New Book!

[Larry Hancock]

Does the book indicate or imply that Walker knew about it in advance and was a willing participant? Also, am I right in that this would put Oswald directly in touch with Bannister and under

his influence well before going to New Orleans or is it all happening with Courtney following instructions from Bannister and Oswald just going along with what Courtney wants?

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - does the statement that Banister and co. Manipulated LHO into taking part in this publicity stunt come from Caulfield?

[David Andrews]

Dr. Caufield joins Gary Wean, Don DeLillo and several other JFK researchers of the past generation to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was personally supporting of the politics of General Walker, and upon the direction of Guy Banister, faked the General Walker shooting in order to boost public sympathy for General Walker.

In Libra, novelist Don DeLillo has Oswald and a fictional character (a disturbed African-American whom Oz meets in the Marine brig) shoot at Walker because they oppose his policies.

I do not yet believe Oswald shot at Walker - nor believe the opposite. I brought up the DeLillo book here specifically because its plot hinges on a faked, rabble-rousing JFK assassination attempt that is converted to a real killing by some of the CIA-associated plotters.

My point was to show that the fake-into-real idea had had currency since the mid-1980s, I believe that DeLillo discovered this rumor in his researches. I recall that when I read reviews of the book before buying it, my reaction was, "Oh, so he's onto that angle, too," as I had read of this proposition before then - where or when I do not remember.

Edited December 25, 2015 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

Does the book indicate or imply that Walker knew about it in advance and was a willing participant? Also, am I right in that this would put Oswald directly in touch with Bannister and under his influence well before going to New Orleans or is it all happening with Courtney following instructions from Bannister and Oswald just going along with what Courtney wants?

Yes, Larry, the new book by Jeff Caufield directly suggests that Walker personally planned this fake assassination attempt. Caufield cites a DPD officer who said he suspected Walker of plotting the shooting, because he had seen Walker do this before. Caufield writes:

Dallas Police Lieutenant L.E. Cunningham – who had led the original investigation of the shooting in April – expressed his skepticism about the supposed attempt on Walker’s life. He stated, “This was a method used by General Walker to gain additional publicity…Walker will exploit current news releases to the fullest extent to gain maximum publicity.” (Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, 2015, p. 384)

Although Caufield leaves it at that, some background is probably in order. In November, 1962, Edwin Walker had recently been liberated by the (shudder) ACLU from the insane asylum which JFK and RFK had sent him following the Ole Miss racial riot. Walker had failed in Germany, he failed to reinstate himself by using the Senate Subcommittee for Military Preparedness, he failed in his bid for Texas Governor, and now he failed at Ole Miss. The Brown Decision and MLK were marching forward, and Fidel Castro was still ruler of Cuba.

So, perhaps Walker decided to change his tactics -- instead of exhorting Americans to follow him, perhaps he should try manipulating them. He considered himself a master of the 4th Dimension of Warfare (namely, propaganda; as land battles are the 1st dimension; sea battles are the 2nd dimension; and air battles are the 3rd dimension). According to Bill Fritz, (The Kennedy Mutiny, 2002) the Friends of Walker staged a fire at a member’s place – on November 22, 1962. General Walker, driving by, jumped into the fray and saved lives.

The headline in the November 23rd edition of the Dallas Times Herald read: WALKER PLAYS KEY ROLE IN BATTLING FARM BLAZE. Walker was a hero. Walker had staged it and it worked. Propaganda works. Only a few, like Lt. Cunningham of the DPD, would doubt the truth of this story. Jeff Caufield, also, maintains that General Walker staged the event as a publicity stunt.

Given this scenario, Caufield maintains that Walker also staged the 10 April 1963 shooting -- and through right-wing connections, framed Lee Harvey Oswald for it by manipulating Oswald in that direction.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 26, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - does the statement that Banister and co. Manipulated LHO into taking part in this publicity stunt come from Caulfield?

Well, Paul B., this is what Caufield says:

Someone shot at General Walker while he was working near a window at his home on April 10, 1963, just after his return from the first leg of his speaking tour. Based on Marina Oswald's testimony, her husband was unquestionably involved in some way. The fact that General Walker was close to both Guy Banister and Kent Courtney -- whose operation was closely aligned with Lee Harvey Oswald -- is enough evidence to conclude that Oswald was not actually trying to kill General Walker." (Caufield,

General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy

, 2015, p. 382)

Caufield is clearly basing his conclusion on earlier chapters in which he strove to link LHO not only with Guy Banister, but also with Kent Courtney at a fairly early date in 1963.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Dr. Caufield joins Gary Wean, Don DeLillo and several other JFK researchers of the past generation to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was personally supporting of the politics of General Walker, and upon the direction of Guy Banister, faked the General Walker shooting in order to boost public sympathy for General Walker.

