Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kellerman and Greer


Recommended Posts

I have not not accused these people of anything. Even being negligent.

It sure seems that negligence was implied to me .... "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."

"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."

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

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not not accused these people of anything. Even being negligent.

It sure seems that negligence was implied to me .... "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."

"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."

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

Negligence is Gratz' word:

"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. "

However do answer my questions please:

Do Secret Service Agents usually just sit there when shots are being fired at the President? And are cars containing them supposed to slow down? If these comments are way out in left field, then EXCUSE ME.

But we are never going to know what was going on in Kellerman's mind. And that is why he was given the benefit of the doubt. What else could anyone do , at the time. But now is the time to take a critical look at what he did.

Is that too much to ask?

To constitute a crime, there must be an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") accompanied by the mens rea (see concurrence).

I understand that mens rea could not be proven then and it obviously couldn't be proven now. But there was some very strange behaviour going on that afternoon. And a President died that day, let us not forget.

Negligence shows the least level of culpability, intention being the most serious and recklessness of intermediate seriousness, overlapping with gross negligence. The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a 'malfeasance' where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance' (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of wilful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation (note that in the United States, there may sometimes be a slightly different interpretation for wilful blindness). The degree of culpability is determined by applying a reasonable person standard. Criminal negligence becomes "gross" when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life" (see the discussion in corporate manslaughter).

The test of any mens rea element is always based on an assessment of whether the accused had foresight of the prohibited consequences and desired to cause those consequences to occur. The three types of test are:

subjective where the court attempts to establish what the accused was actually thinking at the time the actus reus was caused;

objective where the court imputes mens rea elements on the basis that a reasonable person with the same general knowledge and abilities as the accused would have had those elements; or

hybrid, i.e. the test is both subjective and objective.

The most culpable mens rea elements will have both foresight and desire on a subjective basis. Negligence arises when, on a subjective test, an accused has not actually foreseen the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, and has gone ahead, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering injury or loss. The accused is a social danger because he or she has endangered the safety of others in circumstances where the reasonable person would have foreseen the injury and taken preventive measures. Hence, the test is hybrid.

Kellerman was no ordinary person. It was his JOB to protect the President.

What is the reasonable person standard?

This is not a real person but a legal fiction, an objective yardstick against which to measure the culpability of real people. For these purposes, the reasonable person is not an average person: this is not a democratic measure. To determine the appropriate level of responsibility, the test of reasonableness has to be directly relevant to the activities being undertaken by the accused. What the ‘average person’ thinks or might do would be irrelevant in a case where a doctor is accused of wrongfully killing a patient during treatment. Hence, there is a baseline of minimum competence that all are expected to aspire to. This reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded.

This standard can never go down, but it can go up to match the training and abilities of the particular accused.

In testing whether the particular doctor has misdiagnosed a patient so incompetently that it amounts to a crime, the standard must be that of the reasonable doctor. Those who hold themselves out as having particular skills must match the level of performance expected of people with comparable skills. When engaged in an activity outside their expertise, such individuals revert to the ordinary person standard.

This is not to deny that ordinary people might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but the ordinary person as an accused will not be at fault if he or she does not do that extraordinary thing so long as whatever that person does or thinks is reasonable in those circumstances.

The more contentious debate has surround the issue of whether the reasonable person should be subjectively matched to the accused in cases involving children, and persons with a physical or mental disability. Young and inexperienced individuals may very well not foresee what an adult might foresee, a blind person cannot see at all, and an autistic person may not relate to the world as a "normal" person. Cases involving infancy and mental disorders potentially invoke excuses to criminal liability because the accused lack of full capacity, and criminal systems provide an overlapping set of provisions which can either deal with such individuals outside the criminal justice system, or if a criminal trial is unavoidable, mitigate the extent of liability through the sentencing system following conviction.

But those who have ordinary intellectual capacities are expected to act reasonably given their physical condition.

