MORE people questioning Clint Hill

Steven Kossor says:

 
In his new book, Clint Hill describes his visit to the Bethesda morgue to view President Kennedy’s body: “…Then gently rolling the president over to one side, he pointed out a wound in the upper back , at the neckline quite small.This he said corresponded to the exit wound at the throat.”

In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Clint Hill testified as follows: “Representative BOGGS. Did you see any other wound other than the head wound? Mr. HILL. “Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.”

Clint moved the entrance wound on the back UP six inches in his new book. That’s where the Warren Commission wanted it to be, because if it really WAS six inches lower, the bullet couldn’t possibly have exited from Kennedy’s neck (that would make “the single bullet theory” even more preposterous).

Memories nearer to the event are always more accurate than memories 50 years later! Did Clint need to lie to get a chance to promote his book? Sure looks like it.
In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 4:31:43 AM PDT
Douglas says:
Historical truth matters, my friend, and is more important than Clint’s “feelings” about Jackie Kennedy. If Clint Hill had not ventured to alter history in his accounts of President Kennedy’s wounds, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

But Clint Hill chose to write this book, and he is responsible for its contents. He cannot blame the statements in his book on his ghost writer/co-author, either. He is responsible for the book’s contents, and for the way he described the assassination in the recent MSNBC interview about—that’s right—this book.

No one forced Clint to do the interview with Chris Matthews—and that interview was about THIS BOOK, and about what the wounds he described IN THIS BOOK mean. We’re dealing with American history here, man, not just someone’s cream puff feelings about a former First Lady.

Consider what has just happened: Clint Hill has described for years (ever since 1963 and 1964) what could ONLY have been an exit wound in the BACK of President Kennedy’s head—and yet in his interview with Chris Matthews, he said it had to be an entry wound, fired from above and behind. Nonsense. Entry wounds are small, and exit wounds are large, like the damage Clint Hill described to JFK’s head in his book.

It gets even worse. As described in the comment above yours, Clint Hill actually changed his story about the back wound in his new book, “Mrs. Kennedy and Me.” When he was before the Warren commission and under oath in 1964, he described the back wound as “about six inches below the neckline.” I repeat, he said this under oath. That description concurs with the descriptions given by the two FBI agents who were at the autopsy (at their 1997 ARRB depositions, when they too were under oath), and is also consistent with the holes in JFK’s shirt and suit coat. BUT IN HIS NEW BOOK—which we are discussing here—Clint Hill moved the back wound SIX INCHES HIGHER, so that he now describes it as “at the neckline.” The reason why he did this is rather obvious, and was stated by Mr. Hill himself (see the quote above): he was attempting, in his book, to bolster the moribund single bullet theory of Arlen Specter. He did not do this in his sworn testimony in 1964, so he was obviously instructed to amend that error in his new book.

If Clint Hill only wanted us to read about his “feelings for Jackie Kennedy,” that is all he should have written about. When he chose to write about JFK’s wounds, he became responsible for what he wrote and must now accept the consequences for what he has written.

Historical truth matters—it matters a great deal—and historical distortions, redactions, and falsehoods cannot be tolerated whenever they are perpetrated. No one gets a pass on history and truth, my friend—especially not Clint Hill, who was one of the Secret Service agents who was up late drinking alcohol the night before the assassination, in violation of Secret Service regulations. Clint Hill is not a sacred cow, and is not immune from criticism when he changes his testimony about the back wound on the President, or when he attempts to re-describe an exit wound in the skull as an entrance wound, on national television.

Actions have consequences—let Clint Hill learn that if he wishes to become an author, and write about subjects he says he never intended to write about. This country’s history—its true history—is more important than Clint Hill’s feelings.
In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 10:14:56 AM PDT
MadameX says:
Mr. Horne says–
“I knew what game Clint Hill was playing when he described JFK’s head wound in “The Kennedy Detail” and in “Mrs. Kennedy and Me”—the game was: I will describe exactly what I saw and will not lie about it, but neither will I openly challenge the Warren Commission’s or the HSCA’s “government line” that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy all on his own”

