the 1963 Secret Service

[Chuck Robbins]

I feel that they, including Greer and Kellerman, responded poorly to a very confusing situation.

Were I the limo driver, and hearing what I thought might be gunshots, as I looked at the "overpass" that was not cleared, and was probably THE most ideal position for a shooter, I would seriously have questioned, whether I should proceed toward the shooter.....or stop....there was no way to turn left or right, nor was it possibe to back up.

Who could clearly argue that if the driver thought that the assassin was to the front and above, that it may have not been the correct decision to "Stop and Clear the Car of Targets"!

Do you mean the people on the overpass in this picture? A picture , unlike the cropped version of it that doesn't show people on the overpass.

The question has to be; why were these people allowed to be there in the first place? Wouldn't that create some security issues?

Ok, let's say Greer thought what you guess he was thinking. It didn't work very well, did it?

So quickly speeding up to 50 or miles per hour in that six seconds just might have been a better idea?

"Just a thought"

I have related this story once before about the night i was walking home, in San Diego in the mid-late 70's,

and started to cross a freeway overpass. I was not quite to the bridge when a police unit stopped me and told me I could not cross the bridge.

To save time I will forego the whole story and get to the point.

I was not allowed on the bridge as the President was to be driven under it on his way to a speaking/fundraising engagement.

I believe it is highly unlikely that the SS did not follow the same procedure in the 60's.

Take into consideration the sheer number of overpasses between the airport and the location in La Mesa, a distance of 16 miles, and the number of officers needed to secure these overpasses. I guarantee you not one person was allowed on one of those overpasses that night.

There is no excuse for there being even one person atop that bridge in 1963.

The SS should have stopped the motorcade when people were observed upon the bridge. The lead car knew there were to be no persons allowed upon the bridge and should have radioed a warning long before the motorcade was on Elm Street.

Just because there was no obvious gain to be had by the SS as a unit does not mean that there was not cooperation given by individuals within the unit.

We should give apologies to the men who failed to act to protect our president? Not in my lifetime.

[Peter McGuire]

I feel that they, including Greer and Kellerman, responded poorly to a very confusing situation.

Were I the limo driver, and hearing what I thought might be gunshots, as I looked at the "overpass" that was not cleared, and was probably THE most ideal position for a shooter, I would seriously have questioned, whether I should proceed toward the shooter.....or stop....there was no way to turn left or right, nor was it possibe to back up.

Who could clearly argue that if the driver thought that the assassin was to the front and above, that it may have not been the correct decision to "Stop and Clear the Car of Targets"!

Do you mean the people on the overpass in this picture? A picture , unlike the cropped version of it that doesn't show people on the overpass.

The question has to be; why were these people allowed to be there in the first place? Wouldn't that create some security issues?

Ok, let's say Greer thought what you guess he was thinking. It didn't work very well, did it?

So quickly speeding up to 50 or miles per hour in that six seconds just might have been a better idea?

"Just a thought"

I have related this story once before about the night i was walking home, in San Diego in the mid-late 70's,

and started to cross a freeway overpass. I was not quite to the bridge when a police unit stopped me and told me I could not cross the bridge.

To save time I will forego the whole story and get to the point.

I was not allowed on the bridge as the President was to be driven under it on his way to a speaking/fundraising engagement.

I believe it is highly unlikely that the SS did not follow the same procedure in the 60's.

Take into consideration the sheer number of overpasses between the airport and the location in La Mesa, a distance of 16 miles, and the number of officers needed to secure these overpasses. I guarantee you not one person was allowed on one of those overpasses that night.

There is no excuse for there being even one person atop that bridge in 1963.

The SS should have stopped the motorcade when people were observed upon the bridge. The lead car knew there were to be no persons allowed upon the bridge and should have radioed a warning long before the motorcade was on Elm Street.

Just because there was no obvious gain to be had by the SS as a unit does not mean that there was not cooperation given by individuals within the unit.

We should give apologies to the men who failed to act to protect our president? Not in my lifetime.

Nor mine, Chuck.

For more on this here's the alleged stabilized Zapruder film that's been making the rounds. Is it a hoax? ...

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/fast.html

[Ron Ecker]

There is no excuse for there being even one person atop that bridge in 1963.

