Debate: Regarding Secret Service Complicity & Negligence in JFK's Murder (1998)

http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/vp3.htm

Debate: Regarding Secret Service Complicity & Negligence in JFK's Murder

The Principles:

Howard Platzman, researcher, & Vince Palamara, author of "The Third Alternative: Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service & The JFK Murder"

PLATZMAN:

"Vince Palamara, a most painstaking researcher, was good enough to respond to the questions I sent him via e-mail about his conclusions of Secret Service complicity. His contributions in this area are unmatched -- but I have had difficulty following the logic of the conclusions he has drawn. Some of the discussion below refers to an article in the Fourth Decade [9/97] in which Vince finally takes a position on the issue of the Secret Service's role, but I think the gist of it comes through in the following exchange. Vince responded at length to my questions..."

(Platzman continued): "After all your painstaking research, you are entitled to reach some conclusions, but I must say I found it confusing. I'm sure you're right about the scope of the Secret Service's dereliction of duty, whether intentional or not. And I tend to agree that dereliction on such a massive scale seems unlikely to be unintentional. But I'm having a hard time grasping who was doing what and why?"

1. You say [ASAIC Floyd]Boring et al. usurped the authority of their superiors, but are you suggesting that their bosses were ordered to stay away from Dallas by the master plotters, or were kept away through some other subterfuge? If not, then how could Boring et al. be in a position to usurp?

2. You say, the Secret Service knew but said nothing -- both before and after the deed. But are you saying that the usurped, who chose not to participate, nevertheless agreed to stay silent? Why? How could the plotters have counted on their silence?

3. After the deed was done, you show that the conspirators were rewarded while the first-stringers had their career paths blocked. Wouldn't the plotters have feared that this kind of treatment would give the bosses even more motivation to speak out? Have you pressed this issue with them?

4. If they were told to stay away, does that mean the plotters approached them first and asked them to cooperate, and they refused? It seems unlikely to me that these first-stringers were all asked to cooperate, all refused, and the plotters just hoped they would remain silent -- so the most reasonable interpretation is that the top guys were just summarily bypassed and people like Boring, who could be counted on, were put in their place. But that raises the question of how the plotters got this hold on the second- stringers. I assume these were in-place second-stringers, not a private army the plotters substituted for the real Secret Service agents. Isn't is then a bit too coincidental that these guys, as a group, would participate in the conspiracy while their bosses, as a group, would not?

5. Wouldn't wholesale substitution of first-stringers by second- stringers in Dallas, of all places, be a chancy proposition? Granted, in hindsight, the plotters seem to have escaped the consequences of all kinds of incompetence (even the backward headsnap left in the doctored Z-film, if you believe the growing mass of Z-film doubters), but, at the time, imagine suggesting to your confederates: "Let's make sure all these guys from the Secret Service who should be there, who everyone would expect to be there, are not there. No one will ever notice their absence, or, if noticed, no none will ever question it." At the time, this would have seemed like a silly plan.

6. And a dangerous plan, since it points investigators in the direction of those people, and only those people, who were in a position to tell these bosses to remain in Washington. You say you've fingered the Secret Service as complicit by their inaction, but haven't you done more? You have also identified a small range of direct links between Boring and the lead conspirators, i.e., anyone who could order the first-stringers to stay out of Dallas. Wouldn't you agree that, having granted Boring's complicity/usurpation, the parties responsible for putting Boring at the scene had to be the same parties responsible for keeping his bosses away? If so, who would these people be?

I'm having a hard time grasping who was doing what and why?

PALAMARA:

I believe the matter is mainly a psychological one, rather than an evidentiary one (one dealing with logic; the brain over the heart). For example, John Armstrong's work on two Oswald's---and two Marguerites---is widely viewed as terrific work ( I agree). However, many people STILL have a hard time BELIEVING it (esp. because it all sounds ridiculous on its face, particularly to the uninitiated). Likewise, Noel Twyman's "Bloody Treason" and James Fetzer's "Assassination Science", while having a strong "fan" base (myself inc.---I am in both books, too), have an equally strong dissenting crowd, largely due to the notion that the Z-film has been tampered with in some fashion. Still, it IS hard to BELIEVE that the Z-film has been doctored, isn't it?

In regard to MY work, think about it: SOMEONE had to be responsible; these agents have NAMES. Also, there had to be at least one REASON they did---and did not---do certain things against protocal, common sense, and training. among other reasons. Again, it is easy to say "the CIA did it" but it's much harder saying, "o.k., WHO in the CIA 'did it' and, specifically, why?"---psychological mindblock.

