MORE people questioning Clint Hill

Steven Kossor says: In his new book, Clint Hill describes his visit to the Bethesda morgue to view President Kennedy's body: "...Then gently rolling the president over to one side, he pointed out a wound in the upper back , at the neckline quite small.This he said corresponded to the exit wound at the throat." In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Clint Hill testified as follows: "Representative BOGGS. Did you see any other wound other than the head wound? Mr. HILL. "Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column." Clint moved the entrance wound on the back UP six inches in his new book. That's where the Warren Commission wanted it to be, because if it really WAS six inches lower, the bullet couldn't possibly have exited from Kennedy's neck (that would make "the single bullet theory" even more preposterous). Memories nearer to the event are always more accurate than memories 50 years later! Did Clint need to lie to get a chance to promote his book? Sure looks like it. In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 4:31:43 AM PDT Douglas says: Historical truth matters, my friend, and is more important than Clint's "feelings" about Jackie Kennedy. If Clint Hill had not ventured to alter history in his accounts of President Kennedy's wounds, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But Clint Hill chose to write this book, and he is responsible for its contents. He cannot blame the statements in his book on his ghost writer/co-author, either. He is responsible for the book's contents, and for the way he described the assassination in the recent MSNBC interview about---that's right---this book. No one forced Clint to do the interview with Chris Matthews---and that interview was about THIS BOOK, and about what the wounds he described IN THIS BOOK mean. We're dealing with American history here, man, not just someone's cream puff feelings about a former First Lady. Consider what has just happened: Clint Hill has described for years (ever since 1963 and 1964) what could ONLY have been an exit wound in the BACK of President Kennedy's head---and yet in his interview with Chris Matthews, he said it had to be an entry wound, fired from above and behind. Nonsense. Entry wounds are small, and exit wounds are large, like the damage Clint Hill described to JFK's head in his book. It gets even worse. As described in the comment above yours, Clint Hill actually changed his story about the back wound in his new book, "Mrs. Kennedy and Me." When he was before the Warren commission and under oath in 1964, he described the back wound as "about six inches below the neckline." I repeat, he said this under oath. That description concurs with the descriptions given by the two FBI agents who were at the autopsy (at their 1997 ARRB depositions, when they too were under oath), and is also consistent with the holes in JFK's shirt and suit coat. BUT IN HIS NEW BOOK---which we are discussing here---Clint Hill moved the back wound SIX INCHES HIGHER, so that he now describes it as "at the neckline." The reason why he did this is rather obvious, and was stated by Mr. Hill himself (see the quote above): he was attempting, in his book, to bolster the moribund single bullet theory of Arlen Specter. He did not do this in his sworn testimony in 1964, so he was obviously instructed to amend that error in his new book. If Clint Hill only wanted us to read about his "feelings for Jackie Kennedy," that is all he should have written about. When he chose to write about JFK's wounds, he became responsible for what he wrote and must now accept the consequences for what he has written. Historical truth matters---it matters a great deal---and historical distortions, redactions, and falsehoods cannot be tolerated whenever they are perpetrated. No one gets a pass on history and truth, my friend---especially not Clint Hill, who was one of the Secret Service agents who was up late drinking alcohol the night before the assassination, in violation of Secret Service regulations. Clint Hill is not a sacred cow, and is not immune from criticism when he changes his testimony about the back wound on the President, or when he attempts to re-describe an exit wound in the skull as an entrance wound, on national television. Actions have consequences---let Clint Hill learn that if he wishes to become an author, and write about subjects he says he never intended to write about. This country's history---its true history---is more important than Clint Hill's feelings. In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 10:14:56 AM PDT MadameX says: Mr. Horne says-- "I knew what game Clint Hill was playing when he described JFK's head wound in "The Kennedy Detail" and in "Mrs. Kennedy and Me"---the game was: I will describe exactly what I saw and will not lie about it, but neither will I openly challenge the Warren Commission's or the HSCA's "government