Edwin Walker

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, since you refer to me by name...just a minor tweak. My position has always been that a tactical team composed primarily of Cuban exiles and associated individuals - all linked to Morales and Robertson and traveling from the Miami area - would have needed one or more contacts in Dallas to familiarize themselves with the city, with a good number of local details ranging from traffic patterns to details about local law enforcement. As a part of their preparations they might well have determined that it would be useful to have certain controllable local assets for minor tasks, say police or security officers. There are a hundred different things that a local contact might be asked to do in support of a team coming from out of town - but that team will have its own chain of command and tactical coordinator. You can use "coordinator" however you want but in my terms I refer to a "tactical coordinator" who is a member of the team and has to be, no one else would be trusted. You can bring Walker in however you wish but I have to note that my view of Ruby would have been as a local source of information, perhaps a low level facilitator for certain contacts but in no sense a "coordinator" and would have been thought of at best as hired help. What Jack might have thought he was doing is another matter entirely and most likely would have depended on information relied to him by cut outs leading back to Roselli.

Thanks, Larry, for that direction. Since I give lots of weight to your theory in Someone Would Have Talked (2010) I'd like to maintain as much agreement as I possibly can with your viewpoint until I'm forced by my own theory to diverge, however slightly.

Let me stipulate that the team coming from out of town consisted largely of Cuban Exiles, but also included Americans who had been a part of the Bay of Pigs alongside those Cuban Exiles, and Americans among the anti-Castro right-wing involved with the Cuban Exiles in on-going raids of Cuba and attempts on Fidel's life. As far as I can tell today, their leader would have been the bull-headed CIA Agent David Morales.

The Americans among the Cuban Exiles would include such low-level CIA assets as Frank Sturgis, who actually confessed to being a part of the JFK murder, as well as Gerry Patrick Hemming, who confessed to A.J. Weberman that he offered Lee Harvey Oswald double the market price of his personal rifle if he'd bring it to work on 11/22/1963, thus making himself a vital part of the JFK murder plot. Along with Hemming we may include a sampling of the members of his Cuba raid group, Interpen.

Such a group of Americans would also include such low-level CIA assets as Johnny Roselli and John Martino, both of whom also confessed to participation in the JFK murder. John Martino never mentioned Edwin Walker, local leader of the Dallas John Birch Society, however, John Martino was sponsored by the John Birch Society when he made his anti-Castro speeches.

Such a group of Americans would also include such low-level CIA assets as Loran Hall and Larry Howard, two of many gun runners for Cuban Exile training camps in Miami and Louisiana, as well as their immediate comrades in La Sambra. One of the fellow-travelers of these two was WW2 hero Guy Gabaldon, who was linked to them through the John Birch Society as well as through his own Cuba raid group, Drive Against Communist Aggression in Mexico City. (We have significant information about this group from Harry Dean.)

It might be relevant that Gabaldon and Howard were Mexican-American US Army veterans, like David Morales. It might also be relevant that Gerry Patrick Hemming lived nearby Gabaldon, Howard and Hall in Southern California where the John Birch Society and California Minutemen were particularly active.

See, Larry, I'm agreeing with your general definition of the Team under David Morales as Cuban Exile, but there were lots of American fellow-travelers along with the Cuban Exiles, and David Morales was himself an American (i.e. a Mexican-American).

So, in seeking the ground-crew, I faully accept counting the Cuban Exiles themselves, yet I also wish to count those radicals among the Anti-Castro people who were American and yet moved in the same circles. (Spanish speaking Americans would tend to move even more intimately among the Cuban Exiles.)

Recalling other Americans who moved in the same circles, we cannot forget CIA Agent Howard Hunt, who confessed on his deathbed that he participated "on the sidelines" in the murder of JFK. In his case, he heard about it from Frank Sturgis and David Morales -- and going by the evidence, those were his main and most highly placed CIA connections.

So far I'm happy with this line-up, and I'm happy to consider that they all had a formal (though unofficial) chain-of-command leading up to David Morales. Let us go ahead and add Cuban Exile names to this mix, especially Felipe Vidal Santiago, a friend of John Martino, of whom we have film at Dealey Plaza when JFK was murdered, acting in a most suspicious manner.

Having said all that, we must now consider the New Orleans team, and acknowledge that they had their own chain of command. In my view (going mainly by the findings of Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen) the leader of the New Orleans team was Guy Banister, and underneath his leadership there was a semi-formal (but loose-lipped) chain-of-command involving Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier, Fred Crisman, Thomas Edward Beckham and Jack S. Martin. Their key task, evidently, was to manage Lee Harvey Oswald as the Patsy. (We have lots of data about this group from Richard Case Nagell, for example.)

