Clint Hill

[John Simkin]

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2010/08/11/1020378?sac=Home

Q: Is Secret Service agent Clint Hill still alive? He was the agent who jumped on the rear of President Kennedy's car in Dallas and pushed Mrs. Kennedy back down into the seat. Is he getting a pension from the Secret Service? Did he ever get over his feelings of guilt for not saving President Kennedy's life? - R.P., Fayetteville

A: Hill, who was born in 1932, is still alive at the age of 78.

He received a citation from Jackie Kennedy just days after her husband's funeral for "extraordinary courage and heroic effort in the face of maximum danger."

Hill climbed aboard the presidential limousine after the president had been shot and shielded Mrs. Kennedy until the car reached the hospital. He is the last surviving passenger of that vehicle.

Hill retired from the Secret Service in 1975. He was 43. We don't know if he received a pension.

Shortly after that retirement, Hill was interviewed by Mike Wallace of CBS. In his 2005 memoir, "Between You and Me," Wallace wrote that he had "never interviewed a more tormented man."

Hill said he felt guilty because if he had turned in a different direction after hearing the first shot, or reacted a few tenths of a second faster, that he might have reached the president in time to shield him from the subsequent shots and take them himself, possibly saving the president.

"I'll live with that to my grave," Hill told Wallace.

Wallace wrote that Hill "broke down" during the interview and that he retired because of depression.

The veteran newsman also wrote that he contacted Hill in the fall of 2003 about interviewing him again for coverage to mark the 40th anniversary of the assassination.

Hill declined, but "he assured me he was fine and that the misery he'd gone through was now behind him," Wallace wrote. "He had finally managed to put his demons to rest, and he no longer blamed himself for the death of John F. Kennedy." - G.P.

[Ron Ecker]

Like others, Hill saw the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, as well as the back wound that he and others located lower than the SBT required. Yet I remember him bitterly criticizing some CT a few years ago, basically, as I recall, for being a CT. If Hill himself is not a CT, then it's beyond my understanding.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Like others, Hill saw the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, as well as the back wound that he and others located lower than the SBT required. Yet I remember him bitterly criticizing some CT a few years ago, basically, as I recall, for being a CT. If Hill himself is not a CT, then it's beyond my understanding.

RE: Clint Hill. It is called cognitive dissonance: when you believe 2 contradictory things at one time. People do this often because of peer pressure or self imposed pressure. Clint Hill like many others - felt the pressure from superiors and the mass media and the big Operation Mockingbird lie to "accept" the "fact" there was no conspiracy NO MATTER WHAT THE ACTUAL FACTS WERE.

Clint Hill stands for many Americans and many of those working in government to promote the Big Lie about the JFK assassination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[Michael Hogan]

Like others, Hill saw the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, as well as the back wound that he and others located lower than the SBT required. Yet I remember him bitterly criticizing some CT a few years ago, basically, as I recall, for being a CT. If Hill himself is not a CT, then it's beyond my understanding.

As members know, Sibert and O'Neill have gone on record denying

the SBT and yet still believe that Oswald was the lone assassin.

Both of them were highly critical of Arlen Specter.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsibertW.htm

[Pat Speer]

Like others, Hill saw the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, as well as the back wound that he and others located lower than the SBT required. Yet I remember him bitterly criticizing some CT a few years ago, basically, as I recall, for being a CT. If Hill himself is not a CT, then it's beyond my understanding.

The belief Hill saw a head wound which was not in accordance with the autopsy photos is apparently not true. Not only has he never said that the autopsy photos failed to show the wound he saw, he later specified that the wound was above Kennedy's ear, exactly where it is on the photos.

From patspeer.com, chapter 5b:

Clint Hill rode on the outside of the back-up car by the driver’s door. (11-30-63 report, 18H740-745) “On the left hand side was a grass area with a few people scattered along it observing the motorcade passing, and I was visually scanning these people when I heard a noise similar to a firecracker. The noise came from my right rear and I immediately moved my head in that direction. In so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential automobile and I saw the President hunch forward and then slump to his left. I jumped from the follow-up car and ran toward the Presidential automobile. I heard a second firecracker type noise but it had a different sound—like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard. I saw the President slump more toward his left. I jumped onto the left rear step of the Presidential automobile. Mrs. Kennedy shouted, "They've shot his head off;" then turned and raised out of her seat as if she were reaching to her right rear toward the back of the car for something that had blown out. I forced her back into her seat and placed my body above President and Mrs. Kennedy. SA Greer had, as I jumped onto the Presidential automobile, accelerated the Presidential automobile forward. I heard ASAIC Kellerman call SA Lawson on the two-way radio and say, "To the nearest hospital, quick." I shouted as loud as I could at the Lead car, "To the hospital, to the hospital." As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat...At approximately 2:45 A.M., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. Attendants of the Joseph Gawler Mortuary were at this time preparing the body for placement in the casket.” (3-9-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 2H132-144) “Well, as we came out of the curve, and began to straighten up, I was viewing the area which looked to be a park. There were people scattered throughout the entire park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to me seemed to be a firecracker. I immediately looked to my right and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left... I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo.” (On what he saw upon arrival at Parkland) "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." (When asked if he saw any wound other than the head wound at the autopsy) "I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column." (When asked if had an impression of the direction from which the second shot had been fired) "It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear, because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it." (Television interview found on Youtube as Clint Hill Interview 1, apparently taken from the History Channel program The Secret Service, 1995) "I heard a sound from my right rear. I was on the left-hand front of the follow-up car. As I began to turn to my right toward that sound, my eyes crossed the back of the presidential car. And I saw the president grasp at his throat and lurch a bit to his left. And I realized something had happened. And I got off the car as quickly as I could and ran to the presidential car. By the time I got there two more shots had been fired and he had been hit in the head." (Television interview found on Youtube as Clint Hill interview 2, apparently taken from the Discovery Channel program Inside the Secret Service, 1995)) "We made a left-hand turn, and shortly after we made a left-hand turn there was an explosion to my right rear that sounded a bit like a gun shot or a firecracker. And I responded by looking to my right and as I did so my eyes went across the back of the presidential car. And I saw the president grab at his throat and lurch to the left. And I jumped from the car and ran to the presidential car. Before I got there he had been shot again in the head." (Interview conducted for the National Geographic Channel program Inside the Secret Service, first broadcast 10-24-2004. Note that this is, in fact, a compilation of two different edits of the interview as found on Youtube ) "We traveled along this open area which was on my left and then made a left turn, but it wasn't a 90 degree left turn, it was like a 120 degree left turn. The open area was still on my left, and shortly after we got into that turn and started on that street, I heard a sound--which I wasn't sure what it was--whether it was a gunshot or a firecracker. I turned to see what was happening, and as I did I saw President Kennedy grab at his throat and lurch forward. I knew something was wrong. Before I could get to the presidential limousine, another shot had been fired and hit President Kennedy in the head. About that time I reached the back of the presidential limousine and tried to get on. I was trying to get my foot up on the back of the car. And I slipped. I had to run three or four more steps before I could get up. By that time Mrs. Kennedy had come out onto the trunk. It appeared to me she was searching for something, trying to retrieve something. But I got up on the back of the car and placed her back in the seat. The President at that time had slumped down into her lap. And I could see the back of his head, And there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm. And there was white brain matter and red blood throughout the entire car."

[Ron Ecker]

I could see the back of his head, And there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm.

In context (i.e. based on everything else Hill said), it seems clear to me that he is saying there was a gaping hole in back of the head that was above the level of the right ear (not literally above the right ear, i.e. not on the side of his head). "Back" does not mean "side."

[Pat Speer]

I could see the back of his head, And there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm.

In context (i.e. based on everything else Hill said), it seems clear to me that he is saying there was a gaping hole in back of the head that was above the level of the right ear (not literally above the right ear, i.e. not on the side of his head). "Back" does not mean "side."

Hill has never said the president's wounds were not as reported by the WC or HSCA. It is something others have inferred from his statements.

For this reason and many many more, I've come to believe that the hole on the back of the head proposed by most CTs is a myth.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Ron Ecker]

Hill has never said the president's wounds were not as reported by the WC or HSCA. It is something others have inferred from his statements.

I don't understand that statement, based on the repeated Hill quotes that you yourself put in bold type in post #5.

[Pat Speer]

Hill has never said the president's wounds were not as reported by the WC or HSCA. It is something others have inferred from his statements.

I don't understand that statement, based on the repeated Hill quotes that you yourself put in bold type in post #5.

For decades conspiracy theorists have assumed that those claiming the head wound was on the back of the head meant that it was on the FAR back of the head, in the location of the wound depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing. Many if not most of these conspiracy theorists have assumed furthermore that this wound was centered in the occipital bone, and that the Harper fragment was occipital bone. A close look at the location of the head wound as remembered and pointed out by the so-called back of the head witnesses, however, reveals that many if not most of them actually believed the wound to be HIGH on the back of the head, on the parietal bone, and no closer to the wound in the so-called McClelland drawing than to the wound location depicted in the autopsy photos. It follows then that the back of the head witnesses do not support that the wound was actually on the FAR back of the head, as believed by most CTs.

One then has to decide whether the government would really have faked the Zapruder film, the autopsy photos, and x-rays to move the wound a few inches further back on the top of the head. When one recalls that the doctors moved the back wound for the WC, by simply LYING about it, it does indeed seem silly that they would alter the evidence for the head wound, and then NOT lie about it. The doctors, after all, spent little of their WC testimony claiming the large defect was on the front of the head, and focused far more on the role the skull fragments blasted from the head played in determining the direction of fire.

