Edwin Walker

[Mark Knight]

And when A "police agency" was informed that Lee Oswald "probably" was a wife beater, it turns out that Hosty and the FBI didn't follow up...because they had no reason to follow up. WHY? Because, just like killing the President, beating your spouse wasn't a federal crime in 1963 either.

As for as James Hosty not following up on Oswald, your suspicion, Mark, does not add up to a conclusion; it is just as likely that James Hosty was simply lazy and incompetent. It's not uncommon.

--Paul Trejo

Paul, apparently you don't understand how the police hierarchy works in America.

The FBI does NOT concern itself with the enforcement of state and local laws. The concern of the FBI is the enforcement of federal law, and federal law alone. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY to investigate state or local violations.

So perhaps the SINGLE most important reason that FBI AGENT Hosty didn't follow up on the allegations of Lee Oswald beating his wife is: "It's not MY job." On humanitarian grounds, he might have had reason to report what he had discovered on the subject to local authorities. But that was not a LEGAL obligation, nor was it a requirement of his job.

Generally, the FBI only gets involved in an investigation when there is a question as to whether FEDERAL law may have been broken...because that is the ONLY area under which the FBI has the AUTHORITY to act. In 1963, spouse abuse was not considered to have civil rights implications. There were no federal weapons violations involved. There was no interstate flight involved, as there was no attempt to prosecute Oswald by local authorities.

Bottom line: Hosty and the FBI had NO JURISDICTION in domestic disputes, as there was NO APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTE involved. And therefore, any "police reports" of spouse abuse [or "wife beating, the term you seem to favor] made to the FBI were, for all intents and purposes, useless heresay.

So your characterization of Hosty as "lazy and incompetent"--while that MAY or MAY NOT be true--has no basis in fact with regards to Lee Oswald allegedly beating his wife. It simply WASN'T HOSTY'S JOB to follow up.

I would hope by now that you understand that.

[Paul Trejo]

And when A "police agency" was informed that Lee Oswald "probably" was a wife beater, it turns out that Hosty and the FBI didn't follow up...because they had no reason to follow up. WHY? Because, just like killing the President, beating your spouse wasn't a federal crime in 1963 either.

As for as James Hosty not following up on Oswald, your suspicion, Mark, does not add up to a conclusion; it is just as likely that James Hosty was simply lazy and incompetent. It's not uncommon.

--Paul Trejo

Paul, apparently you don't understand how the police hierarchy works in America.

The FBI does NOT concern itself with the enforcement of state and local laws. The concern of the FBI is the enforcement of federal law, and federal law alone. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY to investigate state or local violations.

So perhaps the SINGLE most important reason that FBI AGENT Hosty didn't follow up on the allegations of Lee Oswald beating his wife is: "It's not MY job." On humanitarian grounds, he might have had reason to report what he had discovered on the subject to local authorities. But that was not a LEGAL obligation, nor was it a requirement of his job.

Generally, the FBI only gets involved in an investigation when there is a question as to whether FEDERAL law may have been broken...because that is the ONLY area under which the FBI has the AUTHORITY to act. In 1963, spouse abuse was not considered to have civil rights implications. There were no federal weapons violations involved. There was no interstate flight involved, as there was no attempt to prosecute Oswald by local authorities.

Bottom line: Hosty and the FBI had NO JURISDICTION in domestic disputes, as there was NO APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTE involved. And therefore, any "police reports" of spouse abuse [or "wife beating, the term you seem to favor] made to the FBI were, for all intents and purposes, useless heresay.

So your characterization of Hosty as "lazy and incompetent"--while that MAY or MAY NOT be true--has no basis in fact with regards to Lee Oswald allegedly beating his wife. It simply WASN'T HOSTY'S JOB to follow up.

I would hope by now that you understand that.

Mark, that's easy enough to understand. My point was targeted to one clause in your statement, that the FBI (Hosty) did not follow up on tracking Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas because "killing the President...wasn't a federal crime in 1963..."

Now, I know you'll say that is a FACT, but it is a bizarre fact from the viewpoint of morality, because it suggests (as anyone can plainly see) that if the President of the USA is killed, the FBI need not take any interest in that action at all..

Most bizarre.

Surely you can see the strangeness of your sentence when confronted with common sense, Mark. Now, John Newman wrote a well-known book, OSWALD AND THE CIA (1995) in which he lambasts James Hosty of the FBI for being lazy and incompetent insofar as Hosty was so slow in tracking the frequent address changes of Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962-1963.