(Quoting Platzman Point 1:)

You say [ASAIC Floyd]Boring et al. usurped the authority of their superiors, but are you suggesting that their bosses were ordered to stay away from Dallas by the master plotters, or were kept away through some other subterfuge? If not, then how could Boring et al. be in a position to usurp?

PALAMARA:

Keep in mind, I---nor ANYONE else alive (or dead)---has ALL the answers. That said, the situation that arose allowing the second and third stringers into the mix and placing the higher-ups away from Texas (planning inc.) may not have APPEARED so calculated and suspicious individually, but only as a whole when looking at the big picture (as I have). Meaning, someone may have suggested to SAIC Gerald A. Behn (for example), "hey, maybe NOW would be a good time to finally take your first full vacation during your time protecting the boss [JFK]"; "let's see what Roy [Kellerman] can do on his own"; "Let's give Kilduff a chance to debut"; "Even though the transfer isn't until Monday, why don't you take it easy, Stu, and let Rufus [Youngblood] get a chance for an early 'indoctrination' into full-time protecting LBJ on his own?"; "Win, Dave Grant will be joining you from the Florida trip to assist"; "Emory, you take charge of the Queen Mary [follow-up car] while the other two shift leaders post elsewhere";etc

These hypothetical ruminations/ quotes aside, I believe that there was a deliberate yet informal plan to keep the important agents/ personnel away from the Texas trip and/ or Dallas, specifically (whether it was Behn in D.C. or Godfrey stationed in Austin). Again, the means used to accomplish this need not have been so formal/ written (an analogy: Clint Hill wrote that, between 11/19 and 11/21/63, he was told by someone he twice wrote he could not remember [but admitted to Arlen Specter it was ASAIC Boring] to not mount the rear of JFK's limo, although there were no WRITTEN instructions about this [see my book and my recent post re: Manchester]).

The facts are this:

a) SAIC Gerald A. Behn [JFK WHD]: took first FULL vacation in the almost three years under JFK coinciding with the Texas trip. RESULT: ASAIC Roy H. Kellerman. a third-stringer, made his first major trip on his own (Behn and / or Boring, with or without Kellerman, always took charge of trips) and proved VERY ineffective, to put it mildly. ASAIC [#2] Floyd M. Boring, although also back in D.C. like Behn, was responsible for planning the Texas trip (duties/ advance assignments/ PRS/ etc.). Boring became an Inspector (promotion), Behn became an "also-ran" with Rufus Youngblood[analogy: RFK was still the Attorney General, but really in name only], LBJ's agent, soon to be THE SAIC, replacing Behn, who ends up in "Special Investigations" (which Behn told me he felt was "A DEMOTION"!!!). Kellerman becomes the new man's assistant and is harshly criticized and asked to account for his actions, or lack thereof [confirmed by June Kellerman; Roy testified to the WC and the HSCA and faced a hostile press];

b) SAIC H. Stuart Knight [V.P. LBJ WHD]: although a transfer to Headquarters (either a lateral move or a promotion of some sort, unexplained) was to become effective Monday,11/25/63, Knight does not go to Dallas. RESULT: ASAIC Rufus W. Youngblood goes in his place and, although allegedly effective in regard to LYNDON JOHNSON, evokes much suspicion re: actual actions/ radio transmissions/ usurping of power. Knight ends up going to "Special Investigations", a non-protective duty [remember what Behn thought of this duty...];

c) Press Secretary Pierre Salinger, a man extremely knowledgable about motorcade security/ planning of trips first-hand (actively involved in all the "nuts and bolts" with the advance team +)[ interviews with Bob Lilley and Sam Kinney], MAY have missed only "TWO or three" trips during HIS time with JFK...inc. the Texas trip! [ Salinger,"John F. Kennedy: Commander in Chief", 1997, p. 30] (Salinger was on a crowded cabinet plane bound for Japan along with Rusk, DILLON, Freeman, and most of the MAJOR players, so to speak) Andy Hatcher, #2 man, did not go, ostensibly because he was black (which never stopped him before in any southern state or on TV, often seated right next to Salinger. Also, a prominent member of the WHD on the Texas trip and a veteran of MANY trips, like Hatcher, Robert R. Faison, was an African-American). This left #3 man, Malcolm Kilduff, to make his first trip on his own [interview with Sam Kinney]! Salinger and/ or Hatcher, with or without Kilduff, had previously ALWAYS involved themselves with trip planning/ security do's and don'ts (re: printing of motorcade routes, feasibilty of routes, security, etc.). RESULT: Kilduff was "out of the loop" and inexperienced, left to fend for himself in the aftermath of JFK's murder, declaring to the world the time of death of the president. Kilduff was NOT involved at all in the security/ press plans to ANY significant extent, and we ALL know what happened...;