I’ve always felt Clint Hill wants the American public to know the truth and drops hints here and there so we will know the truth. Yet for some reason he will not contradict the Warren Commission Report that reads like an official company motto of what we are to believe. I was confused from the beginning at Oswald’s reactions on national TV. He seemed angry, belligerent and afraid saying he was a patsy. If he wanted notoriety for assassinating the president, it looks like he would have admitted he had fired the shots. Anyway, it’s good that 80% of Americans don’t believe the official story. It means we’re in touch with our common sense in spite of what the media tells us.
 Hill contradicts his own Warren Commission testimony, May 5, 2012
By Steven Kossor – See all my reviewsThis review is from: Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir (Hardcover)
In his new book, Mrs. Kennedy and Me, Clint Hill describes his visit to the Bethesda morgue to view President Kennedy’s body: “…Then gently rolling the president over to one side, he pointed out a wound in the upper back, at the neckline quite small.”

In his testimony before the Warren Commission in 1964, Clint Hill testified as follows: Representative BOGGS. “Did you see any other wound other than the head wound?” Mr. HILL. “Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.”

Clint moved the entrance wound on the back UP six inches in his new book. That’s where the Warren Commission wanted it to be, because if it really WAS six inches lower, the bullet couldn’t possibly have exited from Kennedy’s neck (that would make “the single bullet theory” even more preposterous).

Memories nearer to the event are always more accurate than memories 50 years later! Did Clint need to lie to get a chance to promote his book? Sure looks like it.
Initial post: May 6, 2012 4:50:00 AM PDT
Douglas says:

 
Thank you for pointing this out, Mr. Kossor.

In his new book, Clint Hill attempts to change a crucial element of his 1964 sworn testimony before the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter. You have caught him red-handed. Good work.

Hill’s 1964 sworn testimony about a back wound six inches below the neckline was consistent with the clothing holes in JFK’s shirt and suit coat, and as it turns out, was also consistent with the sworn testimony of FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill before the Assassination Records Review Board in 1997. (These two FBI agents were at JFK’s autopsy for three full hours, from 8 to 11 PM on 11/22/63. They testified before the ARRB in 1997, and during their depositions, both men expressed the opinion that because JFK’s back wound was so low, Specter’s single bullet theory was impossible.)

This attempt by Clint Hill to overturn his sworn testimony in 1964, and his decision on May 4th to re-describe an obvious exit wound in the President’s skull as an entry wound on national television, are unacceptable. They tarnish, in a very serious way, what otherwise might have been a very enjoyable memoir. This behavior of his suggests coaching by contacts within the Federal government, who are still aggressively attempting to ram the “lone nut shooter myth” down the throats of the American people, as the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination approaches.

About these ads

About vincepalamara

Vincent Palamara was born in Pittsburgh and graduated from Duquesne University with a degree in Sociology. Although not even born when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Vince brings fresh eyes to an old case. In fact, Vince would go on to study the largely overlooked actions - and inactions - of the United States Secret Service in unprecedented detail, as well as achieving a world's record in the process, having interviewed and corresponded with over seventy former agents (the House Select Committee on Assassinations had the old record of 46 with a 6 million dollar budget and supboena power from Congress), not to mention many surviving family members, White House aides, and even quite a few Parkland and Bethesda medical witnesses for a corresponding project. The result was Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service & The Failure To Protect President Kennedy. Vince is also the author of the upcoming book JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda. All told, Vince has been favorably mentioned in over 80 JFK and Secret Service related books to date (including two whole chapters in Murder in Dealey Plaza, The Secret Service: The Hidden History Of An Enigmatic Agency by Philip Melanson, and the Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board, among many others), often at length, in the bibliographies, and in the Secret Service - and even medical evidence - areas of these works. Vince has appeared on the History Channel, C-SPAN, National Geographic, PCN, BPTV, local cable access television, YouTube, radio, newspapers, print journals, at national conferences, and all over the internet. Also, Vince's original research materials, or copies of said materials, are stored in the National Archives (by request under Deed Of Gift by the ARRB), the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, Harvard University, the Assassination Archives and Research Center, and the Dallas Public Library. Vince Palamara has become known (as he was dubbed by the History Channel in 2003) "the Secret Service expert." As former JFK Secret Service agent Joe Paolella proclaimed: "You seem to know a lot about the Secret Service, maybe even more than I do!" Agent Dan Emmett calls Vince a Secret Service expert in his new book.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s