Now, I do agree that Hosty showed no interest in the "wife-beating" claims of Oswald's landlord -- and I can easily attribute that to an FBI attitude of, "that's matter for the local police." That's easy to understand. But the notion that Hosty would regard the killing of JFK to be a matter of the same magnitude as a local wife-beating complaint -- well, that's beyond common sense.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

.

[Paul Trejo]

Marina Oswald was a controlled and terrified little mouse in 1963-64...

Exactly:

And your evidence, Karl, for your claim would be?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 23, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

And when A "police agency" was informed that Lee Oswald "probably" was a wife beater, it turns out that Hosty and the FBI didn't follow up...because they had no reason to follow up. WHY? Because, just like killing the President, beating your spouse wasn't a federal crime in 1963 either.

As for as James Hosty not following up on Oswald, your suspicion, Mark, does not add up to a conclusion; it is just as likely that James Hosty was simply lazy and incompetent. It's not uncommon.

--Paul Trejo

Paul, apparently you don't understand how the police hierarchy works in America.

The FBI does NOT concern itself with the enforcement of state and local laws. The concern of the FBI is the enforcement of federal law, and federal law alone. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY to investigate state or local violations.

So perhaps the SINGLE most important reason that FBI AGENT Hosty didn't follow up on the allegations of Lee Oswald beating his wife is: "It's not MY job." On humanitarian grounds, he might have had reason to report what he had discovered on the subject to local authorities. But that was not a LEGAL obligation, nor was it a requirement of his job.

Generally, the FBI only gets involved in an investigation when there is a question as to whether FEDERAL law may have been broken...because that is the ONLY area under which the FBI has the AUTHORITY to act. In 1963, spouse abuse was not considered to have civil rights implications. There were no federal weapons violations involved. There was no interstate flight involved, as there was no attempt to prosecute Oswald by local authorities.

Bottom line: Hosty and the FBI had NO JURISDICTION in domestic disputes, as there was NO APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTE involved. And therefore, any "police reports" of spouse abuse [or "wife beating, the term you seem to favor] made to the FBI were, for all intents and purposes, useless heresay.

So your characterization of Hosty as "lazy and incompetent"--while that MAY or MAY NOT be true--has no basis in fact with regards to Lee Oswald allegedly beating his wife. It simply WASN'T HOSTY'S JOB to follow up.

I would hope by now that you understand that.

Mark, that's easy enough to understand. My point was targeted to one clause in your statement, that the FBI (Hosty) did not follow up on tracking Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas because "killing the President...wasn't a federal crime in 1963..."

Now, I know you'll say that is a FACT, but it is a bizarre fact from the viewpoint of morality, because it suggests (as anyone can plainly see) that if the President of the USA is killed, the FBI need not take any interest in that action at all..

Most bizarre.

Surely you can see the strangeness of your sentence when confronted with common sense, Mark. Now, John Newman wrote a well-known book, OSWALD AND THE CIA (1995) in which he lambasts James Hosty of the FBI for being lazy and incompetent insofar as Hosty was so slow in tracking the frequent address changes of Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962-1963.

Now, I do agree that Hosty showed no interest in the "wife-beating" claims of Oswald's landlord -- and I can easily attribute that to an FBI attitude of, "that's matter for the local police." That's easy to understand. But the notion that Hosty would regard the killing of JFK to be a matter of the same magnitude as a local wife-beating complaint -- well, that's beyond common sense.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

.

Are you actually that illiterate on the subject of what the federal law was? On August 28, 1965, Public Law 89-141 was passed which put 18 USC Chapter 84 Section 1751 into place. PRIOR to the passage of PL 89-141, there was NO statute on the books which made the killing of the President of the United States a federal crime.

And, unless a federal law was broken, the FBI had NO JURISDICTION IN THE CASE.

FBI involvement in the case, post-assassination anyway, began when the FBI offered the use of their labs to examine the evidence in the case...and that offer was accepted by Dallas Police Department Chief Jesse Curry. Prior to that moment, despite the actions of the Secret Service agents at Parkland Hospital, despite what Hosty and other FBI agents may or may not have done...the FBI had NO JURISDICTION, as NO FEDERAL LAW HAD BEEN BROKEN.

That was the reason PL 89-141 was passed in the first place: to GIVE that jurisdiction to the FBI by MAKING the killing of the President a federal crime. Prior to that, the murder of ANY President was ONLY a violation of the STATE law in whichever state the crime was committed.

