by Mark Lane
Mr. Rowley: Chapter 1, page 7; yes, sir.
Mr. Rankin: Now, will you tell the Commission about what the regulation was?
Mr. Rowley: The use of liquor. Employees are strictly enjoined to refrain from the use of intoxicating liquor during the hours they are officially employed at their post of duty or when they may reasonably expect that they may be called upon to perform an official duty.
The one that applies here—“However, all members of the White House detail and special agents cooperating with them on presidential and similar protective assignments are considered to be subject to call for official duty at any time while in travel status. Therefore, the use of intoxicating liquor of any kind, including beer and wine, by members of the White House detail and special agents cooperating with them or by special agents on similar assignments, while they are in a travel status, is prohibited.”
Mr. Rankin: Can you tell the commission how many men were involved in these trips to the Press Club and the Cellar, where these things were done?
Mr. Rowley: There were nine men involved at the Press Club, and there were ten men involved at the Cellar.
Rankin then asked Rowley the names of the men who had been drinking who were in the crucial follow-up car. Rowley stated that among them were Landis, Hill, Ready and Bennett. Hill wrote the foreword to the Blaine book; and Landis, Hill, Ready and Bennett are all listed by Blaine as sources he relied upon. Apparently none of them told Blaine that they had been drinking; or Blaine, in spite of that knowledge, had decided to falsify the record. In his prologue, which we have no reason to doubt that he actually wrote, Blaine stated, “My initial goal in writing the story of the Kennedy Detail was to set history straight, to leave a book for my grandchildren that they could read and know was truth beyond any measure of a doubt.” Kids, you might want to look at some first-hand accounts, testimony and documents as well.
Rankin inquired of Rowley how he construed subparagraph (c) of Secret Service regulation 10 regarding the use of alcoholic liquors. Rowley responded:
“Violation or slight disregard of the above paragraphs or the excessive or improper use of intoxicating liquor at any time will be cause for removal from the service. In interpreting the words “excessive” and “improper,” slight evidence tending to indicate unusual or questionable conduct will be considered proof that the use of liquor has been improper or excessive. Association with others who drink to excess will be considered as an indication of using more than a moderate amount of liquor. The excuse that liquor is used for medicinal purposes will not be accepted.”
Since the regulations for violating the prohibition about drinking call for the dismissal of the agents, Rankin asked about the punishment meted out. Rowley said that “they were interviewed at the time.” The seriousness of the matter was “impressed upon them.” Rowley never answered Rankin’s question about whether they had even been reprimanded. Rowley said the men were “dedicated” and that he was “quite sure” that the agents “all understand it.” None of the agents were dismissed, apparently none of them were reprimanded, and there is no indication that their blatant disregard of the rules of the agency even found its way into any of their files.
Rowley explained to the Warren Commission why he decided not to punish the agents. He said:
“Well, I thought that in the light of history, to place a stigma on them by punishing them at that time, from which inevitably the public would conclude that they were responsible for the assassination of the president—I didn’t think this was fair, and that they did not deserve that, with their family and children.”
The logical conclusion one may draw from that explanation is that the fact that the president was killed was the basis for not even reprimanding the agents who failed to protect him after drinking that same morning.
I have spent days talking with Abraham Bolden. I have closely examined the statements he has made, and read the documents that he has referred to, and I am convinced that I have never met a man of greater integrity. He knew that when he stood up to tell the truth about the Secret Service, his life might drastically change. Speaking truth to power is always a risky business, and he has suffered greatly as a result. He was motivated by his commitment to his duties as a member of the White House detail. The defamatory assertions made about him in the Blaine/McCubbin book are without foundation. They are as lacking in documentary support as the false attacks they published about Drew Pearson. Remarkably, Blaine states that “there was no corroboration of Bolden’s stories.” In a book where truthful statements are difficult to locate, that assertion, nevertheless, stands almost alone. Court documents, eyewitnesses, and the Secret Service file memorandum 3-11-602-111 all support the specific statement Mr. Bolden had made.
