, but in the current climate of right-wing hate and hysteria toward Obama, if it does, I worry for the President. .TagsAbraham LincolnAbu GhraibBarack ObamaColombiajohn kennedysecret servicetorture. [why I felt "safe" to cut and paste this one] © Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified GOOD COMMENT I'll bet there are secret service agents who take their jobs very, very seriously indeed - and there are other agents who are simple-minded fuck-ups. I'll bet there were agents after Dallas who were totally grief- and guilt-stricken by their Failure to protect JFK... and there were others who figure that rich, snotty bastard just got what he had coming to him. People in real life are not simplistic cartoons of Good and Evil -- unlike most Conspiracy Theories.

Excellent review of Mimi Alford's book-best to date

A HERO BUT NOT A SAINT, April 14, 2012 By Steven G. JonesThis review is from: Once Upon a Secret: My Affair with President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath (Hardcover) Mimi Alford's story is very believable and the book is well written. It is obvious that sharing her long held secret was necessary for her emotional healing and no one has a right to criticize her for telling her story. And her story is important for historians to get a better understanding of one aspect of Kennedy's character. Psychologists today would say that Kennedy had a compulsive sexual addiction. He used his power, money and good looks to seduce women as a way of escaping stress and distracting him from the almost constant physical pain that he suffered from. Also the steroids he took for his Addison's Disease most likely increased his sex drive. However, if we think more deeply this book can help teach us an important lesson. Unless a politician forcibly rapes someone or sexually molests a child or adolescent it is best that, while they are living, their sex lives be kept private just like everyone else's. If the public had known about Kennedy's sex life in 1960 he never would have been elected. Richard Nixon, who was closely aligned with the right-wing hawks in the Pentagon and CIA( as Vice President Nixon helped plan the Bay of Pigs invasion) would have given us a war with Cuba in 1961; a much earlier escalation of the conflict in Vietnam; and a showdown with the Soviets over Berlin very possibly resulting in a nuclear confrontation. Not to mention what would have happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The media that covered Washington in the days of FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy were wiser than their current brethren. They had the common sense to realize that human sexuality is deeply personal and very complex and has little, or nothing, to do with the way a leader conducts himself in office. That is why despite the public knowledge of Kennedy's numerous sexual affairs he was still ranked as our sixth greatest president in the most recent American Historical Association poll of professional historians The saddest thing about this book is not how it tarnishes the image of JFK, but that it might distract us from the much more important( for us as citizens) task of understanding the significance of Kennedy's presidency and why he was murdered by the CIA. For that I direct readers to " JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters" by James Douglass. Sure we would all prefer a president who conducted himself morally in both private and public matters. but if given a choice between someone such as Kennedy who showed enormous courage and restraint in his efforts to keep us out of war; or someone like George W. Bush who, though faithful to his wife, lied and manipulated us into an unnecessary war, I would gladly take the former. We certainly know by now that John F. Kennedy was not a saint. But he most certainly was a hero.