When one examines the statements and testimony of those actually witnessing the shooting, and realizes that none of them saw an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, moreover, it becomes clear that those claiming the wound was on the back of the head were either misunderstood or mistaken. Believe it or not.

From patspeer.com, chapter 18c:

To best explain my lack of faith in the accuracy of the Parkland witnesses, we need to go back to the beginning...

At approximately 12:45 P.M., within 15 minutes of Kennedy's being shot, assassination witness William Newman, who was less than 30 feet to the side of Kennedy when the fatal bullet struck, was interviewed live on television station WFAA. This was 45 minutes before the announcement of Kennedy’s death. Newman told Jay Watson: “And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.” As he said this, he pointed to his right temple. (As shown on the slide above...)

At 1:17, about a half hour later, Watson interviewed Gayle Newman, who'd been standing right beside her husband and had had an equally close look at the President's wound. She reported: "And then another one—it was just awful fast. And President Kennedy reached up and grabbed--it looked like he grabbed--his ear and blood just started gushing out." (In 1969, while testifying at the trial of Clay Shaw, Mrs, Newman would make the implications of this last statement clear, and specify that Kennedy "was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear…")

Okay so that's two for two. Two witnesses, BOTH of whom saw the bullet impact by Kennedy's ear. But they only saw Kennedy for a second. Maybe they were mistaken. If they were correct, certainly someone seeing Kennedy at Parkland Hospital would have noticed the wound they describe by Kennedy's temple, and have mentioned it on 11-22-63.

Someone did. At 1:33 p.m. on November 22, 1963, Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff announced President Kennedy’s death from Parkland Hospital. He told the country: “President John F. Kennedy died at approximately one o’clock Central Standard Time today here in Dallas. He died of a gunshot wound in the brain…Dr. Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter…of a bullet right through the head.(at which time, as shown on the slide above, he pointed to his right temple) . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple.” As Dr. Burkley had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda, the site of the autopsy, Kilduff’s statements are a clear indication that the large head wound depicted in the autopsy photos is in the same location as the large head wound seen at Parkland Hospital. That no one at the time of Kilduff's statement had noted a separate bullet entrance anywhere on Kennedy's head, moreover, suggests that Burkley had seen but one wound, a wound by the temple, exactly where Newman and his wife had seen a wound.

But wait, there's more... Less than forty minutes after the announcement of Kennedy's death, eyewitness Abraham Zapruder took his turn before the cameras on WFAA, and confirmed the observations of Burkley and the Newmans. Describing the shooting, Zapruder told Jay Watson: “Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything (at this time, and as shown on the slide above, Zapruder grabbed his right temple), and I kept on shooting. That's about all, I'm just sick, I can't…”

This means that there were four witnesses to comment on the location of Kennedy's head wound prior to the approximately 3:15 press conference at Parkland Hospital, in which Dr. William Kemp Clark claimed the wound was on the "back of his head," and all of them had specified the wound to have been on the side of Kennedy's head, where it was later shown to be in the autopsy photos and Zapruder film. Now ain't that a humdinger!

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking, "but Pat you're cherry-picking witnesses to support your silly notion that the Parkland witnesses were wrong and that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 did not exit the back of his head." Well, first of all, I don't believe my noting that the earliest witnesses all said that a bullet hit Kennedy by the temple is silly, particularly in that three participants to Kennedy's autopsy--radiologist Dr. John Ebersole, radiology technician Jerrol Custer, and autopsy assistant James Curtis Jenkins--all left the autopsy with a similar impression a bullet struck Kennedy by the temple. And second of all.... Well, have it your way. Let's go through the statements of the best witnesses to the shooting.

Dealey Plaza groundskeeper Emmett Hudson, who was standing on the steps to the right and front of Kennedy at the moment of the fatal head shot, also discussed its impact. In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Hudson asserted: "it looked like it hit him somewhere along a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear." While this is a few inches back of the location described by the Newmans and Zapruder, it is more significantly not a description of a bullet exit on the far back of Kennedy's head, where most conspiracy theorists have long held the large head wound was located.

"Well, wait a second"--I'm sure some of you are thinking--"maybe Hudson, along with the other witnesses, saw the bullet's entrance, and missed seeing the exit of this bullet from the back of Kennedy's head due to their being slightly in front of Kennedy." Well, no, that doesn't work, either.

In 1966, Marilyn Sitzman, Abraham Zapruder’s secretary, who'd stood beside him on 11-22-63, confirmed his observation of the wound location. To writer Josiah Thompson, she related: “And the next thing that I remembered correct ... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, or almost directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his face ...” When asked then by Thompson to specify just where she saw the large head wound, she continued: “I would say it'd be above the ear and to the front…Between the eye and the ear…And we could see his brains come out, you know, his head opening. It must have been a terrible shot because it exploded his head, more or less”. Hmmm... Sitzman, as Zapruder, was almost directly to the right of the President at the moment of the fatal bullet's impact. This put them in perfect position to note an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head. And yet neither of them saw such an explosion.