Blaine regularly repeats that there never was any hint of racism in the Secret Service and offers a few uncorroborated anecdotes in support. On February 24, 2000, ten years before the Blaine book was published, The Washington Post reported that a number of African American Secret Service agents had sought leave from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to file a class action law suit against the Secret Service for racial discrimination. Seven years later National Public Radio reported that “fifty-eight African-American U.S. Secret Service agents issued sworn statements in a class action lawsuit, claiming racial discrimination by the agency.” It added that “the suit is progressing slowly. The judge has issued sanctions against the Secret Service, ordering the agency to provide evidence.” The agency, by refusing to produce evidence required by the Federal Rules of Evidence and the rulings of the court, and by willing to face sanctions, knowing that fines for disobeying a court order are paid by the taxpayers, has demonstrated a lack of candor that raises additional questions about its past conduct. Blaine, in asserting that the agency was free from any form of prejudice, failed to mention the case in his book.
When President Kennedy personally chose Bolden to protect him and serve as the first African American on the White House detail, he knew that he was making history. At the time the detail was not very large, just a few more members than on a professional baseball team. Every member of the White House detail was aware of that appointment. In the book, Blaine states, “Most of the White House detail agents had never even heard of Bolden.” Right, and Pee Wee Reese never heard of Jackie Robinson, his keystone partner playing second base for the Brooklyn Dodgers. That assertion, in the words of an apocryphal judge, is like the thirteenth stroke of a crazy clock that casts discredit on all that has gone before it and all that follows.
Let us now examine the Blaine doctrine that while Oswald acted alone, he was supported by President Kennedy who deliberately reduced his security and insisted that the protective plastic bubble top be removed. Those charges have all been proven to be false.
One man, Vince Palamara, has conducted more serious interviews with Secret Service agents about their conduct on November 22, 1963, than had the Warren Commission with all of its lawyers and its reliance upon FBI and CIA agents.115 Former Secret Service Agent Samuel A. Kinney assured Palamara on three separate occasions that he alone was responsible for the removal of the plastic bubble top from the presidential limousine. Kinney’s name does not even appear in the Warren Commission Report.
Secret Service Agent Gerald A. Behn was in charge of the White House detail for the protection of President Kennedy and participated in selecting the venues for his appearances. Behn told Palamara that President Kennedy never ordered agents to stay off of the rear of the presidential limousine. Other Secret Service agents made that same statement to Palamara including Floyd M. Boring, Arthur L. Godfrey, Rufus Youngblood and Samuel A. Kinney. In addition Palamara interviewed the White House photographer, Cecil Stoughton, and Martin Underwood, the advance man for the Democratic National Committee, as well as Robert Bouck, who directed the Protective Research Section, and many others. They each stated that President Kennedy had not sought to reduce his protection and had not suggested that agents be kept off of the rear
bumper of the vehicle. Those interviewed also stated that President Kennedy was not difficult to protect and that he was very cooperative with members of the Secret Service.
In most motorcades there were as many as twelve motorcycle officers riding security for President Kennedy, including his trips through Texas. The Secret Service directed that there be only four motorcycles for the trip through Dallas and that none of them be permitted to ride a flank position, which would have provided some protection. Both Agents Kinney and Godfrey denied that President Kennedy had ever made that request when Palamara interviewed them.
A good portion of The Kennedy Detail was devoted to the hardships suffered by the Secret Service agents assigned to the White House, and the trauma they suffered on November 22, even those who were on vacation at the time.
The eleven agents who voluntarily left the White House detail shortly before the assassination, were, according to Blaine, “the most experienced agents on the Kennedy Detail.” They did not resign, they just transferred to another assignment. Blaine states that in each case it was a “purely personal choice by the agents” that they requested and had been granted transfers to field offices. After very substantial taxpayer’s funds had been invested in them for the special training required to serve on the White House detail, they decided to go somewhere else. Blaine explains the hardships they had been exposed to and was sympathetic to their plight. They had been required to stay at hotels or cottages “in either Palm Beach or Hyannis Port … and the occasional visit to Palm Springs.”116 They had to travel to Europe and Latin America, he explained, so “nearly one third of the agents had decided that they just couldn’t do it any longer.” Therefore, they left the White House Detail weeks before President Kennedy was to visit a hostile and threatening environment.