Commentary: There's nothing new in latest Secret Service scandal

Commentary: There's nothing new in latest Secret Service scandal Bob Ray Sanders The Fort Worth Star-Telegram Bob Ray Sanders Updated: 2012-04-25T10:49:43Z Secret Service agents and military personnel, part of a security advance team in a foreign country for the U.S. president's visit, decide to party hardy. The result? A major "scandal" that has led to an extensive internal review, calls for a congressional investigation, the questioning of the "culture" within the Secret Service and a demand by some for heads to roll, especially the agency's director, Mark Sullivan. Before commenting further on this latest national "embarrassment," let's go back to another time, another president and another group of agents charged with protecting the leader of the free world. It was the night of Nov. 21, 1963. Based on the account from William Manchester's The Death of the President, Air Force One and two other planes landed at Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth shortly after 11 p.m. There was a light rain and no one in the presidential party expected to see many people turn out at that time of night. But throngs of folks (10,000 according to the Star -Telegram) lined the West Freeway from the base to downtown. The Hotel Texas lobby was full of people, causing the Secret Service some alarm as the president and Jacqueline Kennedy made their way to their three-room suite on the eighth floor. It had been a very long day and Jacqueline Kennedy was "exhausted." Her husband, while tired, was exhilarated by what was turning out to be a great trip to Texas. They went to bed. The on-duty Secret Service agents went about their duties, with the midnight-to-8 a.m. shift guarding outside Suite 850. There was an agent posted at the hotel entrance; another inspected the parking lot, secured the president's car and checked the entrances and exits the president would use the next day. There also were guards posted at the plane, routine even at a Strategic Air Command base. "But nine agents of the White House detail, unknown to [agent-in-charge Roy] Kellerman, were out on the town," Manchester writes. "They started with beer and mixed drinks at the Fort Worth Press Club with Mac Kilduff; then seven of them continued at a colorful establishment called 'The Cellar,' ordering 'Salty Dicks,' a nonalcoholic specialty of the house. One stayed until 5 a.m." Manchester continues, "Fellow drinkers during those early-morning hours included four agents who were to ride in the President's follow-up car in Dallas, and whose alertness was vital to his safety. At various times they were joined by three agents of the twelve-to-eight shift -- who were officially on duty, assigned to guard the President's bedroom door -- and chose to break the boredom of sentry duty in this fashion." When I became a member of the Press Club of Fort Worth (its official name so as not to be confused with a club of the Fort Worth Press newspaper), I often heard old-timers describe how they had broken the law that night, keeping the club open past legal hours for the partying Secret Service agents. Conspiracy theorists for years have pointed to the agents' actions as contributing to what happened the next day in Dallas. There has never been any proof that the behavior of mostly off-duty agents had anything to do with Kennedy's assassination. The truth is many federal agents, just as many local law enforcement officers, drink when they are off duty. It is their way of winding down after long, stressful and sometimes boring work days. What happened in Cartagena, Colombia, is inexcusable. As many as 11 Secret Service agents and up to 10 military personnel are under investigation because they reportedly brought 20 prostitutes to their hotel rooms. Some agents allegedly had detailed information about the president's itinerary and travel routes. Although Congress loves to investigate things, I don't know that we need an official congressional hearing over this, and it is far too premature to call for the dismissal of the director. Salacious scandals feed the appetite of a 24-hour news cycle, but we should allow this one to take its course through the normal review process without the usual rush to judgment.

Report: Rampant Secret Service drinking, sex in 2011 trip

Report: Rampant Secret Service drinking, sex in 2011 trip By Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY A Seattle TV station is reporting that a Secret Service team in El Salvador last year to prepare for President Obama's visit allegedly engaged in heavy drinking and sexual activity similar to escapades in Colombia last month. In an exclusive report for KIRO-TV, investigative reporter Chris Halsne quotes a U.S. government subcontractor in San Salvador as saying he worked extensively with a dozen members of the Secret Service advance team and found that the majority regularly visited a popular strip club and were "wasted" and "heavily intoxicated." The unidentified subcontractor says agents paid extra for access to a VIP section of the club where they were provided "a number of sexual favors in return for their cash," KIRO-TV reports. The subcontractor, according to KIRO-TV, says he told the agents that taking prostitutes back to their hotel rooms was a "really bad idea" but that several agents bragged that they "did this all the time" and "not to worry about it." The KIRO-TV reporter says the owner of the club confirmed that a large number of U.S. Secret Service agents, and some military escorts, had "descended on his club" a week before the Obama visit. KIRO-TV says it has the name of some of the agents allegedly involved and has viewed records which, the reporters says, add credibility to the subcontractor's eyewitness account. KIRO-TV promises a longer series of reports later today. The Secret Service announced this week that all 12 implicated officers or supervisors in the Colombia scandal had been dealt with: eight forced out, one stripped of his security clearance and three cleared of wrongdoing, all within two weeks of the night in question, the Associated Press reports. A dozen military personnel have also been implicated, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said they have had their security clearances suspended.