Thus, a court would ask whether a blind reasonable person would have set out to do what the particular blind defendant did. People with physical disabilities rightly wish to be active members of the community but, if certain types of activity would endanger others, appropriate precautions must be put in place to ensure that the risks are reasonable.

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim Gratz wrote:

"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."

Is this more of your , the Mob did it nonsense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter wrote:

Do Secret Service Agents usually just sit there when shots are being fired at the President? And are cars containing them supposed to slow down? If these comments are way out in left field, then EXCUSE ME.

Peter, your first question is absurd. It was difficult for Kellerman to get up and Clint Hill was already running for the limousine. Moreover, Kellerrman might have simply "frozen". I can assure you that no judge in the United States would allow a jury to conclude that Kellerman had "mens rea" as you put it simply because he was slow to react, using your "reasonable person" styandard, which is very rarely applied in criminal cases, by the way.

As for the limousine slowing, I do not believe you have ever answered my question. Did the first shot, the throat shot, come from the front? Do you expect a Secret Service agent to drive the Presisdent into the line of fire?

You also wrote:

But those who have ordinary intellectual capacities are expected to act reasonably given their physical condition.

But they are not convicted of crimes if they do not. They are found guilty of negligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter you simply cannot say any SS agent was "guilty" and "involved" because he failed in his job.

That is like saying if a police officer messes up and someone is killed he was a party to the murder. Police officers are trained as good shooters. If a policeman sees someone attempting to murder someone, and shoots and misses so the murder is accomplished, would the negligence of the police officer PROVE he had advance knowlege of the crime.

Now I, as you know, do not believe there was "security stripping" but if there was, now THAT would be indicative of SS involvement at some level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

KIlle

I'm accusing.

As I said I think Kellerman and Greer were accessories during the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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."

Do Secret Service Agents usually just sit there when shots are being fired at the President? And are cars containing them supposed to slow down? If these comments are way out in left field, then EXCUSE ME.

The comments are not without merit ... it just seems that certain details are being left out of the equation. If you watch Greer and Kellerman as the limo comes towards Zapruder's location - the agents appear to be watching the crowds ahead. In the meantime there is background noise such as cheers and motorcycle backfires going on at the same time. It wasn't until Z270 to Z280 that Greer and Kellerman are now aware that something may be wrong as they are both attempting to look back to see what's happening. These men have now less than two seconds to figure it out and to react before the President's head explodes. What could they have really done in those few seconds other than Greer slow the car down enough to allow Hill to catch the limo and cover the President if possible .... especially while not knowing if they are riding into an ambush.

I think that one's anger at the deed of killing JFK tends to spill over onto the SS agents who were supposed to protect him, but in this particular case their hands were tied from the very beginning when no agents were riding on the back of the limo when the shooting started. Had Greer wanted JFK dead, then all he had to do is not allow Hill to catch the limo in an effort to shield the President. This appears to have been a case where Greer was damned if he doesn't slow the car to allow Hill to catch it and he's damned if he does. Greer was faced with a no win situation IMO.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greer is guilty.

Guilty of breaking SS protocol.

He should of been sacked for slowing down the limo to less than 10 mile an hour let alone a near stop!

He should of been sacked for ignoring his superiors command "to get them out of there" & instead just stare at his chief in the back seat until he was dead.

Who would of employed him as a driver after that anyway?

Of course it is natural to think he may of paniced & give him the benefit of the doubt, it also natural for investigators of a murder to show no compasion in there questioning of people who made mistakes that almost certainly lead to the death of a man.

Slowing down to let Hill on the back of the limo.

Now isn't it strange he never used that as an excuse in his testimony?

How could he have not thought of that one?

A classic mistake.

It is as obvious as seeing the head-shot itself that the last thing Greer wanted was Clint Hill on the back of his vehicle.

It was not Greers responsibilty anyway for allowing agents on the back of the limo it was Roberts & he told all the agents in the follow-up car to remain where they were at the start of the shooting.