Here is Gary Mack's explanation of the people being allowed on the underpass:

"The triple underpass was, and still is, private property owned by several railroads. Despite popular opinion, the Secret Service could not force people to leave private property. That is the reason the men had to be identified to the cops by S.M. Holland. The SS could have asked the men to leave, but they had absolutely no legal right to force them to go."

[Myra Bronstein]

I feel that they, including Greer and Kellerman, responded poorly to a very confusing situation.

Were I the limo driver, and hearing what I thought might be gunshots, as I looked at the "overpass" that was not cleared, and was probably THE most ideal position for a shooter, I would seriously have questioned, whether I should proceed toward the shooter.....or stop....there was no way to turn left or right, nor was it possibe to back up.

Who could clearly argue that if the driver thought that the assassin was to the front and above, that it may have not been the correct decision to "Stop and Clear the Car of Targets"!

Do you mean the people on the overpass in this picture? A picture , unlike the cropped version of it that doesn't show people on the overpass.

The question has to be; why were these people allowed to be there in the first place? Wouldn't that create some security issues?

Ok, let's say Greer thought what you guess he was thinking. It didn't work very well, did it?

So quickly speeding up to 50 or miles per hour in that six seconds just might have been a better idea?

"Just a thought"

I have related this story once before about the night i was walking home, in San Diego in the mid-late 70's,

and started to cross a freeway overpass. I was not quite to the bridge when a police unit stopped me and told me I could not cross the bridge.

To save time I will forego the whole story and get to the point.

I was not allowed on the bridge as the President was to be driven under it on his way to a speaking/fundraising engagement.

I believe it is highly unlikely that the SS did not follow the same procedure in the 60's.

Take into consideration the sheer number of overpasses between the airport and the location in La Mesa, a distance of 16 miles, and the number of officers needed to secure these overpasses. I guarantee you not one person was allowed on one of those overpasses that night.

There is no excuse for there being even one person atop that bridge in 1963.

The SS should have stopped the motorcade when people were observed upon the bridge. The lead car knew there were to be no persons allowed upon the bridge and should have radioed a warning long before the motorcade was on Elm Street.

Just because there was no obvious gain to be had by the SS as a unit does not mean that there was not cooperation given by individuals within the unit.

We should give apologies to the men who failed to act to protect our president? Not in my lifetime.

Nor mine, Chuck.

...

No, no apologies from me to a group that--at best--was a bunch of drunken criminally negligent thugs.

[Michael Hogan]

Here is Gary Mack's explanation of the people being allowed on the underpass:

"The triple underpass was, and still is, private property owned by several railroads. Despite popular opinion, the Secret Service could not force people to leave private property. That is the reason the men had to be identified to the cops by S.M. Holland. The SS could have asked the men to leave, but they had absolutely no legal right to force them to go."

The Secret Service had absolutely no legal right to the late President's body that they removed from Parkland despite the protestations of Dr. Earl Rose.

[Myra Bronstein]

Here is Gary Mack's explanation of the people being allowed on the underpass:

"The triple underpass was, and still is, private property owned by several railroads. Despite popular opinion, the Secret Service could not force people to leave private property. That is the reason the men had to be identified to the cops by S.M. Holland. The SS could have asked the men to leave, but they had absolutely no legal right to force them to go."

The Secret Service had absolutely no legal right to the late President's body that they removed from Parkland despite the protestations of Dr. Earl Rose.

Well they certainly were selective in their regard for the letter of the law.

[Duke Lane]

There is no excuse for there being even one person atop that bridge in 1963.

Here is Gary Mack's explanation of the people being allowed on the underpass:

"The triple underpass was, and still is, private property owned by several railroads. Despite popular opinion, the Secret Service could not force people to leave private property. That is the reason the men had to be identified to the cops by S.M. Holland. The SS could have asked the men to leave, but they had absolutely no legal right to force them to go."

Absolutely logical and sensible on the face of it, but I'm not sure it's correct.

First, if the USSS had no authority to "force people to leave private property," where would DPD's authority have derived from? So Holland identifies people to the two cops stationed atop the bridge, and they were supposed to do exactly what about it? Since it's "private property," seemingly at best DPD could do was request them to leave.