Some of the assignments for the White House detail were very time-consuming. Not long after the Kennedy’s newborn baby, Patrick, died, there were concerns about the effect upon Mrs. Kennedy. John Kennedy suggested that a private cruise in the Mediterranean might provide some comfort. Mrs. Kennedy, accompanied by her sister and two friends, agreed and made the trip. Aristotle Onassis was the host of the group; Secret Service agents Clint Hill and Paul Landis joined them. It was a two-week cruise on the 325-foot yacht Christina.117 Landis, according to Blaine, “was overwhelmed.” He said, “Oh my gosh, Clint, it’s fantastic. Unreal. It has everything, a swimming pool that turns into a dance floor, sailboats, a Chris-Craft cruiser, runabouts, anything you want to do.” To spare Hill and Landis a trip to land to collect the mail, the yacht had a seaplane that handled that chore. On occasion, Hill drove a limousine to a place where the yacht would anchor so that he could pick up Mrs. Kennedy and her friends.
On November 22, 1963, Landis was standing on the running board of the follow-up car not far from President and Mrs. Kennedy. He had an excellent view of the effect of the bullets upon the occupants of the vehicle. Since the presidential vehicle had stopped, some witnesses say “almost stopped,” after the first shot was fired, he had several seconds after the first shot was fired to attempt to cover President Kennedy and his wife with his body. He never moved.
The Assassin is Confronted
On July 23, 1964, Joe Marshall Smith appeared at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Dallas to be questioned by Wesley J. Liebeler, an assistant counsel of the Warren Commission. No member of the Warren Commission was present, and no other lawyer participated in the questioning. After a few minutes of testimony, Liebeler excused Officer Smith. Smith’s first response appeared on page 532 of volume VII of the Warren Commission documents, and his last words were reported on page 539.
It is possible that Smith, a thirty-two-year-old with almost eight years of service as a Dallas police officer, was the most important witness to testify before any lawyer for the Commission. He testified that a few minutes before 9 AM on November 22, he was instructed to direct traffic for the motorcade and to be on the lookout “for anyone throwing anything from the crowd.” He was not instructed to scan the buildings in the area to his best recollection. He testified that other police officers were also given traffic control duties. The members of the Dallas Police Department were not instructed to provide security for the president. There were only two other officers assigned to the entire Dealey Plaza area.
Smith testified that just after he heard the shots “this woman came up to me and she was just in hysterics. She told me, ‘they are shooting the president from the bushes.’ So I immediately proceeded up here (indicating the trees near the wooden fence on the grassy knoll).” He began to search the parking lot behind the wooden fence.
At that point a man emerged from the area behind the fence. Smith considered him to be the leading suspect who had fired the shot that killed President Kennedy from that location. “I pulled my pistol from my holster,” he testified, as he thought he had likely confronted the assassin and approached the suspect. At that point the suspect produced Secret Service credentials. Smith said that he was not alone on that occasion, “(a) deputy sheriff (was) with me.” Shortly thereafter the Secret Service released its roster revealing that there was no Secret Service agent on foot in Dealey Plaza and that all of the Secret Service agents were part of the motorcade.
Liebeler, who was among the most inexperienced of the junior lawyers, refused to conduct a serious inquiry into Smith’s explosive testimony. Clearly Liebeler thought that his task was to prove that all of the shots came from the sixth floor of the book depository building and that he was commissioned to exclude all contrary evidence. At the time that Smith was questioned, eight months after the assassination, Liebeler had known for more than half a year that there was no Secret Service agent prowling behind the wooden fence at the time of the assassination. He made no effort to determine the description of the faux agent, to learn his height, weight and clothing, standard questions asked by police officers whenever seeking to discover a suspect’s identity. Liebeler was a man on a mission; his mission was to support the Warren Commission’s preconceived fiction even if that required he ignore the fact that a suspect, protected by falsely created and distributed Secret Service credentials, was stopped by a police officer. The officer thought that the suspect’s presence behind a fence precluded him from being a spectator and he was in the location from which a weapon had been fired at the presidential limousine.