I mean, with the motorcycles pulled back, all the pressmen out of the way & the bubbletop off after all these warnings of threats the SS recieved doesn't that suggest to you that there was some amount of inside planning for this murder?

Anyway, Greer was much more than a limo driver that day & you only have to read Vince Palamara's detailed research to know that.

Common sense cannot prove his guilt or innocence.

I think it's common sense that the Secret Service were greatly involved that day & if they really were, then Greer became essential & him hitting the brakes at that time makes him as guilty as hell.

I bet Kellerman wanted to strangle him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slowing down to let Hill on the back of the limo.

Now isn't it strange he never used that as an excuse in his testimony?

How could he have not thought of that one?

A classic mistake.

Let's say Greer had thought to say he slowed to let Hill on the car ... would you be satisfied with that answer or would you still be carrying on like a Monday morning quarterback?

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....Anyway, Greer was much more than a limo driver that day & you only have to read Vince Palamara's detailed research to know that.

Common sense cannot prove his guilt or innocence.

I think it's common sense that the Secret Service were greatly involved that day & if they really were, then Greer became essential & him hitting the brakes at that time makes him as guilty as hell.

From The Third Alternative: Survivor's Guilt:

Greer was a "patsy." He certainly was no angel, as we look at his role in the whole affair, but he was, in the final analysis, a single man - a Secret Service chauffeur - subservient to orders and willing to obey; whether these were official orders from an official chain of command is another matter entirely. Obviously, Greer was not the one pulling the strings on that fateful day in Dallas - events, official and otherwise, were planned and implemented, orders were selectively followed and obeyed by all the agents involved, and ultimately, the agency to which the driver was employed only carried so much power and authority on its own.
I bet Kellerman wanted to strangle him.

According to Kellerman after he told Greer to "get out of line; we've been hit!" Greer "then looked in the back of the car. Maybe he didn't believe me." (Palamara citing Manchester, Death of a President)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greer is guilty.

Guilty of breaking SS protocol.

He should of been sacked for slowing down the limo to less than 10 mile an hour let alone a near stop!

He should of been sacked for ignoring his superiors command "to get them out of there" & instead just stare at his chief in the back seat until he was dead.

Who would of employed him as a driver after that anyway?

Of course it is natural to think he may of paniced & give him the benefit of the doubt, it also natural for investigators of a murder to show no compasion in there questioning of people who made mistakes that almost certainly lead to the death of a man.

Slowing down to let Hill on the back of the limo.

Now isn't it strange he never used that as an excuse in his testimony?

How could he have not thought of that one?

A classic mistake.

It is as obvious as seeing the head-shot itself that the last thing Greer wanted was Clint Hill on the back of his vehicle.

It was not Greer's responsibility anyway for allowing agents on the back of the limo it was Roberts & he told all the agents in the follow-up car to remain where they were at the start of the shooting.

I mean, with the motorcycles pulled back, all the pressmen out of the way & the bubbletop off after all these warnings of threats the SS received doesn't that suggest to you that there was some amount of inside planning for this murder?

Anyway, Greer was much more than a limo driver that day & you only have to read Vince Palamara's detailed research to know that.

Common sense cannot prove his guilt or innocence.

I think it's common sense that the Secret Service were greatly involved that day & if they really were, then Greer became essential & him hitting the brakes at that time makes him as guilty as hell.

I bet Kellerman wanted to strangle him.

***************************************************************************

"Greer is guilty.

Guilty of breaking SS protocol.

He should of been sacked for slowing down the limo to less than 10 mile an hour let alone a near stop!

He should of been sacked for ignoring his superiors command "to get them out of there" & instead just stare at his chief in the back seat until he was dead.

Who would of employed him as a driver after that anyway?

Of course it is natural to think he may of panicked & give him the benefit of the doubt, it's also natural for investigators of a murder to show no compassion in their questioning of people who made mistakes that almost certainly lead to the death of a man."