line" that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy all on his own" I've always felt Clint Hill wants the American public to know the truth and drops hints here and there so we will know the truth. Yet for some reason he will not contradict the Warren Commission Report that reads like an official company motto of what we are to believe. I was confused from the beginning at Oswald's reactions on national TV. He seemed angry, belligerent and afraid saying he was a patsy. If he wanted notoriety for assassinating the president, it looks like he would have admitted he had fired the shots. Anyway, it's good that 80% of Americans don't believe the official story. It means we're in touch with our common sense in spite of what the media tells us. Hill contradicts his own Warren Commission testimony, May 5, 2012 By Steven Kossor - See all my reviewsThis review is from: Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir (Hardcover) In his new book, Mrs. Kennedy and Me, Clint Hill describes his visit to the Bethesda morgue to view President Kennedy's body: "...Then gently rolling the president over to one side, he pointed out a wound in the upper back, at the neckline quite small." In his testimony before the Warren Commission in 1964, Clint Hill testified as follows: Representative BOGGS. "Did you see any other wound other than the head wound?" Mr. HILL. "Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column." Clint moved the entrance wound on the back UP six inches in his new book. That's where the Warren Commission wanted it to be, because if it really WAS six inches lower, the bullet couldn't possibly have exited from Kennedy's neck (that would make "the single bullet theory" even more preposterous). Memories nearer to the event are always more accurate than memories 50 years later! Did Clint need to lie to get a chance to promote his book? Sure looks like it. Initial post: May 6, 2012 4:50:00 AM PDT Douglas says: Thank you for pointing this out, Mr. Kossor. In his new book, Clint Hill attempts to change a crucial element of his 1964 sworn testimony before the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter. You have caught him red-handed. Good work. Hill's 1964 sworn testimony about a back wound six inches below the neckline was consistent with the clothing holes in JFK's shirt and suit coat, and as it turns out, was also consistent with the sworn testimony of FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill before the Assassination Records Review Board in 1997. (These two FBI agents were at JFK's autopsy for three full hours, from 8 to 11 PM on 11/22/63. They testified before the ARRB in 1997, and during their depositions, both men expressed the opinion that because JFK's back wound was so low, Specter's single bullet theory was impossible.) This attempt by Clint Hill to overturn his sworn testimony in 1964, and his decision on May 4th to re-describe an obvious exit wound in the President's skull as an entry wound on national television, are unacceptable. They tarnish, in a very serious way, what otherwise might have been a very enjoyable memoir. This behavior of his suggests coaching by contacts within the Federal government, who are still aggressively attempting to ram the "lone nut shooter myth" down the throats of the American people, as the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination approaches.

Doug Horne's review of Clint Hill's book+

Clint Hill Crosses the Line on National TV, Equating the Exit Wound He Saw in Dallas with an Entry Wound, May 5, 2012 By Douglas (Falls Church, VA, United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME) This review is from: Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir (Hardcover) SHAME ON BOTH OF YOU, CLINT HILL AND CHRIS MATTHEWS May 4th, 20:45 By Douglas P. Horne, author of "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" I watched a very sorry display on Chris Matthews' MSNBC show "Hardball" tonight: Chris Matthews conducted a short, stage-managed, cream-puff interview with retired Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, and the game was rigged "from the get-go." That was obvious. But it was also completely unacceptable, and forever tarnishes the reputations of both of these men. The occasion was a brief discussion of Clint Hill's short new memoir, "Mrs. Kennedy and Me." I picked the book up in the store about three weeks ago and read the three or so pages that everyone naturally turns to: Clint Hill's description of what happened during the shots in Dallas, on Elm Street, on November 22, 1963, when he ran from the left running board of the Queen Mary (the Secret Service follow-up car that day), to President Kennedy's limousine, only to arrive at, and mount the limousine, after all of the shots had been fired. I was particularly interested to see whether Clint Hill's description of President Kennedy's head wound had changed from what he wrote in 1963, or from what he testified to in 1964 while