Wesley Pruden (Washington Times) quotes from my blog

Wesley Pruden (Washington Times) quotes from my blog This is a particularly sad episode for the Secret Service, which has been trying for four decades to live down a reputation for drunken malfeasance on the night before John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, for partying until 5 in the morning at the Fort Worth Press Club. One of JFK’s agents later told author Edward Klein (“The Kennedy Curse”) that “drinking, partying and sex became part of traveling with the president.” Shocking indeed. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/20/pruden-a-big-fortnight-for-big-spenders-at-the-gsa/

Clint Hill: recent comments to the media

Hill said, “There’s no tolerance at all, no room for any misbehavior in the Secret Service.” “There’s no loose chain. You are on the clock from the time you leave…until the time you return home.” [I guess Clint forgot the drinking incident he himself was involved in the night before the assassination. Also, former agents Tony Sherman, Abe Bolden, and Joe Paolella, as well as DNC advance man Jerry Bruno, confirmed that the agents indulged in sex parties and drinking during the JFK years! Sorry, ole Clint] Hill also said: “Mark Sullivan has been a very good director and good for the service.” [Perhaps Clint feels this way because he debriefed Sullivan on the purpose and merit of “The Kennedy Detail” before publication, dined with him at an AFAUSSS conference, and had lunch with the Director (and Blaine) in private later!]