There should be nothing "natural" about protecting a chief of state such as the POTUS. Anything "natural" about it, might leave a large margin of error for a likely catastrophe to occur. In this case specifically, men such as Greer were "supposed" to be have been trained, at least on the equivalent level of what SWAT Teams, or DELTA Force teams were trained to do, wouldn't you think? There should have been no quarter for something such as "panic" to have been booked as an excuse for having left the POTUS at risk for having his head blown off, while one slowed to a stop to look over his shoulder. What the hell was Kellerman supposed to be riding shot-gun for, if not the specific purpose of taking in a 360 degree perimeter of everything going on around that limo for a minimum of 100 yards within eye shot. Greer's job was to drive, and peel out of there the minute he even heard so much as a firecracker go off. This should have been instinctual, on his part. He should have been well-trained and well-versed in diversionary tactics, as part of the qualifications required to drive a presidential limousine.

Shoulda', woulda', coulda'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greer is guilty.

Guilty of breaking SS protocol.

He should of been sacked for slowing down the limo to less than 10 mile an hour let alone a near stop!

He should of been sacked for ignoring his superiors command "to get them out of there" & instead just stare at his chief in the back seat until he was dead.

Who would of employed him as a driver after that anyway?

Of course it is natural to think he may of paniced & give him the benefit of the doubt, it also natural for investigators of a murder to show no compasion in there questioning of people who made mistakes that almost certainly lead to the death of a man.

Slowing down to let Hill on the back of the limo.

Now isn't it strange he never used that as an excuse in his testimony?

How could he have not thought of that one?

A classic mistake.

It is as obvious as seeing the head-shot itself that the last thing Greer wanted was Clint Hill on the back of his vehicle.

It was not Greer's responsibility anyway for allowing agents on the back of the limo it was Roberts & he told all the agents in the follow-up car to remain where they were at the start of the shooting.

I mean, with the motorcycles pulled back, all the pressmen out of the way & the bubbletop off after all these warnings of threats the SS received doesn't that suggest to you that there was some amount of inside planning for this murder?

Anyway, Greer was much more than a limo driver that day & you only have to read Vince Palamara's detailed research to know that.

Common sense cannot prove his guilt or innocence.

I think it's common sense that the Secret Service were greatly involved that day & if they really were, then Greer became essential & him hitting the brakes at that time makes him as guilty as hell.

I bet Kellerman wanted to strangle him.

***************************************************************************

"Greer is guilty.

Guilty of breaking SS protocol.

He should of been sacked for slowing down the limo to less than 10 mile an hour let alone a near stop!

He should of been sacked for ignoring his superiors command "to get them out of there" & instead just stare at his chief in the back seat until he was dead.

Who would of employed him as a driver after that anyway?

Of course it is natural to think he may of panicked & give him the benefit of the doubt, it's also natural for investigators of a murder to show no compassion in their questioning of people who made mistakes that almost certainly lead to the death of a man."

There should be nothing "natural" about protecting a chief of state such as the POTUS. Anything "natural" about it, might leave a large margin of error for a likely catastrophe to occur. In this case specifically, men such as Greer were "supposed" to be have been trained, at least on the equivalent level of what SWAT Teams, or DELTA Force teams were trained to do, wouldn't you think? There should have been no quarter for something such as "panic" to have been booked as an excuse for having left the POTUS at risk for having his head blown off, while one slowed to a stop to look over his shoulder. What the hell was Kellerman supposed to be riding shot-gun for, if not the specific purpose of taking in a 360 degree perimeter of everything going on around that limo for a minimum of 100 yards within eye shot. Greer's job was to drive, and peel out of there the minute he even heard so much as a firecracker go off. This should have been instinctual, on his part. He should have been well-trained and well-versed in diversionary tactics, as part of the qualifications required to drive a presidential limousine.