Second, if DPD had no authority to force people to leave private property, but could request them to do so, what precluded USSS from also requesting people to leave the overpass? Experience has taught me that a request by someone with a gun is fairly tantamount to an order, and generally should be obeyed. That holds true if they're wearing a badge or showing credentials, too. Either way, there's usually some consequence of not doing so. Most people would leave.

Third, bridges hold rights-of-way, in this case over a public by-way. Rights-of-way involving public land can be abridged by public authority when circumstances warrant. For example, when a highway is built, the land is typically bought by the transportation authority and rights-of-way granted to, say, farmers to drive beneath it (typically under a bridge built for the purpose!!) to get to another portion of their fields; sometimes, the right-of-way is purchased by the transportation authority and the farmer continues to own the land, even while he clearly doesn't own the highway passing over it, to which he has granted a right-of-way.

If there's an accident on the bridge, a cop certainly can limit the farmer's use of that right-of-way - prevent him from using it at all - for safety or security purposes, even if it's the farmer's own land. (I'll accede, however, that the farmer would have a tough time attempting to keep public authority from making use of its right-of-way!) I have personally negotiated public rights-of-way over private property in Texas, so know a little of what I speak.

Likewise, if necessary, cops have the authority (if not always the actual physical ability!) to stop a train in the furtherance of their official duties. Trains tend to travel on railroad tracks, which are typically built on narrow strips of land owned by one or more railroads, and sometimes over bridges that the railroads built and own. Train drivers - engineers, if you prefer the term - do not have any legal basis on which to challenge or ignore a cop legitimately attempting to halt the train, even while they clearly have a physical means to do so!

That being the case, it does not follow that pedestrians have unfettered rights to go anywhere at any time on private property they wish to, and that police have no authority or ability to stop them from doing so. Heck, you can be arrested within the confines of your own home, which is more clearly "private property" than a railroad bridge!

Cops can and do prevent people from going onto private property, and even from traversing public property and rights-of-way (streets) to get to one's own private property, such as when taping off a crime scene: your neighbor two or three houses away is killed, and you can't even get to your own house, not even traversing other private property. Likewise, if the house two doors away is on fire, and you want to stand in the middle of your lawn to watch it, fully or potentially in the way of firefighters snaking hoses and such to it, you WILL be asked to move, and if you DON'T move, you WILL be moved ... on - or even from - your own private property! Yet we should suppose that cops - or more specifically, the USSS - cannot prevent people, authorized or not, from entering on "private property" that holds a public right-of-way?

Finally, when the President gives a speech at a hotel, are we to suppose that the US Secret Service cannot and does not in any way restrain any and all persons who wish to cross any part of the hotel lobby from doing so? Or in that case, is it that the hotel owners gave them permission to do so, but that the owners of the Triple Underpass would not do so, or were never asked?

In any case, Holland was there to identify railroad employees who were authorized to be on that stretch of track that happened to go over a bridge over a city street. All others would presumably have been requested - "ordered" or "forced" are just as appropriate words - to not enter the bridge. The USSS could have done it, and DPD was there to do it (since DPD was in charge of on-the-ground motorcade security). So, really, USSS is not even a party to all of this: it's a DPD question only. And it appears that they did as much of their job as their tender sensibilities toward property owners would allow, regardless of safety or security reasons.

[Mark Stapleton]

Well I guess that takes care of Gary's somewhat feeble explanantion for people being present on the underpass.

He'll have to do better than that, although I have the feeling he's arguing the case for a cause he doesn't really believe in.

[John Dolva]

There is an other issue.

There are such formal things as 'postal routes'. They may be rivers, roads and railway tracks. They have by law a certain right derived from that status. I don't know how this may apply here, but the control of these routes are definitely a factor in some cases.

What I'm getting at is that there may be statues that override private rights in the context of postal routes.

(extra: as an aside to aussie viewers: cosh and sunrise crew channel 7 are doing the JFK assassination now (8.25 am perth time) any moment with the bullet analysis and z film. For those not familiar this program it's usually a light morning news/entertainement program but the JFK piece will be on at any moment now)

[John Dolva]

(extra: as an aside to aussie viewers: cosh and sunrise crew channel 7 are doing the JFK assassination now (8.25 am perth time) any moment with the bullet analysis and z film. For those not familiar this program it's usually a light morning news/entertainement program but the JFK piece will be on at any moment now)

They're calling it :The man who is reopening the Kennedy assassination case" in a few minutes, after the ads.