d) ATSAIC Emory P. Roberts: one of the three shift leaders (SAIC/ ASAIC assistants) on the Texas trip. While Stewart G. Stout was at the Trade Mart and Arthur L. Godfrey was in Austin [interviews/ correspondence with Godfrey], Roberts took charge of THE most important shift of the three in Dallas: the one physically protecting JFK during the motorcade (Roberts was the commander of the SS follow-up car). RESULT: Roberts ordered Rybka back from Love Filed and covered this up afterwards [all "innocent excuses" aside---see the video] AND ordered the men not to move several seconds BEFORE the fatal headshot (seperate from the recall of Ready; only Hill, assigned to Jackie and not originally scheduled for Dallas, mounted the rear of the limo at all, seemingly "disobeying" JFK's fraudelent "desires", as well as disobeying Roberts and Boring). Emory would go on to usurp Kellerman's authority at Parkland and then commandeer LBJ to Air Force One, not TWO [O'Donnell denied that he gave the go- ahead to use AF1 over 2]. Roberts became the Off-Records Sec. to LBJ [interview with Kinney], sharing duties with another Roberts, Mrs. Juanita Roberts, Johnson's Chief Private Secretary [possibly just a "coincidence"; by the way, Marie Fehmer, his other Secretary of note on 11/22/63, became the FIRST woman officer of the CIA ("Today", NBC, 1/12/89!!!!]. Who were the first two agents to die after Dallas? Stout and Roberts!;

e) David B. Grant: Joined/ usurped "principal" advance agent Winston G. Lawson on 11/18/63, fresh from the Florida trip, the New York trip, and the cancelled Chicago trip (ASAIC Floyd Boring led all these trips). Grant was Boring's man in Dallas---things "changed" after his arrival on the 18th: motorcycles, from 3-6 on each side of the limouisne riding parallel down to four non-flanking units (again, based off JFK's fraudelent "desires"---Lawson had NOTHING to do with this [interview with Lawson] and several agents I interviewed denied that JFK had ANYTHING to do with this "uniquely insecure" arrangement (to quote the HSCA). Also, like Clint Hill's "disobeying of an alleged presidential "decree", the original, 18 motorcycle plan was STILL used in all prior Texas stops (inc. Fort Worth on the morning of 11/22/63) EXCEPT in Dallas [one DPD officer even said that this occured at the last minute..at Love Field, where Rybka was called back by Roberts, among other things...)! Also, prior foreign and domestic trips bear out that JFK did not mind many motorcycles FLANKING his limo; vehicle order: changed from the original order, inc. the press, press busses, photographers (always rode in flatbed truck in front of motorcade and/ or JFK's limo), Cecil Stoughton (in place of Robert Knudsen--rode in follow-up car and/ or rear of limo from July 1963 until NOVEMBER 21, 1963; Powers took his place in Dallas), and the military aide (Godfrey McHugh and/ or Ted Clifton---McHugh even said this was unusual and that, on 11/22/63, the Secret Service had asked him for the FIRST time not to ride in the limo, where he sat between the agents in the front taking notes. Countless films/ photos exist depicting these men in the limo or in very close proximity). DMN photographer Tom Dillard said that this last minute change at Love Field took them totally out of the picture- 'nuff said. RESULTS: crucial eye witnesses and films/ photos rendered ineffective; motorcade route: changed between 11/18 and 11/19/63 (despite all the newspaper obfuscation/ conflicting accounts). There were alternate routes (plural) [interviews with Kinney and Lawson] and Behn told me the route WAS changed (but he claimed to have forgotten why...)! RESULT: slow speeds and dangerous turns in an ideal ambush area with limo driver William R. Greer slowing down the vehicle and looking back twice at JFK, disobeying Kellerman's order to get out of there before the fatal shot arrived (would he DARE disobey Behn or Boring?) [Bolden, Norris, and DNC advance man Marty Underwood harshly criticized the choice of route to me---Underwood was responsible for the Houston and Austin stops]...