Even worse, at the moment of the fatal bullet's impact, the Newmans were approximately 6-8 feet behind the President, and about 20 feet to his right. Kennedy, at this time, was turned slightly left. This means the Newmans were looking directly at the back of Kennedy's head at the moment of the fatal bullet's impact... And yet both of them noted that this impact was by his ear!

Still, that's just four witnesses in a strong position to note whether the bullet exploded from the side or back of Kennedy's skull, all of whom said side. What about the closest witnesses in the motorcade behind Kennedy? Didn't any of them see an explosion from the back of his head?

Uhhh...nope. Motorcycle officer James Chaney, riding just a few yards off Kennedy's right shoulder, was interviewed by WFAA on the night of the shooting. He reported: "We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet." Wait... What? Struck in the face? Apparently, Chaney, as Sitzman, considered the space between the eye and the ear the side of the face. While some might wish to believe Chaney was describing the impact of a bullet entering Kennedy's face and exiting from the back of his head, this in fact makes little sense, as Chaney said in this same interview that he thought the shot had come from "back over my right shoulder." We should also consider that WFAA's interview of Chaney took place on the night of the assassination...in the hall of the Dallas Police Station as Oswald was being questioned. By that time, Chaney had to have been told a rifle had been found in the depository behind Kennedy's position at the time of the shooting. If Chaney believed Oswald had fired the shots, as one would suspect since he thought the shots came from behind, and had seen an explosion of any kind from the back of Kennedy's head--entrance or exit--wouldn't he have said so?

And shouldn't the motorcycle officer riding directly to his right, Douglas Jackson, also have reported such an explosion? Jackson's notes, written on the night of the assassination and published in 1979, relate: "I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me."

Well then, what about the officers riding on the other side, unable to see the right side of the President's face? If there had been an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, entrance or exit, they would not have been distracted by an entrance or exit by Kennedy's ear. So what did they see?

While the motorcycle officer on the far left of the limo, B.J. Martin, said he did not even see the head shot, the officer to his right, Bobby Hargis, riding off Mrs.Kennedy's left shoulder, was not so lucky. In an 11-24-63 eyewitness account published in the New York Sunday News, he wrote: "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered by blood."

Okay, now, that's eight witnesses, all of whom said the kill shot impacted on the side of the President's head, and none of whom noted an explosion or wound on the back of his head.

We now move to the witnesses directly behind Kennedy, in perfect position to note an explosion from the back of his head. These witnesses rode in the Secret Service back-up car, trailing the limousine by just a few yards. Sam Kinney, the driver of this car, wrote a report on the night of the assassination which asserted "At this time, the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head…" Sitting next to Kinney was Emory Roberts, sitting directly behind Kennedy. If a bullet hit Kennedy on the back of the head, or erupted from the back of his head, he would have been the one to notice. Instead, in an 11-29-63 report, he wrote "I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left."

On the left running board of the back-up car were two agents, neither of whom commented on the bullet's impact or wound location in their initial reports.

One of the agents on the right side of the limo, Paul Landis, however, described the impact in a graphic manner. In a report written 11-29-63, he noted "I heard a second report and saw the President’s head split open and pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air." While vague, this might indeed suggest a bullet's exploding from the back of Kennedy's head.

But between the agents on the left and right sides of the limo sat four more witnesses, two on the jump seat, and two on the rear seat. While Kennedy's close aide Kenneth O'Donnell failed to describe the impact of the fatal bullet or head wound location in his Warren Commission testimony, he and the man sitting next to him on the jump seat, Dave Powers, would in 1970 publish a book on Kennedy, which described: "While we both stared at the President, the third shot took the side of his head off. We saw pieces of bone and brain tissue and bits of his reddish hair flying through the air..." These were Kennedy's friends, both of whom felt one or more shots came from the front, and yet neither of them claimed to see an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head. Years earlier, in fact, Powers had provided a statement to the Warren Commission, which described: "there was a third shot which took off the top of the President’s head..." Thus, O'Donnell and Powers felt the explosion was on the top and side of the President's head--and not on the far back of his head, where so many conspiracy theorists fervently believe the wound was located.

Their impression was shared by George Hickey, one of the two Secret Service agents on the rear seat of the back-up car. On the night of the assassination, he wrote a report on what transpired in Dallas, and noted: "it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward." Next to Hickey sat Glen Bennett, who noted, in a handwritten 11-22-63 report, that the fatal bullet "hit the right rear high of the President’s head." While some might take Bennett's statement to indicate he saw the entrance of a bullet near Kennedy's cowlick, the entrance location later "discovered" by the Clark Panel, a more logical assessment would be that he saw an explosion of brain and blood from the right side of Kennedy's skull, to the rear of his head, as in not on his face, and high, as in the highest part of his head visible from behind. This, not coincidentally, would be the top of Kennedy's head above his ear, the location of the impact shown in the Zapruder film. (Should one not agree with this assessment one should feel free to explain how Bennett could have seen an impact at the small red shape seen in the autopsy photos, and fail to note the massive explosion from the gaping hole on the right side of Kennedy's head seen in the Zapruder film, especially when no blood can be seen exploding from the back of Kennedy's head in the film.)