Sure, the FBI truly WANTED to investigate the assassination. But prior to being INVITED to help by Chief Curry, after his acceptance of the offer of the use of FBI lab facilities and personnel, the FBI's hands were tied...by law. And like you, once the American public learned that the killing of the President wasn't a federal crime, they, too, thought it was absurd and bizarre.

Which is WHY PL 89-141 was passed. Have I made that clear enough yet?

If not, try this reference: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap84-sec1751/content-detail.html

In fact, it was BECAUSE no federal law was broken that the Warren Commission was formed. Check out the transcripts of the tapes of the LBJ phone conversations; the Warren Commission came to be primarily to circumvent Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr's investigation, the ONLY investigation with any legal standing at the time prior to the creation of the Warren Commission. And the creation of the Warren Commission is what gave the FBI a mandate to investigate the assassination, outside of assisting the DPD investigation...which was only by invitation, and not by the weight of any law.

An appeal to "Common Sense" is an argument/device used by David Von Pein when the FACTS are not on his side. Surely you can do better than that, Paul.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Mark Knight

[Paul Trejo]

Are you actually that illiterate on the subject of what the federal law was? On August 28, 1965, Public Law 89-141 was passed which put 18 USC Chapter 84 Section 1751 into place. PRIOR to the passage of PL 89-141, there was NO statute on the books which made the killing of the President of the United States a federal crime.

And, unless a federal law was broken, the FBI had NO JURISDICTION IN THE CASE.

FBI involvement in the case, post-assassination anyway, began when the FBI offered the use of their labs to examine the evidence in the case...and that offer was accepted by Dallas Police Department Chief Jesse Curry. Prior to that moment, despite the actions of the Secret Service agents at Parkland Hospital, despite what Hosty and other FBI agents may or may not have done...the FBI had NO JURISDICTION, as NO FEDERAL LAW HAD BEEN BROKEN.

That was the reason PL 89-141 was passed in the first place: to GIVE that jurisdiction to the FBI by MAKING the killing of the President a federal crime. Prior to that, the murder of ANY President was ONLY a violation of the STATE law in whichever state the crime was committed.

Sure, the FBI truly WANTED to investigate the assassination. But prior to being INVITED to help by Chief Curry, after his acceptance of the offer of the use of FBI lab facilities and personnel, the FBI's hands were tied...by law. And like you, once the American public learned that the killing of the President wasn't a federal crime, they, too, thought it was absurd and bizarre.

Which is WHY PL 89-141 was passed. Have I made that clear enough yet?

If not, try this reference: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap84-sec1751/content-detail.html

In fact, it was BECAUSE no federal law was broken that the Warren Commission was formed. Check out the transcripts of the tapes of the LBJ phone conversations; the Warren Commission came to be primarily to circumvent Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr's investigation, the ONLY investigation with any legal standing at the time prior to the creation of the Warren Commission. And the creation of the Warren Commission is what gave the FBI a mandate to investigate the assassination, outside of assisting the DPD investigation...which was only by invitation, and not by the weight of any law.

An appeal to "Common Sense" is an argument/device used by David Von Pein when the FACTS are not on his side. Surely you can do better than that, Paul.

Mark, you misread my post. My point wasn't questioning the fact that there was no Federal statute against killing the President; that is bizarre, but still a fact. My point was about the moral question implied. That's where common sense comes in. It is possible and even likely that a bureaucracy might overlook (or just take for granted) a principle that common sense sees very clearly.

Also, I find your tone counter-productive, Mark. Is the negativity really necessary?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

Paul, my concern is that you don't seem to understand that, without some sort of legal authority to do so, the FBI can't just jump in on what is a state or local investigation...and that INCLUDED, in 1963, the murder of the President. Sure, there might be a "moral" question involved; but without LEGAL justification to get involved, even the murder of the President was simply a local crime. As I understand it, Hosty and the Dallas office of the FBI didn't get involved until the arrest of Lee Oswald. And, LEGALLY, that was as it should be.

Now, you can preach all day about who should've done what, morally. But our country is one based upon the rule of LAW, and not necessarily what is morally correct [case in point: slavery]. What Walker did at Oxford, Mississippi--inciting a riot--was not ONLY immoral, but it was against the law. He wasn't arrested and placed in a mental institution because what he did was immoral; that happened because what he did was a violation of the law. [i understand how a Mississippi jury acquitted him, but that was a blatant miscarriage of justice.]