f) Jack Puterbaugh: DNC advance man who rode in the pilot car along with an UNPLANNED "guest", Lt. Col. George Whitmeyer, who taught Army Intelligence [Lawson was a former CIC army intelligence officer]. as noted above, Underwood was out of the loop in Houston, and their boss, #1 man Jerry Bruno, went back to D.C. [ he ALSO harshly criticized the route/ security in his book and to the HSCA]. Puterbaugh is often blamed for the Trade Mart decision and the route change; his ACTUAL role is still not clear ;

g) Deputy Chief Paul J. Paterni: the only significant hands-on player fom Chief James J. Rowley's office (inc. Rowley himself) in regard to the AFTERMATH of the assassination. By the way, Paterni---and Inspector N. Jackson Krill---was a former member of the CIA's predecessor, the OSS!

(Quoting Platzman Point 2:)

You say, the Secret Service knew but said nothing -- both before and after the deed. But are you saying that the usurped, who chose not to participate, nevertheless agreed to stay silent? Why? How could the plotters have counted on their silence?

PALAMARA:

They knew and said nothing for several reasons: CYA (cover-your-ass) mentality, actual involvement [remember, my chief suspects are Boring, Roberts, and Greer], cover-up (towing the government line---remember, this was 1963, NOT 1999), and survival (of themselves individually AND the SS as a whole [again remembering the context of naivete and blind faith in government institutions circa 1963; although the SS may have been threatened by the FBI for domination after the assassination, there would be no realistic chance that the public would have stood for this. Today, however...]. The usurped, who chose or were "asked" not to participate, remained silent or covered-up for similar reasons, inc. career-mindedness (pensions/ retirement/ family/ etc.) and the like. Again, it's all the CONTEXT of the times and the fact that they were HAD; would the minority face the majority here? Silence could be counted on for the above reasons PLUS bribery/ blackmail (remember, the SS was paid a POULTRY sum and was a SMALL federal agency then; the CIA provided technical support/ help, inc. Theodore Shackley four days before Dallas).

(Quoting Platzman Point 3:)

After the deed was done, you show that the conspirators were rewarded while the first-stringers had their career paths blocked. Wouldn't the plotters have feared that this kind of treatment would give the bosses even more motivation to speak out? Have you pressed this issue with them?

PALAMARA:

Nothing is black and white here---remember, although Knight was semingly demoted (with Behn, who said he WAS), he later became director of the SS during the Watergate era [1973], replacing Rowley. Also, the plotters could count on silence/ lack of retribution because of 1) what they did to JFK in and of itself and 2) for the reasons stated above. In addition, it may not have been as clear cut as "counting" on their silence---circa 1963, who would believe the few who would even dare to say anything against the majority in power and in a position to do something about their careers and/ or their very lives (inc. their familes)---like LBJ, Hoover, the CIA, etc. In 1998, post- Watergate, Irangate, Clinton scandals, sure---not then...No, other than Abe Bolden (a firm believer in the conspiracy but a compromised person)I never pressed this with them---I frankly didn't have the balls; sad but true ( I also did not want to reveal my bias/ opinions too much. Otherwise, the line of communication probably would have went dead).

(Quoting Platzman Point 4:)

If they were told to stay away, does that mean the plotters approached them first and asked them to cooperate, and they refused? It seems unlikely to me that these first-stringers were all asked to cooperate, all refused, and the plotters just hoped they would remain silent -- so the most reasonable interpretation is that the top guys were just summarily bypassed and people like Boring, who could be counted on, were put in their place. But that raises the question of how the plotters got this hold on the second- stringers. I assume these were in-place second-stringers, not a private army the plotters substituted for the real Secret Service agents. Isn't is then a bit too coincidental that these guys, as a group, would participate in the conspiracy while their bosses, as a group, would not?

PALAMARA:

Again, I don't believe everything was as deliberate and "formal" as you hypothesize here (no offense). With the exception of those I have deep suspicions of specifically (see above), the others were in a posiiton to be influenced, innocently (by suggestion) or by orders ( real or threatening; meaning, by official parties OR by the plotters, as you state BUT only in a few possible instances). Although possible, I personally do not believe, other than possibly via foreknowledge ala Hoover and LBJ, the first-stringers WERE "approached" by the conspirators (who, by the way, I believe was a SMALL element of the CIA and military, even EX-members of same, along with a few ACTIVE SS agents, perhaps an EX-agent [see my book]). I believe the first-stringers were, in all likelihood, bypassed for the FEW I hold suspicions about; they were also in a position to INFLUENCE the other parties whom they wanted to go to Texas and not go/ be involved, keeping in mind another crucial point: they may also have known that, for example, the timing would be perfect BECAUSE Behn would take his vacation, Salinger would go to Japan, Knight would be transferred and stay in D.C. until it was official, etc. Keep in mind: I do NOT believe the SS was the central part of the conspiracy---I believe this other faction ([ex] CIA and [ex] miltary "rogues"] masterminded the plot and brought certain influential SS agents into it afterwards, not the other way around. Also, there were motives for SS complicity/ inaction---anger at JFK for his behavior,, politically AND sexually [see Seymour Hersh' interviews with McIntyre, etc. + my interview with Bolden and Underwood (who believes the CIA, the FBI, and the Mafia knew JFK was going to be killed on 11/22/63 and heard rumors in ADVANCE of 11/22/63 that JFK was going to be assasinated in Dallas. Where did Underwod get cinfirmation of this info.? From non other than CIA Officer WIN SCOTT!)]. WILLING participants---this is what the conspirators were looking for...

(Quoting Platzman Point 5:)

Wouldn't wholesale substitution of first-stringers by second- stringers in Dallas, of all places, be a chancy proposition? Granted, in hindsight, the plotters seem to have escaped the consequences of all kinds of incompetence (even the backward headsnap left in the doctored Z-film, if you believe the growing mass of Z-film doubters), but, at the time, imagine suggesting to your confederates: "Let's make sure all these guys from the Secret Service who should be there, who everyone would expect to be there, are not there. No one will ever notice their absence, or, if noticed, no none will ever question it." At the time, this would have seemed like a silly plan.

PALAMARA:

Keep in mind, you are thinking in hindsight; actually, we all do this, but, in this case, THAT is why you seem to view this proposition as "chancey". Remember, to the public (esp. 1963 era), agents were agents; 99 percent of the people did not know their names or positions or who was better or had more seniority/ power. And, as far as the agents themselves were concerned, it was all a matter of compartmentalization: I doubt few knew all the changes/ ramifications of these changes. For example, they all knew/ worked with Kilduff and Kellerman before; they were "qualified". It wasn't like they brought in BRAND NEW agents/ personnel---now THAT would have raised some eyebrows (to the agents, not the public [today, yes, not then]). Silly plan? Hardly...

(Quoting Platzman Point 6:)

And a dangerous plan, since it points investigators in the direction of those people, and only those people, who were in a position to tell these bosses to remain in Washington. You say you've fingered the Secret Service as complicit by their inaction, but haven't you done more? You have also identified a small range of direct links between Boring and the lead conspirators, i.e., anyone who could order the first-stringers to stay out of Dallas. Wouldn't you agree that, having granted Boring's complicity/usurpation, the parties responsible for putting Boring at the scene had to be the same parties responsible for keeping his bosses away? If so, who would these people be?

PALAMARA:

The conspiracy was the penultimate DANGEROUS, risky plan, inc. all the details/ planning (moot point)! Actually, the investigators were pointed AWAY from the principal people---Boring, Grant, Roberts, and others were NOT interviewed by the FBI, WC, HSCA, or even private investigators (until me, of course, and only certain still-living agents). The absent first-stringers took the majority (but not ALL) of the flack---from the press, the government, and the researchers (the few who bothered to look). They ALL dutifully went into CYA/ survival/ cover-up mode afterwards for the reasons stated previously. Yes, I, ME, VINCE PALAMARA, have "identified a small range of direct links between Boring and the lead conspirators", etc.---over 30 years later! Who else has? How many believe it ? How many know it [approx. .00000000000001 percent of the population, maybe]? 'nuff said... This is not exactly common, acceptable knowledge.

Also, while you know I put Boring where you state I do, I believe the following specific people were involved (non-active SS related [note: THIS list is informed speculation]): 1) Charles Cabell (and his brother, possibly);
2) Ex-SS agent Harvey Henderson;
3) J. Edgar Hoover;
4) Allen Dulles;
5) Hemming's Interpen group (certain members of it);
6) misc. [ex] CIA and [ex] military, possibly the aforementioned Whitmeyer, as an example.

Vince Palamara

Platzman's final response in the debate:

"I got your response and I feel it is detailed, and that it supports your thesis."

(Vince Palamara, author of "The Third Alternative-Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service and the JFK Murder" (1993/1997) and "JFK: The Medical Evidence Reference" (1998); Vince Palamara on pages xvii and 138 of ARRB's Final Report)