In Libra, novelist Don DeLillo has Oswald and a fictional character (a disturbed African-American whom Oz meets in the Marine brig) shoot at Walker because they oppose his policies.

I do not yet believe Oswald shot at Walker - nor believe the opposite. I brought up the DeLillo book here specifically because its plot hinges on a faked, rabble-rousing JFK assassination attempt that is converted to a real killing by some of the CIA-associated plotters.

My point was to show that the fake-into-real idea had had currency since the mid-1980s, I believe that DeLillo discovered this rumor in his researches. I recall that when I read reviews of the book before buying it, my reaction was, "Oh, so he's onto that angle, too," as I had read of this proposition before then - where or when I do not remember.

Yes, David, there were other sources for the JFK theory of the "fake assassination plot". Don DeLillo's novel, LIBRA, was a part of that 1980's movement.

The first, as I read it, was by Gary Wean. Although he's known for this theory in his book, Fish in the Courthouse (1987), there is a persistent rumor that he had already published this theory in 1971. His story is interesting because it named Dallas Sheriff Bill Decker at its center, along with his personal friend and WW2 hero, Audie Murphy.

As this 1971 story goes, Gary Wean, who was a young Los Angeles policeman, was a close personal friend of Bill Decker. One day Audie Murphy invited both of them to a secret meeting in another State during Demember 1963 to meet with a secret US Senator, who would tell them the TRUTH about the JFK murder. As Gary Wean told the story (and withheld the name of the Senator for years), the JFK murder began as a "Fake Assassination" scenario. That is how any why Lee Harvey Oswald (and others) originally signed up for it.

The purpose of the "Fake Assassination" scenario was to blame the Communists, and frighten the public (and JFK) into invading Cuba.

Then, the CIA found out about it, and once all the "Fake Assassination" pieces were in place, the CIA quickly stepped in to truly murder JFK, and then quickly stepped out, leaving Lee Harvey Oswald and General Walker holding the bag.

That's the first rendition of this story, as I read it. There were many imitators in the 1980's, including LIBRA (1988).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - a simple suggestion - try leaving out the word Yes when you respond to someone on a post. Just their name will do.

[Paul Brancato]

Caulfield's choice of language is unfortunate when he says that based on Marina's testimony her husband was 'unquestionably' involved in some way.

[William O'Neil]

I think things are getting a little twisted around. Caulfield’s theory is not that Walker knew Oswald personally or had a direct relationship with him. Rather, that Oswald’s involvement in the shooting attempt may have been the result, of his getting involved with others who did have relationship with “Ted”

The reference by Caufield to Oswald and Walker “possibly working together”, was in regards to the Police ignoring the odd fact that Oswald had Walkers name and phone number in his address (note)book (p392).

Not only did the DPD,FBI and the WC fail to consider that possibility, every subsequent investigation did as well, as far as I know....

Caufield is not saying they did know each other, but why was this possible clue ignored ?

Bill

Edited December 26, 2015 by William O'Neil

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul - does the statement that Banister and co. Manipulated LHO into taking part in this publicity stunt come from Caulfield?

Well, Paul B., this is what Caufield says:

Someone shot at General Walker while he was working near a window at his home on April 10, 1963, just after his return from the first leg of his speaking tour. Based on Marina Oswald's testimony, her husband was unquestionably involved in some way. The fact that General Walker was close to both Guy Banister and Kent Courtney -- whose operation was closely aligned with Lee Harvey Oswald -- is enough evidence to conclude that Oswald was not actually trying to kill General Walker." (Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, 2015, p. 382)

Caufield is clearly basing his conclusion on earlier chapters in which he strove to link LHO not only with Guy Banister, but also with Kent Courtney at a fairly early date in 1963.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I will probably discuss this at greater length when I write my formal critique of Caufield's book -- but all of us need to obtain a very clear definition from Caufield of what he intends to convey when he writes (as he often does) that person "x" was "close to" person "y".

During the past year or so, I have sent Paul Trejo about 2 or 3 dozen private emails and, in addition, I have posted about 300 public replies here on EF to his assertions in various threads.

Does that mean that I have been "close to" Paul Trejo??

During the 1960's and 1970's there was no internet. So, obviously, there were no website forums where people exchanged messages nor was there any email or text messages or tweets etc.

So what was the normal method of communication during those years? Answer: Usually written correspondence or perhaps phone calls.

However, simply communicating with somebody did not make them "close to" each other---especially if you are trying to build a case for a criminal conspiracy.

So here are my questions for Paul and for Caufield:

Is there any contemporaneous evidence to establish that Banister and Courtney routinely invited Walker to stay at their homes while he was in Louisiana -- and Walker accepted?