Secret Service Agent Selection Tougher Than Harvard

Secret Service Agent Selection Tougher Than Harvard By Jeff Bliss - Apr 25, 2012 12:00 AM ET . U.S. Secret Service agents, whose work protecting presidents has inspired myth and movies, are supposed to live by the adage “Worthy of Trust and Confidence.” Getting a job with the agency is one of the more difficult in law enforcement, with fewer than 1 percent of 15,600 special- agent applicants selected last year. Harvard College admits 5.9 percent. Many speak multiple languages, hold advanced degrees and take agency classes in ethics and “interpersonal awareness.” Now the Secret Service finds its reputation and its ranks diminished by a scandal involving prostitutes in Cartagena, Colombia in the days before President Barack Obama attended a summit there. Nine have either left the agency or are in the process of being dismissed, and congressional hearings are planned to shine a light on agent misconduct. The episode has sparked the agency’s worst crisis outside of an assassination. Former agents said they can’t fathom employees consorting with prostitutes. “The agency requires you to dress a certain way, speak a certain way, deal with people a certain way,” said Dave Wilkinson, 51, a 22-year veteran of the Secret Service who retired in 2005. Any behavior that would cause people “to feel Secret Service agents are not the best of the best or brings into question their honor or integrity is as bad as it gets.” ‘Knuckleheads’ Involved Obama said yesterday he didn’t believe the allegations reflected widespread shortcomings. “A couple of knuckleheads shouldn’t detract from what they do,” he said during a taping of NBC’s “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon” program. The Secret Service, created in 1865 to suppress counterfeiting of U.S. currency at the end of the Civil War, describes itself as “one of the most elite law enforcement organizations in the world.” The agency began guarding presidents full time in 1902, the year after President William McKinley’s assassination, and its responsibilities now also include guarding embassies and fighting financial crimes. The last scandal that embroiled the service involved Tareq and Michaele Salahi, a Virginia couple who slipped uninvited into a 2009 state dinner at the White House. The agency took the blame for the lapse, saying its officers didn’t follow procedures. Past Encounters A 2002 U.S. News and World Report article described how strippers were brought into Secret Service field offices, an alleged affair between an agent and a cousin of President Bill Clinton, and a sexual encounter between an agent and his informant that ended with her dead on his bathroom floor from cocaine abuse. The ranks of agents are dominated by men. There were no women until 1971. Today, about 400, or 11 percent, are women, according to the agency. Agents sometimes work 20-hour days, spend weeks at a time on the road, and earn starting salaries from $43,964 to $74,891. Job candidates are tested for intelligence and physical endurance and also undergo background investigations. Former agents said their backgrounds before joining the agency included sales, accounting, law enforcement and military. The 3,500 agents are issued guns and badges. Recruits are sent to a Georgia training center to learn investigative techniques, and a Maryland facility to learn how to guard top officials, investigate crimes, fire weapons and arrest suspects. The mandatory retirement age is 57. Payment Dispute The agency is investigating allegations that employees hired prostitutes and took them back to their hotel rooms in advance of the summit in Cartagena, which ended on April 15. The allegations came to light after a dispute erupted between an agent and a prostitute who said she hadn’t been paid the agreed- upon fee. The majority of those under investigation were agents, according to Representative Peter King, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in an interview. King, a Republican from New York, was briefed by the agency. Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who is chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said he’ll hold hearings next month on the agents’ behavior. The hearing will examine where there’s other evidence of misconduct by agents, he said in an interview. Ed Donovan, an agent and spokesman for the Secret Service, called the Colombia incident “an anomaly.” “We don’t think this is a cultural thing,” he said. Movie Portrayal Agents’ work was spotlighted in the 1993 Clint Eastwood movie “In the Line of Fire,” which features an agent who couldn’t protect President John F. Kennedy and is determined to save another president. The episode in Colombia may reflect a cultural shift, said Frank Ochberg, a psychiatrist who did a 1978 study on agents’ job stresses that was commissioned by the Secret Service. He said he saw no indication of behavior comparable to the prostitution allegations. The allegations suggest those involved lacked “the maturity, the dignity” that agents exhibited 30 years ago, he said. To add agents skilled at preventing terrorist attacks, the agency may have brought in recruits who are more aggressive and reckless, he said. “I don’t think that what went on” in Colombia “is simply a couple of rogues,” Ochberg said. A former White House aide, who worked with agents in planning dozens of presidential events and spoke on condition of anonymity, said some would hang out in hotel bars and pick up women. The aide said he never saw evidence they were interested in prostitutes. Agency Moved The agency’s quality has diminished since it was moved in 2003 from the Treasury Department to the Homeland Security Department, said Ronald Kessler, the author of 2009’s “In the President’s Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect.” The Secret Service has become less vigilant in screening the crowds at public events, Kessler said. The agency has been given more people to protect at more events since the Sept. 11 attacks, on top of their existing duties, Kessler said. “The agents are totally overworked, overwhelmed,” Kessler said. Since 2002, the agency has added 500 agents and 400 uniformed officers. Some are assigned to the president, vice president and their families. Others are tapped for so-called jump teams, like the one that went to Colombia, to set up security before a U.S. dignitary’s visit. The job can be thrilling and heartbreaking, former agents said. Kennedy Horror Clint Hill, who became an icon of agent dedication when he vaulted onto the presidential limousine and flattened his body over a mortally wounded Kennedy, said he never shook the horror of that moment, or of the president’s wife racing toward him. Only after publishing the book “Mrs. Kennedy and Me” this month has he been able to absorb what happened, he said. “I’ve had a difficult time,” Hill said. He said he was “shocked” by the Colombia incident. “I don’t recall ever a situation like I’ve been reading about,” said Hill, 80, who retired from the agency in 1975. [I guess Clint forgot the drinking incident he himself was involved in the night before the assassination. Also, former agents Tony Sherman, Abe Bolden, and Joe Paolella, as well as DNC advance man Jerry Bruno, confirmed that the agents indulged in sex parties and drinking during the JFK years! Sorry, ole Clint] Stress is a job hazard. During a presidential campaign, agents work 21 days on the protective details and then get 21 days off, Wilkinson said. Long absences lead to missed dinner parties and resentful spouses, wrote Philip H. Melanson and Peter F. Stevens in their 2002 book, “The Secret Service: The Hidden History of an Enigmatic Agency.” Counting the Tiles Monotony was almost as big a threat to an agent’s sanity as the thought of getting killed, former agent Gerald Blaine wrote in his 2010 book, “The Kennedy Detail.” As he stood post outside the Oval Office’s closed door, his back to Kennedy’s muffled voice discussing civil rights legislation, Blaine said he couldn’t resist counting the squares on the black-and-white checkerboard floor. “Everybody hated the damn tiles,” he said. Some agents found solace in alcohol, others in women they met in their travels. One flight attendant on a George McGovern campaign plane in 1972 “entertained no less than 18” Secret Service men, according to the book “The Boys on the Bus” by Timothy Crouse. The question now is why agents appear to be going further, Kessler said. “I’m sure those things happened” in the past, “but they were not at this proportion,” he said. To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Bliss in Washington at jbliss@bloomberg.net

