Jump to content


Spartacus

Kellerman and Greer


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Peter McGuire

Peter McGuire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 August 2007 - 10:54 AM

Tim Gratz wrote:

If they are innocent (and they are) Greer and Kellerman had each pledged to die in the performance of their duties and they took a job that might well have required them to make the ultimate sacrifice.


Of course they are not guilty since they ( Kellerman , Greer and Lee Oswald) have never been tried in a court of law, the proper way to determine such a thing. ( guilt or innocence)

However, United States Secret Service Agents simply DO NOT sit there when shots are being fired at the POTUS. And,
the car carrying said President DOES NOT slow down and stop.

Period.

End of story.

Edited by Peter McGuire, 31 August 2007 - 07:33 PM.


#2 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 31 August 2007 - 11:35 AM

That someone erred in an emergency does not make him guilty of murder, my friend.

That is pretty simple logic.

Obviously if anyone should have jumped on JFK it was Kellerman. Greer was driving the car. But as we all know Clint Hill did run and jump on the car to get to JFK.

We have previously discussed that the SOP per the SS manual at the time said Greer had to wait for Kellerman's order re what to do with the car. Moreover, there are reasons Greer may have slowed the car if the first shot came from the front.

By your logic, is Clint Eastwood also guilty of JFK's murder?

I can assure you, Peter, that any DA would laugh you out of his office if you asked for a murder indictment on THAT!

#3 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 31 August 2007 - 11:44 AM

Perhaps it is worth reminding all members that when they enter this Forum there is no requirement that they completely abandon all of their common sense.

We have had this discussion on another thread. Not too many people will offer to drive a convertible if he knows it is going to be shot at from two seperate directions! Or willfully fail to get put of the line of fire when he himself is in the line of fire. It does not take a rocket scientist to think about that!

#4 Bill Miller

Bill Miller

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington
  • Interests:Photograph and film interpreting

Posted 31 August 2007 - 12:08 PM

That someone erred in an emergency does not make him guilty of murder, my friend.

That is pretty simple logic.

Obviously if anyone should have jumped on JFK it was Kellerman. Greer was driving the car. But as we all know Clint Hill did run and jump on the car to get to JFK.

We have previously discussed that the SOP per the SS manual at the time said Greer had to wait for Kellerman's order re what to do with the car. Moreover, there are reasons Greer may have slowed the car if the first shot came from the front.

By your logic, is Clint Eastwood also guilty of JFK's murder?

I can assure you, Peter, that any DA would laugh you out of his office if you asked for a murder indictment on THAT!


A must agree with Tim. If one feels people should be on trial for the reasons given for Greer and Kellerman, then Jackie could be blamed for not pulling her husband down as well. Witness along the street who saw someone with a gun in the TSBD window before JFK's arrival to the plaza could get arrested as accomplices, too. Chief Curry could be arrested as well for not having an officer in the RR yard behind the fence. The blame game is endless. The whole idea of Kellerman and Greer being part of a conspiracy to have JFK shot to death is silly IMO.

BTW, didn't I once read where those agents didn't know but what they were heading into an ambush, thus slowing the car down may have just been done so to get their bearings on who was actually doing the shooting and from where. After all, when the Zfilm is played at normal speed ... the shooting takes place in a very small window of time.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller, 31 August 2007 - 12:11 PM.


#5 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 31 August 2007 - 12:22 PM

And of course one could argue the same thing any time someone makes a mistake in an emergency situation. People do make mistakes even in non-emergencies.

How many times have you seen a vehicle fail to pull over when an ambulance or fire truck is approaching them with sirens on, even though every driver knows the proper response. Sometimes people just freeze up. Or, as Bill (and I) suggested it might be with Greer not knowing the direction of fire, one cannot always tell the direction of firse.

But I thought Bill made a very good point that it should have been obvious to Jackie to pull her husband down in the seat. No one expected the gun fire and it took everyone a few seconds to respond.

I am sure all the SS agents had regret for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, it is not clear they could have saved JFK's life even if they reacted immediately. And even if they COULD have, remember that Gerry Hemming states there was a car bomb ready to take out the entire limousine if the conspirators were not convinced they had finished JFK's life in DP.

One should also remember that the more people the conspirators enlisted in the plot, the more chance they had someone would have revealed it to authorities before or after.

#6 Myra Bronstein

Myra Bronstein

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,895 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 31 August 2007 - 07:15 PM

Tim Gratz wrote:

If they are innocent (and they are) Greer and Kellerman had each pledged to die in the performance of their duties and they took a job that might well have required them to make the ultimate sacrifice.


Of course they are since they ( and Lee Oswald) have never been tried in a court of law, the proper way to determine such a thing. ( guilt or innocence)

However, United States Secret Service Agents simply DO NOT sit there when shots are being fired at the POTUS. And,
the car carrying said President DOES NOT slow down and stop.

Period.

End of story.