under oath before the Warren Commission, or from the words attributed to him in the recent book "The Kennedy Detail." The words hadn't changed. In his new memoir, Clint Hill (again) described a large, gaping wound in the right rear of President Kennedy's head, and made explicitly clear that a large amount of debris had been blown to the rear after the fatal shot, and that Jacqueline Kennedy had emerged from her seat to retrieve a part of President Kennedy's skull that had gone to the rear, and lay on the trunk lid, after the fatal shot. He described all of that again today on television with Chris Matthews. Anyone familiar with his 1963 written report, and with his 1964 sworn testimony, also knows that in this 1964 testimony before Assistant Warren Commission Counsel Arlen Specter, he said that a large portion of the rear of President Kennedy's head was lying in the back seat of the car, and that the trunk lid was covered with bloody water and brain issue. All of this---the biological debris from her husband's head retrieved by Jacqueline Kennedy from the trunk lid; the large, gaping wound in the right rear of the head of the 35th President of the United States; and the blood and brain tissue sprayed over the trunk lid---all of this, of course, speaks graphically and plainly of a fatal shot from the front, or right front (not a fatal shot from the rear, where the Book Depository was). Clint Hill knows it, and Chris Matthews knows it. But they pretended otherwise, presumably for all the "low information voters" in the TV audience. The problem for these two guys is, there aren't that many low information (i.e., uneducated or stupid) voters watching this show. The show has a very highly educated audience. So what they did was not only grossly dishonest---it was blatantly offensive, as well as just plain dumb. Now, anyone who has read about the JFK assassination knows that every doctor who treated JFK at the the side of his gurney in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital, in Dallas, described the same head wound that Clint Hill did in 1963 and 1964: a wound that could only have been an EXIT WOUND, which meant that the fatal shot had to come from the front, or right front, not from behind. Not one doctor at Parkland who wrote a treatment report the day of the assassination mentioned anything in those reports but a wound in the right rear of the skull. (And no one mentioned any damage to the top of his head or the right side of his head above the ear.) If you don't believe me, read the treatment reports (they were published in the Warren Report, after all). The wound described by these Parkland treating physicians and nurses that day was an avulsed wound (exploded outward from within), and the right rear of JFK's head was devoid of scalp and skull, in an exploded area about the size of a baseball. The head wound observed at Parkland Hospital during the 40 minutes that President Kennedy was treated (that duration was given by Dr. Clark in a press conference that day) had none of the characteristics of an entry wound whatsoever. It had all of the classic characteristics of an exit wound. A large amount of cerebral brain tissue was missing---blown out---and part of the badly damaged cerebellum, the part of the brain very low in the rear of the skull, was extruding from the head wound onto the treatment cart, as the Parkland physicians treated President Kennedy and tried to save his life. Even Chris Matthews knows that bullets make small holes when entering the body, and large holes when exiting the body. (Especially head wounds.) And yet Chris Matthews asked Clint Hill today if he had come to any conclusions about the shooting, and Clint Hill, obviously prepared for the question, said, "Sure: one shooter, three shots, from behind," or words almost identical to that. Now, Clint Hill knows that cannot be true. He always has. In fact, he knows it is such utter bull, and so contrary to the wound he has described since 1963, that he didn't say that in his new book---he merely described the wound he observed (an obvious exit wound), without commenting on where the shots came from or who did the shooting. I knew what game Clint Hill was playing when he described JFK's head wound in "The Kennedy Detail" and in "Mrs. Kennedy and Me"---the game was: I will describe exactly what I saw and will not lie about it, but neither will I openly challenge the Warren Commission's or the HSCA's "government line" that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy all on his own. The rules of the game Clint Hill was obviously engaging in when these two books were published were, "I will tell the truth about what I saw, but I will not comment on what it means." In playing by those unwritten rules, Hill managed to sit on the fence, and tell the truth about the head wound, and at the same time avoided directly refuting the Warren Commission and HSCA conclusions that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK from the Texas School Book Depository, firing from above and behind. But today Clint Hill crossed the line, and said JFK was killed by a Communist sympathizer, Lee Harvey Oswald, firing all the shots from behind. Shame on you, Clint Hill. You crossed a line today that you did not cross in either of the two recent books that quote you. What you did was unforgivable. And then Chris Matthews (who served in the Peace Corps, not in the military), gave us all his best benefit as a "firearms expert" by saying that when he stood on Elm Street in Dallas in the 1990s ("when I was down there with CBS," he said), he had concluded that killing JFK from the TSBD was "an easy shot." Gee, thank you, Chris, for this profound wisdom based on all your years as a trained marksman in the Peace Corps. Of course, Chris Matthews never mentioned today that the scope on the rifle was a cheap piece of crap that was misaligned; that the rifle found in the Depository was an unreliable piece of junk; or that it had a defective firing pin which the FBI had to replace before even test firing it. And Chris Matthews never discussed the last marksmanship test score noted in Oswald's USMC Service Record before being discharged from the Marine Corps, which was only one point above failure. (Oswald received average marksmanship scores in boot camp, achieving the middle of three shooter designations, but obviously received a "pass" in 1959---when he most likely failed his test that year. It is obvious to me that after his skills had atrophied through disuse, he was given the official score that was only one point above failure, as a gift. As fellow Marine Nelson Delgado explained to Mark Lane in 1966 (in the film "Rush to Judgment"), Oswald was such a poor shot he was always getting flagged with "Maggie's Drawers" at the El Toro shooting range; his poor marksmanship was a standing joke in his own unit.) Chris Matthews will not discuss evidence, because he knows he will lose the argument---he only wants to discuss the politically correct conclusions endorsed by the National Security State. Chris Matthews has much to be ashamed of here. He used to be the principal aide to Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill. It was Tip O'Neill who published in his own memoir, "Man of the House," on page 211 (paperback edition, St. Martin's Press, 1987), that the two aides closest to President Kennedy on a personal basis---Kenneth O'Donnell, and Dave Powers---told him at dinner in 1968, five years after JFK's assassination, that at least two shots came from behind the fence on the grassy knoll, to the right front of the limousine. O'Donnell also told Tip O'Neill at that dinner meeting that he had lied to the Warren Commission about the origin of the shots, at the request of the FBI. Surely Chris, you cannot pretend to be unfamiliar with this recollection of Tip O'Neill's??? If he did not tell you himself over a beer one night, surely you read it in his memoirs? Don't tell me you have not read the memoirs of your former boss, Chris...that won't fly. Clint Hill crossed the line tonight from telling just part of the truth, to telling a lie that I am sure he does not believe in, and that cannot be true. And he knows it. Historical truth matters, and the deliberate distortions of historical truth engaged in by Clint Hill and Chris Matthews yesterday on national TV are harming this country. Severely harming it. America will remain a nation of adolescents if it continues to treat the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations as "taboo subjects" that cannot be spoken about truthfully. Propaganda should never replace truth. Apparently that is what the mainstream TV and print news media would like to see happen next year on the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination. Chris Matthews, an otherwise intelligent person, repeatedly promotes the falsehood of the Lone Assassin Myth as if it were certified fact, when it cannot be true. And he knows he is promoting a Big Lie. Is this the price for keeping your job with the Mainstream Corporate Media, Chris? Or do you really believe that by lying about JFK's assassination, and pretending there was NOT a coup in this country in 1963, that you are somehow "protecting America's institutions?" I hope not, because there is nothing more corrosive to a democracy than lies perpetuated by big media and the government. How do you sleep with yourself at night, Chris? How do you look at yourself in the mirror when you shave every day? This is the last night I will ever watch Chris Matthews or "Hardball" again. I am boycotting that show, and any show he appears on, as long as he remains alive on this mortal coil, for Chris Matthews has proven himself---once again---to be a man without honor whenever he discusses the assassination of the man he professes to be his greatest hero, Jack Kennedy. The Intelligence Community (read: CIA) has a stranglehold on the national TV