Confidants: Secret Service agents contend misbehavior on trips not unprecedented

Confidants: Secret Service agents contend misbehavior on trips not unprecedented By Carol D. Leonnig and David Nakamura, Published: April 24The Washington Post Some Secret Service employees accused of misconduct in the Colombian prostitution scandal are privately contending that their conduct didn’t warrant dismissal because senior managers tolerated similar behavior during official trips, according to people familiar with the employees’ thinking. Several of the men who agreed to resign under pressure last week are also considering reversing their decisions and fighting to keep their jobs, said the people knowledgeable about the case. The prospect of Secret Service agents sharing embarrassing tales about rank-and-file employees and superiors partying to the hilt could bring more anguish to an agency reeling from scandal. Those close to the accused employees said that in an effort to fight for their jobs they could opt to divulge details of how colleagues spent some of their downtime on presidential trips — drinking heavily, visiting strip clubs and cavorting with women for hire. “Of course it has happened before” said one agent not implicated in the matter, remarking on the Secret Service’s history of occasionally licentious partying. “This is not the first time. It really only blew up in this case because the [U.S. Embassy] was alerted.” In a statement Tuesday, Assistant Director Paul S. Morrissey said the service “is committed to conducting a full, thorough and fair investigation in this matter, and will not hesitate to take appropriate action should any additional information come to light.” President Obama, visiting the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on Tuesday, faced questions from late-night host Jimmy Fallon about the quality of the president’s protectors. Obama stressed that the actions of a few should not overshadow the dedication of the agency. “The Secret Service, these guys are incredible,” Obama said, according to a press pool report of his visit. “They protect me, they protect our girls. A couple of knuckleheads shouldn’t detract from what they do. What they were thinking, I don’t know. That’s why they’re not there anymore.” Twelve Secret Service employees and 11 military service members have been implicated in the misconduct ahead of Obama’s trip this month to Cartagena, Colombia, for an economic summit. The men are accused of heavy drinking, visits to strip clubs and payments to prostitutes. Last week, the agency moved to oust six of the service’s employees, including two supervisors, and cleared a seventh of serious misconduct. On Tuesday, it made decisions on the other five, saying that two more had agreed to resign, two would retain their service employment but face demotion, and another would be recommended for dismissal but could work for other federal agencies. Lawrence Berger, attorney for several employees who were recommended for removal, declined to comment on his clients’ cases. As the investigation continues, differing accounts have emerged about the men’s alleged behavior on the night of April 11 and morning of April 12. Congressional officials briefed on the investigation have said some of the men argued that they did not know the women were prostitutes when they brought them back to the Hotel Caribe, where they were lodging, not far from the Hilton where Obama was scheduled to stay. In an internal employee-only briefing Tuesday, Secret Service security officials said that not all of the men may have had sexual encounters with prostitutes, according to a person familiar with the briefing. But the officials said that the employees implicated in Cartagena violated policy simply by soliciting prostitutes and negotiating prices for services, whether they received the services or not. In Colombia, prostitution is legal, but hotel guests are often asked to pay a fee if an additional guest joins them overnight. The people familiar with the accused employees said some of them have said there was no sexual activity because the men were so drunk that they fell asleep immediately after bringing the women to their rooms. Agents not involved in the Colombia trip, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss matters publicly, said the events in Cartagena may be embarrassing, but they are not without precedent. They pointed to a 2009 visit to Buenos Aires by former President Bill Clinton, whose protective detail included agents and uniformed officers. During that trip, the agents said, members of the detail went out for a late night of partying at strip clubs. “You take a bunch of guys out of the country and have a lot of women showering them with attention, bad things are bound to happen,” one agent said. The scandal has been a deep blow to morale among current and former agents, who feel tarred by the behavior of the relatively small group of men, said James Huse Jr. , a former assistant director. He called the alleged misconduct “an egregious failure on the part of those people involved.” One former agent disputed the suggestion that agents and officers accused of misdeeds in Cartagena risked impairing their abilities to perform their assignments after Obama arrived two days later. “Some guys could have a good time Wednesday night, and Friday morning they would be on their post, shaved and ready to go,” said this person, who emphasized that he does not condone paying prostitutes for sex. Huse said he is particularly dumbfounded that the men partied so openly during an era when smartphones and social media can so easily spread details of misbehavior. “We live in different age that makes the behavior of these people more impossible to comprehend,” he said. “What were they thinking?” Staff writer Justin Jouvenal and research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Interesting new review of Clint Hill's book

