Bloody Treason: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy

[Jim Hackett II]

First:
Thanks Greg. Best Regards and Peace that surpasses all understanding to you.

I dug out my copy of "High Treason" to hunt down an example of what can be done in research. I'm no author and my efforts pale compared to Noel Twyman's works.
Excerpt I chose follows, only a tidbit but oh so good.

Bloody Treason by Mr. Noel Twyman.
From Chapter 29 "The Secret Service" p. 760-761
"Interviews with agents by various researchers over the years, however, indicate that many of the Secret Service agents did not believe there was a lone assassin and were very troubled by what had happened. In that regard, both Special Agent Kellerman and Chief Rowley immediately commented after the shooting that it was a conspiracy. At one point in my studies this confused me because I thought that if they were candid about believing it was conspiracy it was an indication that they were not involved in it. But after studying the Mexico City evidence, the Zapruder film, the testimonies of eyewitnesses, and thinking much more about the disinformation phase (for which it was obviously not planned that the shooting would appear to be the act of one person), it occurred to me that it would not be unreasonable to explain Kellerman's and Rowley's statements about a conspiracy as being no more than a continuation of the original intention of the plot that it was supposed to look like a conspiracy involving Communists. Only after Oswald was captured and other things went wrong did the leaders of the plot decide pragmatically to switch to the lone-gunman story. This as we know, gave the plotters grave problems because the evidence clearly showed more than one gunman.
Added to the foregoing evidence of Secret Service complicity is their failure to send to their Dallas office information obtained on November 12, 1963 from Miami police informant William Somersett in a recording of a conversation between Somersett and Joseph Milteer, indicating that a plot was underway to assassinate the president with a high-powered rifle from a tall building. This information was sent to other Secret Service field offices but not to the Dallas office.10
Additionally, according to Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden, the Chicago Secret Service office received a teletype from the FBI shortly before Kennedy's November 2 visit to Chicago warning that an assassination attempt would be carried out by a four-man Cuban hit squad armed with high-powered rifles. Bolden said that the entire office was involved in this, but that it was kept top secret.11 Kennedy's trip to Chicago was cancelled, but, again, that information was not transmitted to the Dallas office".

Notes:
10 HSCA Report, p. 233
11 Ibid., p. 231; also Palamara, The Third Alternative, pp. 71, 75

Getting back to evidence and facts and away from hyperbole.
Opinions? Comments?
This book is stored right beside L. Fletcher Prouty's books, which speaks loudly of my own opinion of Noel Twyman's book and his fat red white and blue bullet.
A brave cover choice to me leaving no doubt with the title as to the view expressed.
Good to Ya.
Jim
Any typo errors in the quoted text are mine, not Mr. Twyman's.

[Greg Burnham]

You are very welcome, Jim.

Great insights and commentary. Thanks for that.

I am hoping to comment further on the remainder of your post in the future. However, for now, I think you are on the right track...

[Jim Hackett II]

From "JFK" by Fletcher Prouty [ISBN 0-8065-1772-7]

Chapter 19 "Visions of a Kennedy Dynasty"
pp. 294 - 295
"So few of the routine things were done in Dallas. Incredibly, there were no Secret Service men or other protection personnel at all in the area of the Elm Street slowdown zone. How did this happen? It is documented that Secret Service men in Fort Worth were told they would not be needed in Dallas.

The commander of an army unit, specially trained in protection and based in nearby San Antonio, Texas, had been told he and his men would not be needed in Dallas. "Another army unit will cover that city," the commander was told.
I have worked with military presidential protection units. I called a member of that army unit later. I was told that the commander "had offered the services of his unit for protection duties for the entire trip through Texas," that he was "point-blank and categorically refused by the Secret Service," and that "there were hot words between the agencies."

I was told that this army unit, the 316th Field Detachment of the 112th Military Intelligence Group at Fort Sam Houston in the Fourth Army Area, "had records on Lee Harvey Oswald, before November 22." It "knew Dallas was dangerous," the commander told my associate in explaining why he had offered his services, despite a call to "stand down." Like an old dog, he'll do his tricks without further instructions. Telling him "not to do his old tricks" would be futile.

This leaves an important question: Why was the assistance of this skilled and experienced unit point blank refused'? Who knew ahead of time that it would not be wanted in Dallas?

There were no Secret Service men on the roofs of any buildings in the area. There had been no precautions taken to see that all windows overlooking the parade route in this slowdown zone had been closed. The man alleged to have killed the President is said to have fired three shots from an open window on the sixth floor of the building directly above the sharp turn at the corner of Houston and Elm streets.

The availability of that "gunman's lair," if it was occupied at all, violated basic rules of protection. It overlooked the spot where the car would slow down. The building had many open windows at that time. No Secret Service men were covering that big building, and no Secret Service men were on the roofs of adjacent buildings to observe it or other such lairs. And no military units were in Dallas for that duty.

Why did the Secret Service men do everything wrong or omit doing things that were customary and were required for protection? Had they actually been told they were not needed? If so, who had the power and the know-how to tell the Secret Service such a thing? Obviously, that authority had to have come from a very high level."
End Excerpt

No wonder "Bloody Treason" was a good choice for a book title.
Dereliction of duty is clear to me.
In these excerpts we have research to indicate something was fishy in the Secret Service, and the issue is further detailed even more in a man that was in the exact right place and with the ability and knowledge to know the SOP for protection.
Both points of Messrs. Prouty and Twyman, dovetail to reinforce each other.
The indication I glean from this is that some entity holding higher authority than the Secret Service was in command in fact.
Sadly John Kennedy only thought he was the President and as such held the highest level of authority. Someone else was really in command.
My opinion is that this was the Secret Team and that this authority trumped the Secret Service and halted SOP protection procedures and policies.

After the fact of the murder the Secret Team nullified our "system" as Mr. Harold Weisberg said so long ago.

One more tribute to the first generation of researchers and witnesses that didn't drink the Warren Commission poison hemlock.
Penn Jones voiced the issue that our government has been under the control of the Military Industrial Complex since November 22, 1963.
In the last 50 years the issues are no longer in doubt.
Jim