During the few minutes that Smith was permitted to testify, Liebeler asked him if, as he ran to arrest the presumed assassin, he “observed the windows on the side of the Texas School Book Depository Building from which the shots were fired.” Leibeler, who had not been in Dallas on November 22, was instructing the witness who had been there as to the origin of the shots and ignoring the definitive testimony of the officer. Smith also testified that before he heard the shots, “I had my back to the Texas Book Depository Building.” Following that statement, Liebeler asked Smith if he scanned the windows of the Texas Book Depository Building at all. At that time, Liebeler showed Smith an aerial photograph that he said was of the “Texas School Book Depository Building” (Commission Exhibit 354). However, the photograph showed only the roof of several buildings. Commission Exhibit 356 is a clear photograph taken from ground level of the building, but Liebeler did not show that photograph to Smith. Since Smith didn’t look at the building, the entire line of questioning was absurd and made even more ridiculous by Liebeler’s presentation of a useless photograph.
Before asking additional questions about the book depository building, Liebeler asked Smith if he was sure “that your back was in fact turned toward the book depository building?” Smith answered in the affirmative. Then Liebeler, persisting in his effort to abandon the subject of the arrest of the possible assassin behind the fence, asked Smith about other windows: “Could you observe those windows from the point where you were standing?” Again, Smith said that he “could not.”
Liebeler continued to pursue the matter, although Smith’s answers had been dispositive, asking him, “If you could have seen
, it would have been with great difficulty … Is that correct?” Smith again said, “Correct.”
Liebeler continued to pursue questions that focused on the book depository building, even asking if Smith saw “Lee Harvey Oswald come in or out of the building or in that area at all?” Running out of questions about the book depository building, and eager to avoid any questions about the suspect Smith was about to arrest, Liebeler asked for irrelevant hearsay information: “When did you first hear about Oswald’s capture?”
Liebeler, who had made no effort to secure information about where the suspect went after producing false credentials, if he met any other person before he left the area, or even if he was armed, stated, “I don’t think I have any more questions.”
To the police officer who had already testified that he almost captured a person who lied about his law enforcement credentials, who was behind the fence at the time that the shot was fired, and who was prepared with false documents to escape arrest, Liebeler asked, “Did you find anything that you could associate in any way with the assassination?”
Liebeler had access to a report to the chief of the Dallas Police Force, Jesse E. Curry, that was written by Officer Smith. In it the officer stated, “I heard the shots and thought they were coming from the bushes of the overpass.”
Ronnie Dugger was the editor of The Texas Observer, a well-respected publication. On December 13, 1963, Dugger reported on his interview with Officer Smith. Obviously that article, published more than half a year before Liebeler questioned Smith, was available to the junior lawyer. In it, Dugger said that Smith told him that he had gone directly to the area behind the wooden fence and saw “a man standing behind the fence, further shielded by cars in the parking lot behind him, might have had a clear shot at the president as his car began the run downhill on Elm Street toward the underpass.” Liebeler, who was fixated on the depository building, never asked Smith about the “clear shot” that the suspect commanded from his location. Patrolman Smith told Dugger that as he ran into the area behind the fence, he “caught the smell of gunpowder there.” Smith said, “I could tell it was in the air.” Some corroboration comes from United States Senator Ralph Yarborough, who was in the motorcade and who also said “you could smell powder” from the time shots were fired. Dugger stated, “Oswald and his rifle were reportedly six stories high and perhaps seventy-five yards behind the president’s car at the time of the shooting.” Yarborough was in the third car of the motorcade with then vice president and Mrs. Johnson. Dugger wrote that “some officials questioned here [in Dallas] could not explain why Senator Yarborough could smell gunpowder.” Yarborough was never called as a witness to testify, either before members of the commission, or even junior lawyers. Liebeler never asked Smith any question about smelling gunpowder behind the wooden fence where the suspect was lurking.