[Mark Stapleton]

(extra: as an aside to aussie viewers: cosh and sunrise crew channel 7 are doing the JFK assassination now (8.25 am perth time) any moment with the bullet analysis and z film. For those not familiar this program it's usually a light morning news/entertainement program but the JFK piece will be on at any moment now)

They're calling it :The man who is reopening the Kennedy assassination case" in a few minutes, after the ads.

John,

Thanks for the heads up but it looks like I missed it. It's 9.54 am here in the emerald city.

Currently showing on that network is a program called 'mums and bubs'. I'm switching the TV off.

I'll be interested to hear what was said on Sunrise.

[John Dolva]

"Huge Interest" they promote it, quite a surprise for a program like that. They claim a large number of email received expressing interest.

http://seven.com.au/sunrise/ - 'sunrise soapbox' e-comments invited.

Interview with Cliff Spiegelman : bullet pieces are consistent with one OR more shooters. He'd like to see further research made.

hmmm that's it, short and sweet with a promise to 'keep us up to date', Oh well, it reaches a signficant part of OZ morning viewers so e-mails would not go amiss.

Edited May 23, 2007 by John Dolva

[Shanet Clark]

BS

the fourteen people looking over the overpass

is still VERY SENSITIVE to defenders of the Warren Commission

\

who are they

why are they there

how are they in communication

when were they allowed to violate secret service policy

what were they doing there

Tosh Plumlee (eyewitness) is a responsible source

for reasonable information on this

shanet

[Thomas Graves]

BS

the fourteen people looking over the overpass

is still VERY SENSITIVE to defenders of the Warren Commission

\

who are they

why are they there

how are they in communication

when were they allowed to violate secret service policy

what were they doing there

Tosh Plumlee (eyewitness) is a responsible source

for reasonable information on this

shanet

_________________________

Hi Shanet,

I agree, especially as regards your assessment that eyewitness Plumlee "is a responsible source for reasonable information on this"....

--Thomas

_________________________

Edited May 23, 2007 by Thomas Graves

[Charles Black]

I hope that I don't anger too many of you, however, my personal opinion only, is that some of you are going far out of you way to bolster the plans of the major conspirators, by placing the blame on lesser people who had no inkling of what was transpiring.

This is getting so ridiculous that I will make a few more comments and then remove myself from further discussion. This is not so dissimilar from the plan to remove U.S. government personnel and assets as participants in the shooting and placing the blame on foreign villains such as mafia and Cubans. The thought of participation by WASPS is unacceptable to the delicate perceptions of some of you. Many of you are very quick to point fingers for "any ridiculous reason".

OF COURSE on orders from the Presidential protection team, there was every right for the DPD, the Secret Service, The FBI etc. to CLEAR any area deemed necessary for Presidential protection...if necessary by physical or deadly force. To argue otherwise is ABSURD. YES ! The advance vehicles "should have radioed to the following vehicles to stop until they secured the area". If there was a "breach of security" it was much more likely in this area than attempting to blame the SS agents in the Presidents vehicle for hesitating to "drive into an ambush".

Do any of you who believe Greer and Kellerman to have been cowards, think that "these cowards" would have voluntarily and knowingly been in a vehicle that they knew was to come under "heavy incoming gunfire"?

My problem with many posters on this forum, and I don't care how much you dislike this, is that you are too accustomed to opening your big mouths before opening your unknowing minds. It appears that most of you who very obviously know little or nothing about neither "security" nor military operations, become self proclaimed experts....based soley on what you have been steered toward by those other "unknowings" or deceptors which preceded you.

I now think that some of you "intellects" should notify the moderators of another stupid "uncultured American", that is DISRUPTING the forum and insinuating that some members of this forum "allow their FINGERS to handle their thinking".

Charles Black

P.S.

What is amazing to me, is that the female members of this forum, seem far more in tune to the reality of security and military matters than many of you "gentlemen scholars"! Too many opinions ! Too little "experience" in the realities of crises behaviour !

Edited May 23, 2007 by Charles Black