Likewise, until a federal law was broken [or suspected to have been broken], the FBI had no legal authority under which to insert itself in the JFK murder investigation, with the sole exception of offering the use of its crime labs for the examination of evidence...and that offer was subject to acceptance of it by the DPD.

It's really not a difficult concept to understand.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Mark Knight

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, my concern is that you don't seem to understand that, without some sort of legal authority to do so, the FBI can't just jump in on what is a state or local investigation...and that INCLUDED, in 1963, the murder of the President. Sure, there might be a "moral" question involved; but without LEGAL justification to get involved, even the murder of the President was simply a local crime. As I understand it, Hosty and the Dallas office of the FBI didn't get involved until the arrest of Lee Oswald. And, LEGALLY, that was as it should be.

Now, you can preach all day about who should've done what, morally. But our country is one based upon the rule of LAW, and not necessarily what is morally correct [case in point: slavery]. What Walker did at Oxford, Mississippi--inciting a riot--was not ONLY immoral, but it was against the law. He wasn't arrested and placed in a mental institution because what he did was immoral; that happened because what he did was a violation of the law. [i understand how a Mississippi jury acquitted him, but that was a blatant miscarriage of justice.]

Likewise, until a federal law was broken [or suspected to have been broken], the FBI had no legal authority under which to insert itself in the JFK murder investigation, with the sole exception of offering the use of its crime labs for the examination of evidence...and that offer was subject to acceptance of it by the DPD.

It's really not a difficult concept to understand.

Mark, I agree with all the legal points you wrote in that response -- but can we tone down the personal attacks? I mean, the epithet, "xxxx," has been banned on this Forum by John Simkin since 2004.

When you claim that I post LIES, that's really the same thing, as we all know. I'm sure I'm as welcome to my honest opinion as you are to yours. Just tone down the rhetoric a notch, and we should be able to co-exist here.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 24, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Hogan]

John Simkin understood the dynamics of this Forum early on.

Please think through your ideas before you post. This will reduce the amount of aggression that is directed towards you.

[Paul Trejo]

ANYWAY -- back to this interesting thread by Jim Root!

The Edwin Walker issue is central to solving the JFK assassination, IMHO, because the Warren Commission records name him more than 700 times, because Jack Ruby named Walker and the John Birch Society specifically as the leader of the JFK plot, and because the independent witnesses of Silvia Odio and Harry Dean combine to help make a cogent case against Walker. My banging the drum at www.pet880.com with Walker's personal papers is a useful source of evidence.

Also, just minutes after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested, Bernard Weissman, chairman of the American Fact-Finding Committee, said to Larrie Schmidt, "I hope he is not a member of the Walker group." Something like that -- "I hope he is not one of Walker's boys."

Bernie Weissman was terrified because it was his name on the black-bordered ad that the John Birch Society put out inside the Dallas Morning News on 22 November 1963, That ad was clearly right-wing and inflammatory, accusing JFK of treasonous acts of Communist collaboration. That was what General Walker had preached for all of 1962, long after the day that he led a massive race riot at Ole Miss University, in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed.

The John Birch Society joined the KKK and the White Citizens' Councils of the Deep South to blame JFK and the Communists for that race riot. Walker was a frequent speaker for the White Citizens' Councils, and even appeared on TV with them:

Here's some actual footage...Part One: youtube.com/watch?v=ZeQKuJTJi48

Here's more actual footage...Part Two: youtube.com/watch?v=Y9yUW019xoA

This video proves that rightists in high places blamed JFK for the Ole Miss riots: youtube.com/watch?v=YJ1CTuQgcMo

This is what Bernie Weissman recalled under oath about those days before the JFK assassination: "...As a matter of fact, I was pretty worried about [Larrie's] brother becoming involved with General Walker, and I thought it might give us a black eye." Very astute -- Bernard Weissman was far more politically aware than CUSA founder, Larrie Schmidt.

Bernie had arrived in Dallas only 18 days before the black-bordered ad appeared in the Dallas Morning News. He did not write that ad -- the John Birch Society wrote it. He signed his name to it because he believed in Larrie Schmidt.

Bernie Weissman believed that Larrie Schmidt had organized the humiliation of UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson on 24 October 1963, so he moved to Dallas to help Larrie. But actually it was Walker who organized that humiliation, and Larrie was merely on the sidelines - taken by surprise. So Bernie was mistaken. Still, Larrie Schmidt convinced Bernie that his political career in Dallas would be "launched" by this ad, and Bernie was ambitious.