In sum, then, none of the closest witnesses to the side or back of the President saw a bullet impact on or explode from the back of his head. So why is it, again, that so many believe there was a wound on the back of his head? Oh, that's right. ALL those who saw Kennedy at Parkland Hospital said the wound they saw was on the back of his head.

Well, not all... As we've seen, Dr. Burkley, long before the Dallas doctors convened their press conference and told the world the large head wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, had already explained to press secretary Malcolm Kilduff that the wound was in fact by the temple.

And he wasn't the only one at Parkland to make this assessment. Texas Highway Patrolman Hurchel Jacks, the driver of Vice-President Johnson's car in the motorcade, arrived at the hospital just moments after the limousine, and witnessed the removal of the President's body from the limo. On 11-28-63, less than week after the assassination, he filed a report (18H801) and noted: "Before the President's body was covered it appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple." Well, then, what gives? Didn't any of the closest witnesses to the shooting or Kennedy's body before it entered the hospital say anything suggesting they saw a large wound on the back of Kennedy's head?

Yeah...one did... Clint Hill, one of the Secret Service agents riding on the left side of the limo, while never commenting on the impact location of the fatal bullet, would later describe the appearance of Kennedy's head wound both upon arrival at the hospital in Dallas, and then later, after the autopsy in Bethesda. An 11-30-63 report written by Hill relates: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat." Hill returns to this later. When describing the aftermath to Kennedy's autopsy, Hill relates "At approximately 2:45 A.M., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull." Well, this once again, is vague. A wound, whether on the "right rear side" of the head, or simply in "the right rear portion of the skull," could be most anywhere in back of the face, including the area above the ear.

So what about Hill's testimony, you might ask? Did he clear this matter up when testifying before the Warren Commission? Some would say so. In testimony taken nearly four months after the shooting, Hill told the Warren Commission: "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." Hill's testimony, then, first reflects that the wound was not on A portion of the right rear side, or merely ON a right rear portion of the skull, but instead covered THE entire right rear portion. It then reverses course, and reflects merely that it was IN the right rear portion, which could, of course, be anywhere in back of the face.

So, despite the widespread claims that Hill's testimony is proof the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, it is, in reality, a confusing mess. With his statements and testimony, Hill had made four references to Kennedy's head wound--three that were unduly vague, and one that was overly expansive, as not even the looniest of conspiracy theorists believes the entire right rear portion of Kennedy's skull was missing. Perhaps Hill, then, when claiming "THE right rear portion" was missing, meant simply to repeat his earlier statement that "A portion of the right rear side was missing," and mis-spoke. While this may be stretching, it explains Hill's subsequent claim, in a 2004 television interview, that, when he first looked down on the President, he saw "the back of his head, And there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm" better than that he had forgotten what he had seen, or that he had suddenly, for the first time, more than forty years after his original testimony, decided to start lying about what he saw.

"But the men behind Kennedy were all government employees!", some might claim. "What about the witnesses in back of Kennedy on the south side of the street? Certainly, they saw an explosion from the back of his head..." No, no such luck. There were three witnesses behind Kennedy on his left who would have been in a position to see an explosion from the back of his head, should a shot from the grassy knoll truly have exploded from the back of his head, as so many believe. Mary Moorman, whose photo of Kennedy taken just after the shot's impact shows no evidence for such a wound, was interviewed numerous times on the day of the shooting, and would say only that she saw Kennedy grab his chest and slump down in the car. Her friend, Jean Hill, moreover, the woman in red in the Zapruder film, said much the same thing on the day of the shooting. Four months later, however, after much more spectacular reports had been printed, Hill claimed to have seen "the hair on the back of President Kennedy’s head fly up." Note that she still was not claiming to have seen an explosion from the back of his head. No, she didn't even claim such a thing when tracked down and interviewed decades later by conspiracy writer Jim Marrs. Instead, she told Marrs simply that "a bullet hit his head and took the top off." "Top." Not "back." Ms. Hill, in fact. made no claims of seeing the explosion from the back of Kennedy's head so many conspiracy theorists assume she saw until her book The Last Dissenting Witness appeared in 1992. It related "The whole back of his head appeared to explode and a cloud of blood-red mist filled the air." That this was "poetic license" inserted by her co-writer, Bill Sloan, should be readily apparent. If not, one should take into account that by 1992 Ms. Hill was still so confused by what she saw that she told interviewer James Earl Jones and a national television audience that, as "shots rang out", Kennedy "grabbed his throat, and that was the horrible head shot." Kennedy, of course, grabbed his throat long before the head shot.