Correct Peter.
In legal terms I see them as accessories during the fact.
That's pretty dang guilty.

#7 Charles Drago

Charles Drago

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,618 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 31 August 2007 - 07:31 PM

I long have suspected that the first terrible sound in Dealey Plaza was designed both to startle/frighten witnesses to the degree that their perceptions of events would be confused (I prefer to think of it as a stimulus for cognitive dissonance), and to trigger a protective response on the part of the presidential limo driver -- who was trained to steer away from a threat.

An explosion and/or flash of light from the front may have prompted an instinctive, fatal, unjustifiable, but non-conspiratorial hesitation.

Just a thought.

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago, 31 August 2007 - 07:32 PM.


#8 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 31 August 2007 - 07:31 PM

And Myra I assume just like Peter your only basis for besmirching these people is that they did not, in your opinion, react fast enough?

If I was not a charitable man, I would hope that someone near and dear to you would be the victim of a vicious smear campaign so YOU could experience first-hand the despair the children of Greer and Kellerman (if any) may very well be experiencing.

Now, if you can tell me that you have never made a driving or other mistake, that you go through your life absolutely faultless, well then maybe I'd listen to you. But people, including law enforcement officers, do make mistakes.

I mean your "logic" is as follows:

Police are not supposed to shoot innocent people.

Policeman Charlie Smith shot John Jones, who was an innocent bystander.

Therefore, since Smith did something a "perfect" police officer should not do, without knowing any other facts, Smith is a murderer.

That is your reasoning process.

I notice you and Paul have never responded to the very logical theorem that Greer and Kellerman did not know which direction the shots were coming from. Had they determined the shots were from the front, the best reaction for Greer might have been to accelerate backwards as fast as he could, even if he had to hit the car behind him.

See also Charles' post above. Man, he thinks like a conspirator! There is logic to what he suggests, just like the logic in his suggestion that the "threats" in Chicago, Miami and Tampa may have been the conspirators deliberately crying wolf.

All I can say is shame on you and Paul for besmirching a man who is probably (I would say at least 99.9%) innocent. The only "weasle room" I give myself is that almost anything is possible.

Edited by Tim Gratz, 31 August 2007 - 07:33 PM.


#9 Peter McGuire

Peter McGuire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 August 2007 - 07:46 PM

That someone erred in an emergency does not make him guilty of murder, my friend.

That is pretty simple logic.

Obviously if anyone should have jumped on JFK it was Kellerman. Greer was driving the car. But as we all know Clint Hill did run and jump on the car to get to JFK.

We have previously discussed that the SOP per the SS manual at the time said Greer had to wait for Kellerman's order re what to do with the car. Moreover, there are reasons Greer may have slowed the car if the first shot came from the front.

By your logic, is Clint Eastwood also guilty of JFK's murder?

I can assure you, Peter, that any DA would laugh you out of his office if you asked for a murder indictment on THAT!



What in the world does Clint Eastwood have to do with this other than playing a Clint Hill in a movie? And as an attorney , you know darn well that certain professionals have a duty to do certain things in certain situations. And I am referring to situations where they are not on duty. The sole purpose of a SSA is to protect certain officials from harm. In this case the President of the United States.

Answer my question: What kind of United States Secret Service Agent just sits there when there is clear and present danger? Shots have been fired. He can see the President of the United States is clutching his throat and is obviously in danger. Kellerman can see this. He looks back. He justs sits there.

Explain that to me.

FYI: I have not accoused him of anything and in my OP I stated that like Lee Oswald, Greer and Kellerman are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Since they are deceased, they will always be innocent.

I am just asking for an explaination of their behaviour.

You say:

"Obviously if anyone should have jumped on JFK it was Kellerman."

Yes, Tim. That is pretty obvious. And undefendable.

Edited by Peter McGuire, 31 August 2007 - 07:48 PM.


#10 Peter McGuire

Peter McGuire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 August 2007 - 07:54 PM

Perhaps it is worth reminding all members that when they enter this Forum there is no requirement that they completely abandon all of their common sense.



I think it is common sense that allows one to see the ugly truth here. And by your comments here Tim, are you taking charge of this forum now with this appeal to the other members?

Higher education , including law school, is supposed to make critical thinkers of it's students and people willing to accept the truth, no matter how ugly it may be.

What happened , Tim?

#11 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 31 August 2007 - 07:58 PM

The explanation, Peter, is as simple as this: They were human beings.

And human beings can make mistakes.

A trained professional driver ought not make driving errors.

But they do all the time, sometimes with tragic results.

As I said to Myra, you tell me you have never made a mistake in your life, then and only then will I listen to you.

Despite what you now claim (maybe you read Bill's post that Kellerman's kids might be able to sue you) you clearly imply that Kellerman's failure to react faster was not human error but a deliberate act in furtherance of the conspiracy. There is just no basis whatsoever for such an inference. (Now if you could show me that Kellerman had met with Johnny Rosselli a week before the assassination, even without knowing why, that would be the slimmest reed. Or if you could show that he suddenly purchased a very expensive house or car shortly after the assassination, again that might raise eyebrows.