Shoulda', woulda', coulda'...

And therein lies the primary reasons as to why, even the upper echelons of the SS, allowed the FBI & the WC to make up their own stories/fairy tales as to how the assassination actually transpired.

Now!

Exactly how incompetent would they appear, should the facts have been released that there lack of reaction was so poor that it in fact allowed a single shooter, armed with only a bolt action rifle, to get off three shots, striking JFK three times, and the only person to even take any type of action was SS Agent Clint Hill who's primary assignment was Jackie.

At times, this forum answers some of it's own questions, even though they would appear to have forgotten the actual question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greer is guilty.

Guilty of breaking SS protocol.

He should of been sacked for slowing down the limo to less than 10 mile an hour let alone a near stop!

He should of been sacked for ignoring his superiors command "to get them out of there" & instead just stare at his chief in the back seat until he was dead.

Who would of employed him as a driver after that anyway?

Of course it is natural to think he may of paniced & give him the benefit of the doubt, it also natural for investigators of a murder to show no compasion in there questioning of people who made mistakes that almost certainly lead to the death of a man.

Slowing down to let Hill on the back of the limo.

Now isn't it strange he never used that as an excuse in his testimony?

How could he have not thought of that one?

A classic mistake.

It is as obvious as seeing the head-shot itself that the last thing Greer wanted was Clint Hill on the back of his vehicle.

It was not Greer's responsibility anyway for allowing agents on the back of the limo it was Roberts & he told all the agents in the follow-up car to remain where they were at the start of the shooting.

I mean, with the motorcycles pulled back, all the pressmen out of the way & the bubbletop off after all these warnings of threats the SS received doesn't that suggest to you that there was some amount of inside planning for this murder?

Anyway, Greer was much more than a limo driver that day & you only have to read Vince Palamara's detailed research to know that.

Common sense cannot prove his guilt or innocence.

I think it's common sense that the Secret Service were greatly involved that day & if they really were, then Greer became essential & him hitting the brakes at that time makes him as guilty as hell.

I bet Kellerman wanted to strangle him.

***************************************************************************

"Greer is guilty.

Guilty of breaking SS protocol.

He should of been sacked for slowing down the limo to less than 10 mile an hour let alone a near stop!

He should of been sacked for ignoring his superiors command "to get them out of there" & instead just stare at his chief in the back seat until he was dead.

Who would of employed him as a driver after that anyway?

Of course it is natural to think he may of panicked & give him the benefit of the doubt, it's also natural for investigators of a murder to show no compassion in their questioning of people who made mistakes that almost certainly lead to the death of a man."

There should be nothing "natural" about protecting a chief of state such as the POTUS. Anything "natural" about it, might leave a large margin of error for a likely catastrophe to occur. In this case specifically, men such as Greer were "supposed" to be have been trained, at least on the equivalent level of what SWAT Teams, or DELTA Force teams were trained to do, wouldn't you think? There should have been no quarter for something such as "panic" to have been booked as an excuse for having left the POTUS at risk for having his head blown off, while one slowed to a stop to look over his shoulder. What the hell was Kellerman supposed to be riding shot-gun for, if not the specific purpose of taking in a 360 degree perimeter of everything going on around that limo for a minimum of 100 yards within eye shot. Greer's job was to drive, and peel out of there the minute he even heard so much as a firecracker go off. This should have been instinctual, on his part. He should have been well-trained and well-versed in diversionary tactics, as part of the qualifications required to drive a presidential limousine.

Shoulda', woulda', coulda'...

Amen sister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greer is guilty.

Guilty of breaking SS protocol.

He should of been sacked for slowing down the limo to less than 10 mile an hour let alone a near stop!

He should of been sacked for ignoring his superiors command "to get them out of there" & instead just stare at his chief in the back seat until he was dead.

Who would of employed him as a driver after that anyway?