Well, what of the third witness, then? Well, in his earliest interviews, Charles Brehm claimed to see Kennedy really get blasted and get knocked down in the car. No mention of an explosion from the back of his head. A few days later, however, newspaper accounts of the shooting quoting Brehm claimed he saw "the President’s hair fly up." In 1966, when interviewed by Mark Lane, moreover, he filled in the details, and claimed "When the second bullet hit, there was—the hair seemed to go flying. It was very definite then that he was struck in the head with the second bullet…I saw a piece fly over in the area of the curb…it seemed to have come left and back." While some might wish to take the flight of this one piece of skull as an indication the fatal shot came from the front, they really shouldn't rush to such a judgment. You see, not only did Brehm long claim he thought the shots came from behind, but he paused before he told Lane "the hair seemed to go flying." During this pause, in an obvious indication of where he recalled seeing a wound, he motioned not to the back of his head but to...his right ear.

Well, were there any other known witnesses to report on this wound from further back? Yes. Marilyn Willis, standing quite some distance behind Kennedy, told the FBI in June, 64 that she saw the "top" of Kennedy's head blown off, only to turn around and tell a TV audience in 1988 that she saw brain matter blown out the "back of his head," only to turn around yet again and tell Robert Groden in 1993 that the wound she saw was on "this side," while grabbing the right side of her head above her ear.

But no matter how one takes her statements, one should recall that Mrs. Willis was about 50 yards behind Kennedy when he received his fatal bullet, and that should she have actually seen his head wound it was but for a second. This makes her seeing blood and brain blown out the back of his head, when no credible witness closer to him saw any such thing, quite unlikely. In fact, when one considers the numerous eyewitness statements claiming the bullet impacted on the right side or top of Kennedy's head, the Zapruder film's confirmation of a wound in this location, and the autopsy photos' additional confirmation of a wound in this location, one might rightly conclude that the only thing solid about the Kennedy assassination medical evidence is that there was a large wound above and in front of Kennedy's right ear.

[Peter McGuire]

"He had finally managed to put his demons to rest, and he no longer blamed himself for the death of John F. Kennedy." - G.P.[/color]

It is good the man has peace.

Yet, his "show" that of a heroic Secret Service Agent running to the aide of the President, is just that, in my opinion.

As you know, Agents were called back, and none effectively did their job that day.

Specifically:

•General and uniquely lax security, in Dallas on 11/22/63 according to the former head of the Secret Service.

•SA Roberts stripping JFK's rear guard.

•SA Roberts recalling SA Ready from action to protect JFK.

•SA Roberts ordering the rest of the agents in the follow up car not to move.

•SAIC Kellerman sitting still when he should have been vaulting to save JFK.

•The inexplicable actions of SA Greer stopping the limo and turning toward JFK.

•SAIC Kellerman and SA Greer stealing JFK's corpse and limo from the Dallas authorities.

•SAIC Kellerman and SA Greer managing all JFK autopsy events after the assassination.

•SA Greer locking JFK's clothing in his personal locker in the White House garage.

•The SS (SAIC Kellerman?) convincing the Parkland doctors to change their statements regarding the nature of JFK's wounds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the most eminent authorities on the subject, former Secret Service chief U.E. Baughman, who headed that agency from 1948 to 1961, has publicly taken issue, in several newspaper interviews, with the lack of adequate precautions which is so painfully apparent in the Dallas tragedy.

A UPI dispatch from Washington, dated December 8, 1963 quoted Mr. Baughman as saying that "there are a lot of things' to be explained" concerning the assassination.

The Secret Service couldn't spare a man for checking the grassy knoll, a textbook location for a guerilla-type ambush. This breathtaking deficiency came to light when there were reports that a man who identified himself as a member of the Secret Service was encountered near the knoll just after the assassination. These reports drew a firm denial from the Secret Service which stated explicitly that it had no man posted there.

It would have been better for the Secret Service to have said that the knoll had been swarming with agents who didn't notice a damn thing than thus to admit another such glaring dereliction of duty.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Pat Speer]

"He had finally managed to put his demons to rest, and he no longer blamed himself for the death of John F. Kennedy." - G.P.[/color]

It is good the man has peace.

Yet, his "show" that of a heroic Secret Service Agent running to the aide of the President, is just that, in my opinion.

As you know, Agents were called back, and none effectively did their job that day.

Specifically:

•General and uniquely lax security, in Dallas on 11/22/63 according to the former head of the Secret Service.

•SA Roberts stripping JFK's rear guard.

•SA Roberts recalling SA Ready from action to protect JFK.

•SA Roberts ordering the rest of the agents in the follow up car not to move.

•SAIC Kellerman sitting still when he should have been vaulting to save JFK.

•The inexplicable actions of SA Greer stopping the limo and turning toward JFK.

•SAIC Kellerman and SA Greer stealing JFK's corpse and limo from the Dallas authorities.

•SAIC Kellerman and SA Greer managing all JFK autopsy events after the assassination.