Nor was Bernie Weissman the only American who suspected Edwin Walker of plotting to kill JFK on 22 November 1963. Lots of people did.

The most vocal person in this category is Harry Dean, who is also a member of this Forum. Harry's eye-witness account claims that Walker and the John Birch Society met in Southern California to solidify plans to make Lee Harvey Oswald the patsy of their plot. Harry was present at that meeting.

Harry was a member of the John Birch Society at that time, but more than that, he was also a member of the Minutemen paramilitary group -- widely considered the militant arm of the Birchers. Further, Harry was personal friends with three key people in the plot, namely, war-hero Guy Gabaldon, and two associates of Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran (Lorenzo) Hall, and Larry (Alonzo) Howard. These men were also present at that meeting.

Here' a recording of a fund-raising 1963 speech by Loran Hall to the John Birch Society:

Here is part two of that same speech by Loran Hall:

Also present at that meeting was a man who is still alive and refuses to be named today, says Harry, as well as Congressman John

Rousselot. Rousselot, like Walker, and the entire John Birch Society, was an avid segregationist, and demanded the impeachment of Earl Warren because of his Supreme Court decision on Brown v. The Board of Education

Here is a speech by Rousselot that illustrates his segregationist politics:

And here is part two of that same speech by Congressman John Rousselot:

Harry Dean, Loran Hall and Larry Howard weren't race segregationists -- they were Anticommunists. However, they were not politically aware enough to recognize that racial segregation was a hidden agenda within the John Birch Society. (They denied racism, but they strongly opposed racial segregation of public schools.)

So, Dean, Hall and Howard didn't put the pieces together in 1963 when they joined in this plot. Walker and Rousselot obtained a large supply of untraceable cash for Guy Gabaldon, who supervised Hall and Howard in making Lee Harvey Oswald into their patsy.

IMHO, after Guy Banister, Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler were finished framing Oswald, the last step of their plot was to send Oswald to Mexico so that he could fail miserably in his attempt to get into Cuba. That was when they handed Oswald over to the Dallas team -- represnted by Gabaldon, Hall and Howard in Mexico.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited May 24, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

Paul, my concern is that you don't seem to understand that, without some sort of legal authority to do so, the FBI can't just jump in on what is a state or local investigation...and that INCLUDED, in 1963, the murder of the President. Sure, there might be a "moral" question involved; but without LEGAL justification to get involved, even the murder of the President was simply a local crime. As I understand it, Hosty and the Dallas office of the FBI didn't get involved until the arrest of Lee Oswald. And, LEGALLY, that was as it should be.

Now, you can preach all day about who should've done what, morally. But our country is one based upon the rule of LAW, and not necessarily what is morally correct [case in point: slavery]. What Walker did at Oxford, Mississippi--inciting a riot--was not ONLY immoral, but it was against the law. He wasn't arrested and placed in a mental institution because what he did was immoral; that happened because what he did was a violation of the law. [i understand how a Mississippi jury acquitted him, but that was a blatant miscarriage of justice.]

Likewise, until a federal law was broken [or suspected to have been broken], the FBI had no legal authority under which to insert itself in the JFK murder investigation, with the sole exception of offering the use of its crime labs for the examination of evidence...and that offer was subject to acceptance of it by the DPD.

It's really not a difficult concept to understand.

Mark, I agree with all the legal points you wrote in that response -- but can we tone down the personal attacks? I mean, the epithet, "xxxx," has been banned on this Forum by John Simkin since 2004.

When you claim that I post LIES, that's really the same thing, as we all know. I'm sure I'm as welcome to my honest opinion as you are to yours. Just tone down the rhetoric a notch, and we should be able to co-exist here.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Lie (n.)- A false statement made with intent to deceive.

As in the statement that Oswald's neighbors phoned police regarding Oswald beating his wife.

As in the statement that there was an Executive Order for the Warren Commission to go along with the preconceived "solution."

You know these statements are not true. You admitted that they are not true. Yet you built arguments based upon these statements you knew were not true.

Since I'm not a qualified mental health professional, I'm not qualified to call you "delusional" based upon a medical diagnosis. So I'm really not left with many other options, other than calling a spade a spade.

OK. I'll try to phrase it differently.

Paul Trejo and the truth are like two ships passing in the night...on different oceans.