It's a page-turner, for sure, but I was left scratching my head in the end!, April 24, 2012 By Omni Modis "Omnimodis78" (Ontario, Canada) - See all my reviewsThis review is from: Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir (Hardcover) The book is a page-turner, I admit that much. It certainly gives a very precises account on the relationship between a man who was a mere shadow and a most extraordinary woman he was charged to protect. But early on I was left to question his razor-sharp recollections. Too detailed, for something that happened 50 years ago. Even I didn't take all his quotations (there are many) literally, I was a little put off when it came time to read his recollections about November 22, 1963 - he gives a lot of insider details on the moments leading up to 12:30 p.m. in Dallas, but then he seems to really miss an opportunity to go into details about those few historic minutes. Not only that, but he actually remembers critical details wrong. He states (not quoting) that he jumped off of the secret service car the instant he heard the first "shot" and noticed JFK grabbing his throat. This is simply not the case. All photographs and multiple video recordings show that his feet did not touch pavement until an instant after the fatal head-shot. I was also curious to know if by the fact that he repeats twice that he saw the back of the president's head with a big wound where he could even see the brain (Warren Commission does not support this), was he implying something? Or was he not remembering that correctly either. That's a very important thing to claim because technically he was the first US government official on the scene of the crime (the presidential limo) so for him to state he saw the back of Kennedy's head with a big wound is something that shouldn't just be glossed over. I was left to question the accuracy of his recollections if such a critical and well documented scenario he didn't even remember correctly. He should have at least admitted that his recollection differs from what actually happened, but I suppose that would have been anticlimactic given the nature of this book. Let me wrap it up though that if for no other reason, it's worth reading this book to get the feel of what it must have been like to work directly with the Kennedy First Family. But the assassination part was not cohesively composed, and that's rather shocking.

obituary: Paul Lee Yost

Paul Lee Yost Paul Lee Yost VISTA -- Paul Lee Yost died Sunday, December 5, 2010 at home. Born July 12, 1914, in Charlotte, N. C., he lived in Vista, Calif. Mr. Yost was with the Secret Service stationed at the White House for 24 years before retirement. He loved bowling and was very active in the growth of the Washington D. C. association and formation of the league at the White House. Mr. Yost is survived by his son, Paul (Pat); two daughters, Pat Merrill and Dianne Franklin (Ray); eight grandchildren; one grandchild( deceased); and 14 great-grandchildren. Visitation is scheduled for Friday, December 10, 9 am to 12:30 p.m., at Eternal Hills Mortuary Chapel, 1999 El Camino Real, Oceanside, Calif. A funeral service will follow at 1 p m , Friday, December 10, 2010 NOT to be confused with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_A._Yost,_Jr. From a researcher (name withheld to prevent further embarassment to him lol): Vince, I have been in contact with the relatives of Secret Service agent Paul Yost. They claim their uncle emphatically told them he was a driver of the 100X on the streets of Dallas. Of course I told them they were mistaken because William Greer was the only driver from Love Field to Parkland Hospital. After their claim I remembered the aerial photograph of the 100X on Commerce Street that details the driver of the 100X opening the door. I have always asked why did Greer open the door on Commerce Street? I then pulled up a photo of an elderly Agent Yost (link below) and a young Greer (your blog) and pasted them on the aerial photo of the 100X on Elm Street - attached and below. Is the aerial photo detailing Yost exiting the car or is the photo detailing Greer opening the door for an unknown reason? Do you have a photos of a younger Yost and your analysis please. Yes I do have my own opinion but will hold until your reply.

"The Kennedy Detail"-Beware:

“The Kennedy Detail” repeats constantly an alleged Kennedy quote about "Ivy League charlatans" that the author tries to convince (brainwash?) the reader into taking what was simply an off-hand quote/joke by JFK and turn it into a proclamation of strict procedure protocol. This book is a vehicle for former Secret Service agents to defend themselves against dereliction of duty allegations in losing Kennedy. They turn the tables and blame the dead president himself for his own death, claiming that, in an insulting way, he ordered agents off of the back of his vehicle. The assumption seems to be, that had he not done that, he would have been saved on November 22, 1963. This allegation holds no water and is an abomination. READ THE FOLLOWING MASSIVE LISTING OF FIRST-HAND ACCOUNTS AND EVIDENCE THAT DESTROYS "THE KENNEDY DETAIL" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JFK did NOT order the agents off his limousine 1)-2) Secret Service Chiefs James J. Rowley (former SAIC) and Urbanus E. “U.E.” Baughman—Rowley told the Warren Commission: “No President will tell the Secret Service what they can or cannot do.” Even President Truman agreed, stating: “the Secret Service was the only boss that the President of the United States really had.” 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.”Rowley told the JFK Library in 1976: “…you could talk to them [JFK’s staff]…It made for a very happy relationship.” 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 inDallas, 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; 3) SAIC GERALD BEHN: “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.” ; 4) ASAIC FLOYD BORING: “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. I never told him [William Manchester] that…No, no, no-that’s not true……Well that’s not true. That’s not true. He was a very nice man; he never interfered with us at all…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.” To the JFK Library: “…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…” 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.” (see Hill, below) [Note: the other ASAICs, John Campion and Roy H Kellerman, died many years ago and never went on the record regarding this matter. That said, Roy's widow, the late June Kellerman (deceased 2006), wrote to me: "Roy did not say JFK was difficult to protect."] 5) ATSAIC (SHIFT LEADER) Arthur L. Godfrey (on the TX trip): “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 at a later date. Asked if whether Aide Ken O’Donnell did any similar ordering, Godfrey said emphatically: “He did not order anyone around.” “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” ; [NOTE: the other 2 ATSAICs, Emory Roberts and Stu Stout, died in the 1970's and never went on record. Roberts DID submit a report on the matter, 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). Stout’s son, Stu Stout III, wrote to me on 11/1/10: “Vince. Thought I would mention that one of the influential people that attended the advance planning meetings for the Dallas trip was the Mayor of Dallas in 63 and I think it was Earle Cabell or Eric? Doesn’t really matter. I distinctly ...remember during a conversation at the dinner table weeks following (that surreal day), my father telling my mother that "the Mayor thought agents riding on the back of the car (which was common protocol) would send a message and did not want his city to appear dangerous to the world though the media. He asked for subtle security exposure if and where possible."On that day only two individuals would have been able to direct such an order and that would have been the President himself or Floyd Boring SAIC. In my opinion, and you know about opinions, if you find out who else was in that chain of command "during that moment" you will be able to rationally determine why the agents jumped down for a portion of that politically motivated route through the city. Take care Vince and please don’t give up.”] 6) Winston G. Lawson, WHD (lead) advance agent for the Dallas trip (rode in the lead car): “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.”; 7) Robert I. Bouck, SAIC of PRS: 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.” 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).; 8) Rufus W. Youngblood, (A)SAIC of LBJ Detail (in LBJ’s car in Dallas) : “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. “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 readManchester.” Youngblood knows of what he speaks: he was interviewed by Manchester on 11/17/64.; 9) SA Robert E. Lilley, WHD: “Oh, I’m sure he [JFK] didn’t [order agents off his car, agreeing with Behn, above]. 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.”; 10) Samuel A. Kinney, WHD (drove the follow-up car in FL, TX, and many other trips):“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.” 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.”; 11) Samuel E. Sulliman, WHD (On Texas trip, in Dallas, at the Trade Mart): Said 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.”; 12) Gerald W. “Jerry” O’Rourke, WHD (on Texas trip): ”To my knowledge President Kennedy never ordered us to leave the limo. 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.”; 13) J. Walter Coughlin, WHD (on Texas trip): “In almost all parade situations that I was involved w [ith] we rode or walked the limo… We often rode on the back of the car... The rear steps [of the limousine] were very adaquete [sic] for safety… [JFK was] Very funny and very friendly. Knew all the agents by first name.” When I asked him if he thought William Manchester and others took “poetic license” on this matter?” Coughlin responded: “Yes I do.”; 14) Vincent P. Mroz, WHD: 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.”; 15) Frank G. Stoner, PRS: 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 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.”; 16) Larry Newman, WHD: Said 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.” Newman phoned the author unexpectedly later 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; 17) J. Frank Yeager, WHD (on Texas trip): “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… I know of no “order” directly from President Kennedy”; 18) Gerald S. Blaine, WHD (on Texas trip): 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. Said it was a “fairly common” occurrence to have agents on the rear of the limo and that it depended on the crowd and the speed of the cars. 