•SA Greer locking JFK's clothing in his personal locker in the White House garage.

•The SS (SAIC Kellerman?) convincing the Parkland doctors to change their statements regarding the nature of JFK's wounds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the most eminent authorities on the subject, former Secret Service chief U.E. Baughman, who headed that agency from 1948 to 1961, has publicly taken issue, in several newspaper interviews, with the lack of adequate precautions which is so painfully apparent in the Dallas tragedy.

A UPI dispatch from Washington, dated December 8, 1963 quoted Mr. Baughman as saying that "there are a lot of things' to be explained" concerning the assassination.

The Secret Service couldn't spare a man for checking the grassy knoll, a textbook location for a guerilla-type ambush. This breathtaking deficiency came to light when there were reports that a man who identified himself as a member of the Secret Service was encountered near the knoll just after the assassination. These reports drew a firm denial from the Secret Service which stated explicitly that it had no man posted there.

It would have been better for the Secret Service to have said that the knoll had been swarming with agents who didn't notice a damn thing than thus to admit another such glaring dereliction of duty.

While it's clear the SS could have and should have done a better job protecting Kennedy, and preserving the evidence of his murder, it seems equally clear that the bulk of them were not involved in the shooting. The reason: their witness statements. Most of them disclosed that the last two shots were nearly on top of each other, so close together in fact that it was hard for them to discern which of these last two shots struck the president in the head. The WC staff saw this as a major threat to their pre-ordained Oswald-did-it conclusion, and Melvin Eisenberg prepared--in advance of the SS testimony--a list of reasons why the WC should feel free to IGNORE their recollections.

He wouldn't have done this, of course, if he'd seen them as "friendly" witnesses. By way of example, no such memo was written warning the WC that they shouldn't take the testimony of people like Howard Brennan, Helen Markham, and Mary Bledsoe too seriously, or that they couldn't put much stock in Harold Norman's recollection of hearing shells hit the floor above him. Geez, I wounder why.

[Peter McGuire]

"He had finally managed to put his demons to rest, and he no longer blamed himself for the death of John F. Kennedy." - G.P.[/color]

It is good the man has peace.

Yet, his "show" that of a heroic Secret Service Agent running to the aide of the President, is just that, in my opinion.

As you know, Agents were called back, and none effectively did their job that day.

Specifically:

General and uniquely lax security, in Dallas on 11/22/63 according to the former head of the Secret Service.

SA Roberts stripping JFK's rear guard.

SA Roberts recalling SA Ready from action to protect JFK.

SA Roberts ordering the rest of the agents in the follow up car not to move.

SAIC Kellerman sitting still when he should have been vaulting to save JFK.

The inexplicable actions of SA Greer stopping the limo and turning toward JFK.

SAIC Kellerman and SA Greer stealing JFK's corpse and limo from the Dallas authorities.

SAIC Kellerman and SA Greer managing all JFK autopsy events after the assassination.

SA Greer locking JFK's clothing in his personal locker in the White House garage.

The SS (SAIC Kellerman?) convincing the Parkland doctors to change their statements regarding the nature of JFK's wounds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the most eminent authorities on the subject, former Secret Service chief U.E. Baughman, who headed that agency from 1948 to 1961, has publicly taken issue, in several newspaper interviews, with the lack of adequate precautions which is so painfully apparent in the Dallas tragedy.

A UPI dispatch from Washington, dated December 8, 1963 quoted Mr. Baughman as saying that "there are a lot of things' to be explained" concerning the assassination.

The Secret Service couldn't spare a man for checking the grassy knoll, a textbook location for a guerilla-type ambush. This breathtaking deficiency came to light when there were reports that a man who identified himself as a member of the Secret Service was encountered near the knoll just after the assassination. These reports drew a firm denial from the Secret Service which stated explicitly that it had no man posted there.

It would have been better for the Secret Service to have said that the knoll had been swarming with agents who didn't notice a damn thing than thus to admit another such glaring dereliction of duty.

While it's clear the SS could have and should have done a better job protecting Kennedy, and preserving the evidence of his murder, it seems equally clear that the bulk of them were not involved in the shooting.

Yes, they should have done a lot better job ( an understatement) protecting Kennedy, and preserving the evidence.

But there is no reason to "clear" them of anything.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Ron Ecker]

Pat,

I spent considerable time replying to your post by quoting passages individually and replying to each. When I tried to post, I got a message that I had used “more than the allowed blocks of quoted text.” I have therefore deleted most of the quoted passages and am including only my replies to them.

First reply:

Parkland physicians who worked on JFK described in writing on 11/22 an "occipital" or "posterior" wound that extended to the parietal. "Occipital" or "occiput" refer by definition to what you call "the FAR back of the head," which also includes the back part of the parietal. (Kemp Clark: "The occipital region of the skull . . . A large wound in the occipitoparietal region . . . In the right occiput extending into the parietal region"; Malcolm Perry: "A large wound in the right posterior cranium"; Charles Baxter: "Occipital bones were missing"; M.T. Jenkins: "A great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate.") None of these doctors on 11/22, as far as we know, were "CTs."