media and the national print media, when it comes to the JFK assassination. You are not allowed to speak about it anymore, unless you support the Warren Commission, or unless you disparage JFK's character and misrepresent the historical record of his presidency. The major executives of these outlets and their producers are in the government's pocket, when it comes to the taboo subject of the Kennedy assassination. The truth gets out on local and regional radio stations, and the government has not quite yet figured out how to shut down free speech on the internet, but Cass Sunstein, President Obama's Information Czar, would like to---he said so in a prestigious law school paper just about 4 years ago. Google his name, and you can read the outrageous paper, yourself. Sunstein actually advocated fining people on the internet who engage in "conspiracy" speech that he defines as irresponsible (including about JFK's death), and also advocated infiltrating such groups, and combating their messages, with government-sponsored third party surrogates. And this man was appointed America's Information Chief by President Obama. Unsettling, isn't it? The response to this stranglehold on the mainstream media by the American people (80% of whom have consistently concluded over the decades that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, and that there was a massive coverup) should be to openly and vociferously protest the Big Lie whenever it is trotted out as it was tonight, and to aggressively boycott those shows that promote the Big Lie. President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy that involved many in the National Security Establishment at the time, as well as former members of the National Security Establishment; and a massive medical coverup was implemented immediately after his death in an attempt to hide all evidence that he was shot from the front (as well as from behind). That coverup has now failed. If you are not familiar with how it was carried out, you can read my five volume book, "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board." The ten depositions taken by the ARRB General Counsel and me, of JFK autopsy witnesses, in 1996 and 1997, undeniably prove that a medical coverup occurred. Anyone not afraid of the truth, and of evaluating facts and what they really mean, should read my book. It will take you to a place where you are less secure, less proud, and less confident about your own country, but if you are someone who believes that truth can be cleansing, and have a powerful, positive, and redemptive force, than my book may just be the perfect antidote to the propaganda about the JFK assassination that will rule the mainstream media airwaves and the national print media between now and the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination. Meanwhile, boycott MSNBC's "Hardball." If you truly believe that JFK was killed by a conspiracy and that the U.S. government covered it up, then turn off the tube every time Chris Matthews' face appears on the air. Chris used to only talk like this every November 22nd, on the anniversary of JFK's assassination; now he is going out of his way to do it as often as possible. Make MSNBC pay a price for promoting the Big Lie in America. We all deserve better journalism than that. END

Secret Service Scandal: Colombia Woman Says She Fled Country

Secret Service Scandal: Colombia Woman Says She Fled Country BOGOTA, Colombia — A woman who says she was the prostitute who triggered the U.S. Secret Service scandal in Colombia said Friday that the agents involved were "idiots" for letting it happen, and declared that if she were a spy and sensitive information was available, she could have easily obtained it. The woman said she spent five hours in a Cartagena, Colombia, hotel room with an agent, and while she barely got cab fare out of him, she could have gotten information that would have compromised the security of U.S. President Barack Obama if the agent had any. "Totally," she replied when asked. "The man slept all night," said the woman, who was identified by her lawyer as Dania Londono Suarez. "If I had wanted to, I could have gone through all his documents, his wallet, his suitcase." She said in the 90-minute interview with Colombia's W Radio conducted in Spain that no U.S. investigator had been in touch with her, although reporters descended on her home a week after the incident when a taxi driver led them to it. "They could track me anywhere in the world that I go but they haven't done so," she said, speaking in Spanish. "If the Secret Service agents were idiots, imagine the investigators." That alarmed a U.S. congressman who is monitoring the case. Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, issued a statement on Friday expressing concern that investigators "have been unable to locate and interview two of the female foreign nationals involved," including Londono. "I have asked the Secret Service for an explanation of how they have failed to find this woman when the news media seems to have no trouble doing so." Eight Secret Service agents have lost their jobs in the scandal, although there is no evidence any of the 10 women interviewed by U.S. investigators for their roles in it have any connection to terrorist groups, King said earlier this week. In the interview, Londono called the Secret Service agents caught up in the scandal "fools for being from Obama's security and letting all this happen." "When I said, `I'm going to call the police so they pay me my money,' and it didn't bother them, didn't they see the magnitude of the problem?" she said. Londono said the man she slept with never identified himself as a member of Obama's advance security detail for the April 14-15 Summit of the Americas and said she saw nothing in his room that would have indicated the man's job other than a brown uniform. Londono said the man had agreed to pay her $800, but that she never would have made a public fuss about his failure to pay had she known he was part of Obama's security detail and realized the repercussions it would have for her. "My life is practically destroyed," she said. "My name is in the gutter." Her photo has been splashed all over the Internet since a newspaper took it off Facebook a week after the incident, when she said she fled Colombia fearing for her life. "I was afraid they might retaliate," she said, saying she feared for herself and her family after looking up Secret Service on the Internet and seeing that some agents were sharpshooters. The mother of a 9-year-old boy she said she had when she was 17, Londono said she would happily sell her story now and pose nude. She said she had contracted one of Colombia's top lawyers, Abelardo De la Espriella. He confirmed her identity for The Associated Press and said she called him for the first time earlier Friday, recommended by the radio host who interviewed Londono. He said he didn't see that there was any criminal infraction in the incident. Prostitution is legal in Colombia. "Let's see how we can help her," De la Espriella said of Londono. Londono appeared in the interview, part of which was also broadcast by Colombia's Caracol TV, with just a little makeup, her fingernails painted white and wearing a tight green dress. W Radio asked that the location of the interview not be disclosed for Londono's security, and she later gave an interview to the Spanish radio network Cadena Ser, which said it was recorded in one of its studios. Londono giggled nervously and refused to answer prying questions from reporters from several international news media during the W Radio interview on topics such as the nature of her sex act with the Secret Service agent. She said that the desk clerk at the Hotel Caribe called at 6:30 a.m. to tell her it was time to leave, and the agent addressed her with an insult in telling her to get out. Dania said it was nearly three hours after the man kicked her out of the room and she alerted a Colombian policeman stationed on the hallway before three colleagues of the agent, who had refused to open his door after giving her $30, scraped together $250 and paid her, she said. "'The only thing they said was `Please, please. No police, no police,'" she said. Later that day, April 12, the agent and 11 other Secret Service colleagues who may have also had prostitutes in their rooms at the five-star hotel were sent home, under investigation for alleged misconduct. Londono's story agrees with what investigators in Washington have disclosed. She said she met the man, one of 10-11 agents in a Cartagena bar, and accompanied him back to the hotel, stopping on the way to buy condoms. She said the other agents at the bar were all drunk. "They bought alcohol like they were buying water," she said, though she never saw any evidence that any of them used illegal drugs. She said the man she was with was only moderately intoxicated. She said she did not know his name. Londono said that she went to Dubai after the scandal broke and spent time with someone she had previously met in Cartagena. She would not say whether that person had been a client. She said she was charging between $600 and $800 for sex while working in Cartagena and only accepted foreigners as clients, considering herself an "escort." Asked why she became a prostitute, Londono said "it's an easy life" that would allow her to study and provide for her son. At one point in the interview, her mother was brought in by phone, and described the shame she felt. Londono said her mother did not know until the scandal broke that she was a prostitute and had been medicated for depression. She said her son was unaware of his mother's celebrity, and said she considers herself finished with prostitution. "This has cured me of it all," Londono said. "Even if I'm not hired for the magazine covers, I will never do it again." ___ Associated Press writer Frank Bajak contributed from Lima, Peru.