How's that?

[Paul Trejo]

...OK. I'll try to phrase it differently.

Paul Trejo and the truth are like two ships passing in the night...on different oceans.

How's that?

Congratulations, Mark, you now qualify as the third person on this Forum for whom I've set my software options to "Ignore."

You truly disappointed me, though. I once thought you were a fair-minded debater.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 25, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Hogan]

Congratulations, Mark, you now qualify as the third person on this Forum for whom I've set my software options to "Ignore."

Mark, you make fair points, and they're well-taken. Also, you debate in a professional manner, and I appreciate that. Your civil manners show that you're not in any negative alliance around here. I welcome your criticism.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Michael Hogan, you've got a sharp eye, and yes, the "reasonable ones" are dropping like flies......

Michael Griffin, on 24 May 2013 - 7:21 PM, said:

Paul,

.........................

................................

Reason doesn't seem to have much effect on you either, as we are seeing!

Mike

Mike, I thank Ken Davies for his considered legal opinion. There's a reason they're called "opinions." Did you read Ken's response carefully?

.............................................................

So - yes, Mike, let's have more reason around here.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

..........................................

Scratch Mike, and Dr. Fetzer is banned from this forum.

You're reduced to removing "best" above regards above your redundant signature at the bottom of each post except when you reply to Terri Williams.

Regards
My name is displayed below the avatar.

That's not quite accurate, Tom. I also include the "best" above regards for Mike Griffin, John Dolva, Harry Dean, William Kelly, Jim Fetzer and many other people.

It's only a few -- my recent detractors -- who waste so much of my time and everybody's time with mere nay-saying, who earn my cooler reception. (It's only polite -- I gather they wouldn't want my best regards, anyway.)

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Thank you for this, Paul. I was feeling guilty about wasting so much of your time until I read:

..................

If anything, my detractors only stimulate me to take advantage of the publicity -- because after all, my ideas are based on reason, logic, material evidence and reason. As Freud once said, "the voice of reason is weak, but it does not rest until it gains a hearing."

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

[Michael Hogan]

After reading my post, Paul went back and hastily edited his. He added a second line.

Congratulations, Mark, you now qualify as the third person on this Forum for whom I've set my software options to "Ignore."

You truly disappointed me, though. I once thought you were a fair-minded debater.

[Paul Trejo]

ANYWAY, let's move away from all those time-wasting personal attacks, and get back to the exciting topic of Jim Root's thread -- the role of resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker in the assassination of JFK.

Allow me to recap.

We now know that Edwin Walker officially resigned from the US Army after 30 years of service in 1959, during the Eisenhower Administration. From 1957 through 1959 General Walker served in Little Rock Arkansas, keeping the peace as nine Black American children attended the formerly all-white high school there.

During those two years, Walker became the target of an intensive propaganda campaign by the segregationist and right-wing pundits from the White Citizens' Council, the State Sovereignty Commission, and the States Rights Party. Segregationists like Kent and Phoebe Courtney, Robert Welch, H.L. Hunt and Reverend Billy James Hargis made a big impact on Edwin Walker from 1957-1959.

So, Walker resigned from the Army in 1959 in the same month that he joined the John Birch Society, because Robert Welch had personally told Walker that Eisenhower was a conscious, dedicated Communist agent -- and Edwin Walker was ignorant enough to believe him.

However, the Eisenhower Administration denied Walker's resignation, and insisted that Walker accept his promotion as the Commander of the 24th Infantry Division in Augsburg, Germany, to, among other things, defend the Berlin Wall there. Walker took that job, but continued in his John Birch Society propaganda within the US Army from 1960-1961.

When the scandal of Walker's speeches to his troops, e.g. calling President Truman "definitely pink," made the Army newspapers, the US Army in Europe dismissed Walker from his command and moved him to a desk job elsewhere. So Edwin Walker resigned a second time in November 1961, and this time the Administration (now under JFK) accepted his resignation.

It is utterly bizarre that Edwin Walker would resign from the US Army, when it was just as easy for him to retire. With retirement Walker would have received full benefits of a General's rank and 30 years of service. (Adjusted for inflation it would be about $120,000 annually.) But with resignation that pension is forfeit.

What could possibly lead Walker to make such a foolish choice? (About 20 years later Walker would plead for his Army retirement and the Army would eventually grant it.) The answer may be surmised in his immediate behavior -- he immediately moved to Dallas, into a large house in a nice neighborhood (Oak Lawn) not far from H.L. Hunt. Walker took a free office in an oil company building, and set about writing six copyrighted speeches.