But when a failure to react instantaneously can be a normal human reaction in an emergency, to accuse Kellerman of criminal conduct is almost criminal, in my book.

I was reluctant to raise this point before and I do not think it true but what if Kellerman he just chickened out and despite his oath just was afraid to die, and probably would have had he been able to throw himself over JFK in time--his cowardice would be deplorable but not sinister.

You just have no basis to say his inaction was not the result of either human error or plain cowardice.

How many LE officers do "chicken out" the first time they face real gunfire?

Edited by Tim Gratz, 31 August 2007 - 08:01 PM.


#12 Peter McGuire

Peter McGuire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 August 2007 - 08:08 PM

The explanation, Peter, is as simple as this: They were human beings.



But when a failure to react instantaneously can be a normal human reaction in an emergency, to accuse Kellerman of criminal conduct is almost criminal, in my book.
?



First of all , he had a lot of time. He could have hesitated , then reacted, and still made a difference by the fatal shot.

And I do not know how many times I need to repeat this: I am just asking questions. If YOU want to consider that an accusation, they are your words, not mine.

It is just too bad people are not concerned about being sued by Oswalds heirs. Then the ill words might stop about him.

#13 Bill Miller

Bill Miller

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington
  • Interests:Photograph and film interpreting

Posted 31 August 2007 - 08:18 PM

The explanation, Peter, is as simple as this: They were human beings.



But when a failure to react instantaneously can be a normal human reaction in an emergency, to accuse Kellerman of criminal conduct is almost criminal, in my book.
?



First of all , he had a lot of time. He could have hesitated , then reacted, and still made a difference by the fatal shot.

And I do not know how many times I need to repeat this: I am just asking questions. If YOU want to consider that an accusation, they are your words, not mine.

It is just too bad people are not concerned about being sued by Oswalds heirs. Then the ill words might stop about him.


Actually - all one needs to do to win a civil suit is prove their case by 51% to the other sides 49%. Oswald had enough things going on against him in his own actions so to be implicated in the assassination even if he didn't pull the trigger. Does this mean Lee was involved in JFK's murder - of course not. The matter with Greer and Kellerman is a totally different kettle of fish. While raising the question as to their being involved in the assassination is one thing, but if someone says that these men were involved in JFK's murder and he or she cannot show just cause for making such a statement, then that person could be held accountable. Merely someone saying that the films must be altered so to not show Greer shooting JFK will not cut it.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller, 31 August 2007 - 08:18 PM.


#14 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 31 August 2007 - 08:27 PM

Peter, lert me tell you Oswald's children could have a VERY tough time suing anyone. Witness VB's victory over Gerry Spence. Although we may think most of it planted or faked, there is indeed a LOT of evidence pointing to Oswald. But a Kellerman suit against yiou would be a slam dunk since you have not a scintilla of evidence to demonstrate that his inaction for less than ten seconds was anything other than negligence or cowardice.


I can assure you that even a DA who could cause a jury to indict a ham sandwich (without ham!) could NEVER get a grand jury to induct Greer or Kellerman.

And by the way, although it makes no difference, had he immediately risen in his seat and crawled over John Connally, I doubt he could have gotten to JFK in time to shield him from the fatal shot. Remember, as I pointed out earlier, at least a second or two had passed between the time someone fired the first shot and Kellerman heard it. Allow him a mere TWO seconds to react, and another TWO seconds to get to his feet in a moving car, and another second to turn around. JFK is dead before he even gets over Connally.

With the way you measure time, not only did Oswald have time to get from the sixth floor to the second floor before Truly and Baker spotted him, he probably had time to get to his rooming house before Truly and Baker made it to the second floor!

#15 Peter McGuire

Peter McGuire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 August 2007 - 09:19 PM

Although we may think most of it planted or faked, there is indeed a LOT of evidence pointing to Oswald. But a Kellerman suit against yiou would be a slam dunk since you have not a scintilla of evidence to demonstrate that his inaction for less than ten seconds was anything other than negligence or cowardice.


I can assure you that even a DA who could cause a jury to indict a ham sandwich (without ham!) could NEVER get a grand With the way you measure time, not only did Oswald have time to get from the sixth floor to the second floor before Truly and Baker spotted him, he probably had time to get to his rooming house before Truly and Baker made it to the second floor!


Regarding your characterization of Kellerman, either of the two is fine with me. But remember Tim, they are your words, not mine. And lawsuits not withstanding, I have not not accused these people of anything. Even being negligent. You keep putting words into my mouth and you are are also intimidating me. Why Tim? Why do you have so much energy for this case and especially when it comes to the Secret Service? When do you have time to make a living? You seem to be on here 24/7.

And as far as the your last paragraph: Sticks and Stones, Tim. Sticks and Stones.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users