Of course it is natural to think he may of paniced & give him the benefit of the doubt, it also natural for investigators of a murder to show no compasion in there questioning of people who made mistakes that almost certainly lead to the death of a man.

Slowing down to let Hill on the back of the limo.

Now isn't it strange he never used that as an excuse in his testimony?

How could he have not thought of that one?

A classic mistake.

It is as obvious as seeing the head-shot itself that the last thing Greer wanted was Clint Hill on the back of his vehicle.

It was not Greer's responsibility anyway for allowing agents on the back of the limo it was Roberts & he told all the agents in the follow-up car to remain where they were at the start of the shooting.

I mean, with the motorcycles pulled back, all the pressmen out of the way & the bubbletop off after all these warnings of threats the SS received doesn't that suggest to you that there was some amount of inside planning for this murder?

Anyway, Greer was much more than a limo driver that day & you only have to read Vince Palamara's detailed research to know that.

Common sense cannot prove his guilt or innocence.

I think it's common sense that the Secret Service were greatly involved that day & if they really were, then Greer became essential & him hitting the brakes at that time makes him as guilty as hell.

I bet Kellerman wanted to strangle him.

***************************************************************************

"Greer is guilty.

Guilty of breaking SS protocol.

He should of been sacked for slowing down the limo to less than 10 mile an hour let alone a near stop!

He should of been sacked for ignoring his superiors command "to get them out of there" & instead just stare at his chief in the back seat until he was dead.

Who would of employed him as a driver after that anyway?

Of course it is natural to think he may of panicked & give him the benefit of the doubt, it's also natural for investigators of a murder to show no compassion in their questioning of people who made mistakes that almost certainly lead to the death of a man."

There should be nothing "natural" about protecting a chief of state such as the POTUS. Anything "natural" about it, might leave a large margin of error for a likely catastrophe to occur. In this case specifically, men such as Greer were "supposed" to be have been trained, at least on the equivalent level of what SWAT Teams, or DELTA Force teams were trained to do, wouldn't you think? There should have been no quarter for something such as "panic" to have been booked as an excuse for having left the POTUS at risk for having his head blown off, while one slowed to a stop to look over his shoulder. What the hell was Kellerman supposed to be riding shot-gun for, if not the specific purpose of taking in a 360 degree perimeter of everything going on around that limo for a minimum of 100 yards within eye shot. Greer's job was to drive, and peel out of there the minute he even heard so much as a firecracker go off. This should have been instinctual, on his part. He should have been well-trained and well-versed in diversionary tactics, as part of the qualifications required to drive a presidential limousine.

Shoulda', woulda', coulda'...

Amen sister.

Didn't Kellerman have a weapon at his feet? He certainly didn't brandish it nor move more than his own head. The real crimes of the SS went well beyond those two clowns in the Limo.

- The speed slower than 44mph without extra special precautions

- The fact the turn and slower speed was not needed, easly avoided and against SS guidelines.

- The lack of any SS men on the Presidential Limo side or backboards

- The instructions for the motocycle side-riders to be back, rather than alongside the Limo

- The fact they didn't notice open windows, watch them or ask for speed-up due to them.

- The order to stand down the auxilliary Military teams that always helped protect a President.

- The failure to have the windows on buildings along the route sealed and watched.

- No one on rooftops, in crowd watching for snipers ...ONLY men hiding ready to ambush.

- Etc........

- Kellerman and Greer might have been complicit and tricked in some ways, but no one really asked them the hard questions to find out....nor the other SS men. Their performance rates minus ten on a scale from one to ten.

- BECAUSE NO ONE IN POWER NEEDED TO KNOW THE TRUTH OF WHAT HAPPENED...THEY ALREADY KNEW, AND WANTED THAT TO BE KEPT SECRET FROM THE PUBLIC.

- The crime came from way above K and G or the SS. They played their 'walk-on' parts only.

And then, you not only wonder why, but also complain, that no one will take you serious!

Wonder why????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...