Wecht on cover of tabloid, to his surprise

Wecht on cover of tabloid, to his surprise 5/3/12 By Michael A. Fuoco / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Cyril H. Wecht is a voracious news consumer, reading five daily newspapers, not a supermarket tabloid among them. "I don't read tabloids. I can't afford $4 for a newspaper," he quipped. That's why he was surprised to learn from a reporter that he was the cover story for the April 30 edition of the National Examiner. Thankfully, the Examiner didn't purport to have learned the renowned forensic pathologist was a "Missing Kardashian Sister!" or that he had a hand in a "Brad and Angelina Split!" Still, the headline was a little jarring: "Top coroner demands: DIG UP JFK!" A subhead proclaimed "New Autopsy Will Finger Real Killers!" Huh? Really? Anyone who doesn't live in a cave, who reads a newspaper, watches TV or listens to the radio knows Dr. Wecht is anything but media shy. He's the media's go-to expert on all manner of death, dying and crime. He is a nationally acclaimed forensic pathologist, an attorney, a medical-legal consultant, a professor of medicine and of law. He is accommodating to local, national and international outlets alike. Indeed, while customers checking out at supermarkets and drug stores Saturday stared at his photograph on the tabloid cover, he was appearing on the CBS news show "48 Hours," discussing a New York murder case. Still, for all his media accessibility, he was stumped by the story's origin even though the subject wasn't a surprise. Perhaps the harshest critic of the Warren Commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy, Dr. Wecht has contended for more than four decades that a new autopsy could show there were two shooters. But he said he wasn't on a current campaign in that regard, had never "demanded" an exhumation and noted that a new autopsy wouldn't "finger the real killers." Most surprisingly, he said he never spoke to the writer of the two-page story, Gregory Michaels, but didn't dispute quotes attributed to him. "I'm surprised because I never spoke with the man, but I'm not surprised with the fact it is attributed to me, because I've been saying this for 47 years," Dr. Wecht said. As it turns out, the story was an apparent rewrite of one published in the March 19 edition of the Examiner's sister publication The Globe that was written by Dawna Kaufmann, Dr. Wecht's co-author of two books. Ms. Kaufmann, of Los Angeles, said she wrote the story for The Globe after rereading Dr. Wecht's 1993 book, "Cause of Death," that included his views on the JFK assassination, and subsequently interviewing him. She said over her objection Globe editors insisted on saying that Dr. Wecht demanded an exhumation. Not only didn't she know the story would be recycled as an Examiner cover story, she did not know Mr. Michaels. Attempts to reach him were unsuccessful. Dr. Wecht was more bemused than annoyed by his tabloid treatment and his sharing the cover with headlines proclaiming "COUNTRY MUSIC WARS!" "Man drives across America--ON 2 GALLONS OF GAS!" and "Whitney's DISTURBING AUTOPSY REPORT!" "I've been in tabloids over the years, such as in the case of O.J. [Simpson] and JonBenet [Ramsey], but I don't know if I ever made the cover. I'm always willing to talk to them. I'm not going to be snooty." The Examiner story wasn't the first time Dr. Wecht has been front-page news regarding the JFK assassination. In August 1972, he was given permission to examine the Warren Commission's evidence and discovered the president's brain, supposedly preserved for examination, was missing. Dr. Wecht's discovery was a front-page story the next morning in The New York Times with a headline that had a dash of tabloid journalism in it -- "Mystery Cloaks Fate of Brain of Kennedy." He said he still believes, after all of these years, that an examination of Kennedy's skull, even without the brain, could answer once and for all whether Oswald acted alone. "Do I believe this is going to occur? Absolutely not. There's no way it's going to occur. I'm not on any kind of campaign for that." But might Caroline Kennedy consider an exhumation if she sees the National Examiner cover in a supermarket? He chuckled. "Caroline Kennedy will be in a supermarket when I grow hair on my head." Vince Palamara · Duquesne University I greatly respect Dr Wecht, as do most thinking people---doctor, lawyer, author; for decades, a tremendous speaker and advocate.