Second reply:

There is something about eyewitnesses not being that reliable, but no matter. No witnesses to the shooting were in ER looking at the wounds and trying to save the president's life. If no eyewitnesses saw "an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head" (Newman, Zapruder, and others appear to describe an entry wound, which did hit the side of the head), that doesn't negate the fact, based on professional medical observations, that something exploded back there (and one of the motorcyclists behind the limo got hit with some of it).

Third reply:

The wound that the four witnesses "specified" to have been in the side of the head was the entry wound. Don't confuse that with the exit wound, which Dr. Clark "claimed" was in the "back of the head." (It's interesting that the witnesses could specify, but that dumb Dr. Clark could only claim.)

Fourth reply:

Relying on witnesses like Hudson, who witnessed a bullet impact in the blink of an eye, more than on trained physicians who were looking at the damage in ER, doesn't make for a very strong case.

Fifth reply:

Interesting statements by Kinney and Roberts, in that "the right side of the head" (looking at it from the rear) could mean the right rear of the head, but being SS agents who knew that Oswald did it, they possibly didn't want to say that. Just a thought.

Sixth reply:

Powers saying “the third shot took the side of his head off” could refer to an occipital-parietal wound as described by the Parkland doctors.

Powers tells the WC the third shot “took off the top of the President’s head..."

So which was it, Dave, the side or the top? What Powers indisputably saw was part of JFK's head blown off. Could he definitively say what specific part? Apparently not.

Seventh reply:

no blood can be seen exploding from the back of Kennedy's head in the film.

One explanation being that it would travel too fast to be captured with Z's camera. (The explanation of Sherry Gutierrez, I believe.) In any case, there is a frame of the Z film that does show the back of JFK's head missing under the hair.

Eighth reply:

Dr. Burkley, long before the Dallas doctors convened their press conference and told the world the large head wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, had already explained to press secretary Malcolm Kilduff that the wound was in fact by the temple.

The ENTRY wound. But those dumb Dallas doctors again.

Ninth reply:

Didn't any of the closest witnesses to the shooting or Kennedy's body before it entered the hospital say anything suggesting they saw a large wound on the back of Kennedy's head?

Yes, and it wasn't just Clint Hill as you claim. Jesse Curry witnessed the removal of JFK's body from the limo, and wrote in his book that "the back of the President's head was partially blown off."

Tenth reply:

In fact, when one considers the numerous eyewitness statements claiming the bullet impacted on the right side or top of Kennedy's head, the Zapruder film's confirmation of a wound in this location, and the autopsy photos' additional confirmation of a wound in this location, one might rightly conclude that the only thing solid about the Kennedy assassination medical evidence is that there was a large wound above and in front of Kennedy's right ear.

One can rightly conclude there was an entry wound above and in front of the right ear. And as has been argued before, it is quite possible that Jackie closed this wound (the famous flap) in trying to hold JFK's head together and it was not noticed by Parkland physicians, who were obviously impressed by a large wound in back.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Ron Ecker

[William Kelly]

Clint Hill has written a new book with Lisa McCubin, who also co-authored Gerald Blaine's The Kennedy Detail - Soon to be a major motion picture.

Hill, Blaine and other former SS agents claim the assassination wasn't the result of a conspiracy, and the producer of TKD movie says it will counter Stone's JFK and silly conspiracy theories, Hill and the other SS agents in the followup car, and the book The Kennedy Detail, all clearly state that JFK and Connally were hit by separate shots, as Connally himself confirms, and thus they all discount the single-bullet-theory and support the conspiracy contention.

Hill is scheduled to be at a conference at Bismark North Dakota in early November. Is there any forum member near there who plans to go?

I've also added this symposium to my JFKToday Calendar. If anyone hears of any other such symposiums or conferences, please let me know so I can add them to the calendar.

JFKToday2013 Calendar | JFKToday2013

JFKCountercoup2: North Dakota Institute Symposium

The good news is that the Dakota Institute, the State Historical Society, and Bismarck State College will be exploring all of this (and much more) with open minds, the rigor of the humanities, and the best possible cast of lecturers, beginning with North Dakota’s Clint Hill, on November 5-7 on the BSC campus. JFK: Fifty Years Later is going to be our finest symposium yet.

Roosevelt Center scholar at Dickinson State University, as well as Distinguished Scholar of the Humanities at Bismarck State College and director of the Dakota Institute. Clay can be reached at Jeffysage@aol.com or through his website, Jeffersonhour.org.)

Tags Clay Jenkinson, John F. Kennedy, Assassinated, Dallas, Dakota Institute

[David Andrews]

I've read Hill's book, and couldn't find anything in it that would give him the professional or eyewitness authority to deny conspiracy.