Is there any evidence from any source to establish that Walker had any unique personal associations with Banister or Courtney APART from sharing political beliefs? For example: was Walker ever invited to attend family affairs (weddings, birthdays, anniversaries) or perhaps go on vacations with Banister or Courtney? Did Banister or Courtney engage in any significant business dealings with Walker?

In short----there is a finite limit on what can be assumed (but not proven) just because two or more people share an interest in the same subject matters. I am not "close to" Paul Trejo --- despite the fact that I probably have communicated with Paul many more times than Walker ever communicated with Banister or Courtney!

Edited December 26, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Caulfield's choice of language is unfortunate when he says that based on Marina's testimony her husband was 'unquestionably' involved in some way.

Well, Paul B., on this point I agree with Jeff Caufield. The material evidence of LHO's involvement in the Walker shooting is OVERWHELMING.

Not only do we have the photographs of Walker's backyard (as I recall, taken with the Imperial Reflex camera) we also have the Backyard Photographs (BYPs).

Now -- although I agree with most here that the BYPs are FAKE, nevertheless, I believe that LHO himself created the FAKEs.

The chin, neck, shoulders, right-wrist and stance in all the BYPs belong to Roscoe White. (IMHO, Jack White showed that conclusively.)

LHO was working at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall at that time, which had superb photographic equipment, and LHO liked to monkey with photography. (IMHO, it was because LHO was using company equipment for personal reasons that he was fired from Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall -- also around this period.)

LHO created the FAKE BYPs for the purpose of Plausible Deniability on the one hand, and for bragging rights on the other hand. LHO was a complex character.

To that we must add Marina's testimony, that LHO confessed to her that he was a Walker shooter that night. Still, LHO lied to Marina continually, so we must also discount LHO's three key lies: (1) that he always acted alone; (2) that he buried his rifle; and (3) that he always traveled on foot. It is far more likely that: (1) LHO worked with a team of at least two; (2) LHO used somebody else's rifle; and (3) LHO was a passenger in a car.

Despite that, LHO wanted *some* bragging rights, and he liked to tease Marina, to always stay one-up on her. (The Nixon story, e.g. was merely LHO teasing Marina, with Marina being uncertain whether he was teasing her.)

To all this evidence we must add the WC testimony of George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt -- who claimed to see Oswald's *scoped* rifle in his home four days later, and confronted LHO with the question, to obtain a silent treatment and a guilty look.

Now -- detractors of Marina's story (like James DiEugenio) have long claimed that (i) the CIA and Ruth Paine forged the BYPs and the Walker home photographs; (ii) the CIA told Marina what to say; and (iii) the CIA told George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt what to say.

But they never say WHY. WHY in the world should the Walker shooting have ANYTHING to do with the JFK shooting? It didn't. The bullets don't match. the motive doesn't match. The only thing that matches is the COMMUNIST shooter angle -- which is what Walker wanted to promote. But the WC rejected that, and promoted only the LONE NUT angle. So, again, WHY BOTHER forging any evidence at all?

Or, some say that Walker forged all this evidence, and Walker told Marina, the Paines and the DeMohrenschildts what to tell the WC. But that is even more foolish as a theory, since Marina, the Paines and the De Mohrenshildts all *despised* General Walker.

So -- reviewing all the evidence and all the alternatives, it is clear to me that the evidence is OVERWHELMING that LHO shot at General Walker on 10 April 1963.

The only question is WHY. It is Jeff Caufield's theory that LHO shot-at-and-missed General Walker in response to orders from a Banister/Courtney plot, and that LHO didn't know that General Walker himself was the originator of that plot.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

I have corrected my post typo in which I wrote Oswald had Walkers address in his notebook, it should have been name and phone #.

Bill

Edited December 26, 2015 by William O'Neil

[Ernie Lazar]

Caulfield's choice of language is unfortunate when he says that based on Marina's testimony her husband was 'unquestionably' involved in some way.

I think a compelling case can be made that Caufield often uses superlative descriptive terms which are highly questionable if not actually false. This is a rhetorical device which can be used to de-value alternative explanations or analyses while at the same time pretending that one's own presentation is the only plausible or realistic one.

[Paul Trejo]

I have corrected my post typo in which I wrote Oswald had Walkers address in his notebook, it should have been name and phone #.

Bill

It is highly suspicious, IMHO, that Lee Harvey Oswald would have the name and telephone number of the Resigned Major General Edwin Walker in his personal notebook.

This is arguably evidence to claim that LHO cooperated with Edwin Walker to FAKE an assassination attempt on 10 April 1963. If only we could tell what date this entry was entered into LHO's address book.

Why in the world would LHO want Walker's phone number? If somebody was really going to assassinate Walker, why would he want his phone number?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[John Dolva]

That's a very broad, almost meaningless, stroke, Ernie. It applies to every single news print article ever written, every polemic, biography, monologue. Biased in favour of ones own view and in turn ones own view becomes just that.