Secret Service Escort Says US Agents 'Showed No Respect'

Secret Service Escort Says US Agents 'Showed No Respect' By CHRISTINE ROMO and BRIAN ROSS | ABC News One of the Colombian escorts at the center of the Secret Service scandal emerged from hiding today, recounting in detail her night in Cartagena with a member of President Obama's protective detail and saying she fears for her safety. Dania Suarez, a 24-year old dark-haired beauty, appeared on a call-in show carried by Colombia's W Radio and Carocol Television Friday morning, telling callers the agent was "heavily intoxicated" and everything in his luggage and his papers was left open in his room and could have been easily stolen. Asked if she had been a spy could she have removed the papers, Suarez said, "Absolutely, absolutely." "Clearly, in those moments, if I had wanted to, obviously, I could have done so," she said. Suarez says she met the agent at a disco where they danced and she began to rub her hands over his body. "He didn't know how to dance," she said of the agent, identified in published accounts elsewhere as Arthur Huntington, who has left the Secret Service under circumstances that are unclear. She said that Huntington did not appear to be searching for a prostitute but that "I found him." Suarez said Huntington fell asleep when they returned to his room and refused to answer the question of whether they actually had sex. "If I answer this you will know what happened," she said. Suarez said the agent "did not feel he got what he was being asked to pay for" and that this led to dispute over how much he owed her at the end of the evening. She said she does not consider herself a prostitute, but an escort because prostitutes "are lower class and live in brothels." She confirmed other accounts that the agent offered her $30, which led to a confrontation at the agent's door which drew the attention of the hotel manager and local police. She said the agents pleaded, "Please, please no police, no police." "Between all of them, they collected the money, $250, and that's what happened in the hall," she said. "They were part of Obama's security group and I told them I was going to call the police so they can pay me the money." Suarez said she left Colombia for a few days because of concerns her life could be in danger and has had no contact with any American official. "Maybe they are just as dumb as the Secret Service agents," she told the station. Throughout her appearance this morning, dressed in a skimpy green blouse, Suarez laughed and smiled even as the host reminded her of the seriousness of the scandal. "This is who I am and all I really care about is my mother and my young son," Suarez said.

A leader of a foreign country believed the Secret Service was compromised on 11/22/63

Page 295 of President Bill Clinton's "My Life": SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC, President of Serbia and Yugoslavia, to Bill Clinton in 1995- "...he was sure [Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak] Rabin's assassination was the result of betrayal by someone in his security service. Then he said that everyone knew that's what happened to President Kennedy, too, but that we Americans "have been successful in covering it up."" Interesting. Vince Palamara

SAIC Eddie Marinzel

PITTSBURGH — For Pittsburgh native Eddie Marinzel, Sept. 11, 2001, started with a morning jog on a golf course in Sarasota, Fla., with the president of the United States.Marinzel was the deputy special agent in charge of the Presidential Protective Division for the Secret Service on the day of the attacks. He said as he was escorting President George W. Bush into a nearby elementary school, he knew the rest of the day would be anything but normal. "As we were walking in, Karl Rove actually mentioned to the president that a plane had hit one of the Twin Towers," Marinzel said. Marinzel said 15 minutes later President Bush's chief of staff reported more bad news. "When I saw the look on the president's face I knew there was a problem, a bad problem. Andy Card then came over and whispered the same thing into my year and that was that we were under an attack," Marinzel said. "Right then and there things completely changed. We needed to figure out what we were going to do with the president." Marinzel said after a few brief words to the audience at the school, President Bush was back in his motorcade en route to Air Force One when they got word that the Pentagon had also been attacked. At that point, Marinzel said the crew had to make a quick decision on where the president would be the most safe. He said the group decided on Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana because of the exceptional communications department located there. But Marinzel said that was not where the president wanted to go. "He was adamant that he wanted to back to D.C. We could not take him to an unsecured area. The greatest thing for the terrorist would be to kill the president of the United States," said Marinzel. The president recorded a message that was aired after he left the base in Louisiana and traveled to an Air Force base in Nebraska, where Marinzel said President Bush made it clear that it was time to return to the capital. "I was seated behind the president. He turned to me and said, 'Eddie, let's go. We are going back to Washington.' At that point I knew it wasn't the time to argue or try to change his mind. I knew it was over," said Marinzel. On 9/11 Marinzel said President Bush remained calm in front of his staff and he saw little change afterward. "He was always very principled and hardworking. None of that changes. I do feel that he was determined that this would never happen on American soil again. Use all the assets the U.S. had to offer to make sure that we would never be attacked in the homeland again and he made that kind of hallmark on his job," Marinzel said. Marinzel said the events of 9/11 didn't change the way the Secret Service operated either; it just made them work even harder. "One lasting thing from 9/11: Our hearts still go out to the victims and the families affected and every time we think of that, you have more resolve that you are going to do your job to the best of your ability," said Marinzel.