In mid-December 1961, Walker gave his first public speech in the Dallas Memorial Auditorium for the National Indignation Convention (NIC) and the auditorium was packed. Here is a snippet of that first speech:

Walker gave his six speeches in rapid succession throughout Texas and the South, and his reception was spectacular. He received multiple standing ovations for every speech. Although there was no realistic comparision, his fanatic followers claimed he was just like General Douglas MacArthur who had been fired by President Truman. They wanted him to run for President.

In February, 1962, H.L. Hunt decided it was time for Edwin Walker to enter politics, so he financed Walker's campaign to be the Governor of Texas. This would be his springboard to be President of the USA, if everything went according to plan.

Well, things did not go according to plan. In April 1962, at the request of Walker and H.L. Hunt and many right-wingers of the period, the US Senate held Subcommittee hearing on Military Preparedness to rub the JFK Administration's nose in the scandal that a great patriot like Edwin Walker would be fired "for trying to teach his troops about the dangers of Communism."

Yet in the course of his testimony before the Senate, Edwin Walker came across as a victim, and even paranoid. Gone were his chances of vindication over JFK. Gone were his chances at winning the Governor's mansion in Texas.

Walker survived by giving his right-wing speeches throughout the South, especially to White Citizens' Council rallies and other segregationist groups and causes. The fanatical right wing still loved him, while Kent and Phoebe Courtney wrote a book about Walker, and still claimed that he should be the next President of the USA. But Walker's crowds were becoming smaller and smaller.

Walker was fading away, until September of 1962, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Black American, James Meredith, should be allowed to register for class at Ole Miss college -- the first Black student in its history. Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett stood up and defied the Supreme Court and JFK, and said that he would never allow it.

Barnett's popular support in Mississippi was fanatical, but James Meredith would not back down, so JFK was obliged to commit Federal troops to Ole Miss to protect Meredith's right to attend college there. This enraged Edwin Walker. Walker had protected the Black American high school students at Little Rock in 1957-1959, but he changed his mind in 1959, and now, in 1962, he felt he was called upon to prove the courage of his convictions.

So, Edwin Walker got on public radio all over the South and called for a massive protest, "ten thousand strong from every State in the Union" to join him in Mississippi to stand up to JFK and his Federal Troops! "Will there be violence," Walker was asked? "That's up to Kennedy," responded Walker!

As it turns out, on the night of 30 September 1962, there was massive violence. Despite roadblocks throughout Mississippi to confiscate guns, and to turn back out-of-state visitors with firearms, there were thousands of out of state protesters at Ole Miss, "mostly adults," said Bishop Duncan Gray. Hundreds were wounded and two were killed.

At that point, JFK and RFK had endured enough of Edwin Walker, and they ordered him to be committed to an insane asylum at the Springfield military hospital in Missouri. However, psychiatrist Thomas Szasz and the ACLU promptly protested this travesty of justice and this hot-headed move by JFK and RFK as "political psychiatry," and within six days Edwin Walker was released.

In January 1963, a Mississippi Grand Jury acquitted Edwin Walker of all charges relating to the Ole Miss riots of 1962. Walker flew back to Dallas to make his own plans for revenge against the Establishment for his treatment.

Back in Dallas, however, there was a group of liberals that resented the fact that Edwin Walker could get away with starting massive riots in the USA. Among this group were people who knew Lee Harvey Oswald, foremostly, George De Mohrenschildt, and his young engineer friends, Voikmar Schmidt and Michael Paine. They would (according to George and Volkmar) work very hard in January 1963 to convince Lee Harvey Oswald that Edwin Walker should be the true target of his hostility.

It worked. Soon afterwards, Lee Harvey Oswald ordered weapons through the mail, and took a photo of himself holding the weapons, and took photographs of Edwin Walker's house in Dallas. Marina Oswald told the FBI and the world on 2 December 1963 that Lee Harvey Oswald was Edwin Walker's shooter on 10 April 1963.

However, only 18 hours after JFK was killed, Edwin Walker told exactly the same story to a German newspaper, the Deutsche Nationalzeitung, and this article is still available in Walker's personal papers. Here is an English translation of the headline of that article. http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg

The full article can be found at the Mary Ferrell web site, and it is riveting.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 25, 2013 by Paul Trejo