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. He also added that the lack of agents on the rear of the car “had no impact,” adding: “Well, maybe a hesitation.” On the issue of JFK being cooperative with the Secret Service, former agents James Goodenough (Texas trip), Jerry Kivett (LBJ Detail, Dallas), and Radford Jones cooroborated Blaine, Godfrey, Boring and the others—Goodenough: “President Kennedy was a pleasant and cooperative person to work for”; Kivett: “[JFK] was beloved by those agents on the detail and I never heard anyone say that he was difficult to protect”; Jones: “JFK was an easy President to protect and no different from other Presidents in wanting to mingle and be close to people … The President was always considerate of the agents and spoke with them. He kept us informed of his travels, etc. I would say he was no more difficult to protect than any other President.”; 19) Donald J. Lawton, WHD; rode on rear of limousine 3/23/63 (Chicago) & 11/18/63 (Tampa); relegated to airport duty 11/22/63: “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. ” 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.” Lawton later wrote: “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, above]; 20) Clinton J. Hill, WHD: [from his written report (18 H 809)] “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. It was general knowledge on the White House Detail, however [VMP- in his 2012 book, page 271, he writes: "I had never heard the president ever question procedural recommendations by his Secret Service detail"!]…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.” However, Hill DID reveal the specific source to the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter- Floyd Boring! 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…”Specter: “Are those practices specified in any written documents of the Secret Service?” Hill: “No, they are not.”Specter: “And to whom did the President make that request?”Hill: “Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring.” 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.” However, as Boring told the ARRB (above): “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”!; 21) Darwin David Horn, Sr. (Secret Service, Los Angeles office; former WHD agent; served in the agency from 1951 to 1981): “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.” 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].”; 22) 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; 23) 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); 24) 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.; 25) Lynn S. Meredith (WHD, “Kiddie Detail”/ Kennedy Children; served in the Secret Service from 1951 to 1983): “in Dallas, the Secret Service had no reliable information that Dallas was a dangerous place…I do believe if agents had been riding on the rear of the limo in Dallas that President Kennedy would not have been assassinated …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…I do not know first-hand if President Kennedy ordered agents off the back end of his limousine…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 my work 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.”; 26)- 27) 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”. 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…” (“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); 28) Cecil Stoughton, WH photographer (on the FL & TX trips, as well as many others): “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; 29) 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); 30) DNC Advance man Martin E. “Marty” Underwood (on the TX trip): Underwood cited 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; 31) 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.” “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; 32)-34) 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.” 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.” (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.”); 35) Helen O’Donnell, daughter of JFK Chief of Staff Ken O’Donnell: “Suffice to say that you are correct; JFK did not order anybody off the car, he never interfered with my dad’s direction on the Secret Service, and this is much backed up by my Dad’s tapes. I think and know from the tapes Dallas always haunted him because of the might-have-beens—but they involved the motorcade route [only].”; 36) Florida Congressman Samuel Melville Gibbons, rode right next to JFK in Tampa on 11/18/63: 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.” [honorable mentions:] 37) William “Tim” McIntyre, WHD (rode on the follow-up car on 11/18/63 & 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”?; 38) Charles T. Zboril, WHD, Lawton’s partner on the rear of the limo in Tampa on 11/18/63: “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.”; POST SCRIPT: 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”: “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.” 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.” 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. Secret Service 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 Agents Joseph Petro (in his own book) and Charles Taylor (in Kessler’s book). Clinton Secret Service Director Lewis Merletti: stated that the assassination “might have been thwarted had agents been stationed on the car’s running boards.” “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. 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 [VMP: huh? it can be "seen" that JFK ordered them off?], 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.” POST SCRIPT TWO: JFK’S STAFF? NOT Ronald M. Pontius, WHD (on Texas trip, but not the Dallas stop): When asked if JFK ever ordered the agents off his limo, the agent wrote back: “He did through his staff.” However, 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 and Helen O’Donnell refute 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. The biggest contradiction of all: on page 162 of “The Kennedy Detail”, agent Ron Pontius stated: “I’ve never heard the president say anything about agents on the back of the car”! POST SCRIPT THREE: A COVER-UP, 5 MONTHS LATER 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. 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! 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 (to have the agents off the limo) 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. However, as noted above, Behn tells me (on audio tape/ You Tube video): “I don’t remember Kennedy ever saying that he didn’t want anybody on the back of his car.” 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. “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.” 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 section)---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 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.