And now we must consider the Dallas team -- and acknowledge that they had their own chain of command. In my speculative theory so far, I name Ex-General Edwin Walker at the top of that command, for many reasons. (1) Walker was a nationally recognized flamboyant leader of the right-wing in Dallas at the time; (2) Walker had wide experience in paramililtary operations as a US General; (3) Walker was active underground in the anti-Castro movement; (4) Walker was known to have successfully attacked Adlai Stevenson in Dallas only 30 days before JFK arrived, and didn't even get his hand slapped for that; (5) Walker was a locally respected leader of the John Birch Society, the Minutemen, the White Citizens Councils and even the KKK all throughout the South; and (6) Walker's publisher, whose office was inside Walker's personal home in Dallas, was Robert Allen Surrey, who was also the publisher for the American Nazi Party.

Edwin Walker was clearly washed up for mainstream politics by the middle of 1962, but he was by no means washed up in right-wing politics in 1963.

Other reasons to name Walker as the lead of the Dallas team include: (i) Walker had a personal correspondence with Gerry Patrick Hemming, as shown by his personal papers at the Briscoe Center; (ii) Walker entertained Interpen members at his home in Dallas in April/May 1963; (iii) Loran Hall visited Walker's home in Dallas after he was arrested in October, 1963; (iv) Walker told the Warren Commission that he contributed money to the DRE; (v) Walker gave at least one speech alongside Carlos Bringuier and Kent Courtney at a right-wing rally; and (vi) Walker's standing among the right-wing in Dallas was so solid that hundreds would have marched at his request.

Now, Larry, I want to focus on your team, "tactical coordinator." Although there is no doubt that David Morales would insist on being the leader of his own crew from A to Z, there is also little doubt that Morales would need to defer to the local contact in Dallas for intelligence about the Dallas environment.

You mention in your book, SWHT/2010, that such a tactical coordination would require obtaining the latest information about the JFK motorcade schedule and route, without raising suspicion. Even though Jack Ruby knew many DPD officers through his striptease nightclub in Dallas, this was not a boasting point among DPD officers. It was something they preferred to remain quiet on the red light district at night. Even Jack Ruby himself asking for JFK motorcade data would risk raising eyebrows here and there.

No -- the best bet for obtaining official JFK motorcade data would be through official channels -- from the conservative and even ultra-conservative workers already inside the Dallas City Hall. It isn't the Carousel Club connection that would be the most secret, but the John Birch Society connection -- that would certainly be the most insidious, quiet and innocent connection possible, with direct access to Dallas City Hall records.

Now, proving this will be difficult, because it will mean obtaining the cooperation of children of Dallas City workers about their parents' political affiliations with the John Birch Society. (The John Birch Society is still in existence, and will not release its membership list histories to any outsiders.) Still, it's not technically impossible.

The questions remaining to be asked would then entail the negotiations between the Miami Team (under David Morales) and the Dallas Team (under Edwin Walker). I think it is anything but certain how those negotiations would have proceeded. Both men were very bull-headed.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited August 1, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Larry Hancock]

One distinction to make:

"Such a group of Americans would also include such low-level CIA assets as Johnny Roselli and John Martino, both of whom also confessed to participation in the JFK murder."

Johnny Roselli would never have been considered low level by anyone, he served as a money organizer and investment strategists for a variety of major syndicates, putting

money first into the film industry and then into Vegas. He was selected not by the CIA per se but by someone who was a true CIA asset - Meheu - because he knew Roselli's

standing with the old Casino crowd out of Havana. In fact Roselli had been selected by none other than Havana kingpin Meyer Lansky to bring a number of the more

greedy casino operators into line....after one of them stiffed a friend of Richard Nixon. However Roselli's only personal connections to the Agency were Meheu and later

a CIA case officer who was succeeded by William Harvey....and most likely Morales and Roberson from an operational standpoint.

John Martino was never a CIA asset at all in any form or fashion and Shackley really wanted to keep him off the Bayo mission, it was only at the insistence of the Alpha 66

exiles that he was allowed to participate. The only CIA officers we can tie him to in any shape or form are Morales and Robertson and exactly what that relationship was

is unclear. What we know is that he was aware of both of them and knew both to be CIA, beyond that not much. Its also important to note that Martino was largely a lone

operator running his own scams and money games, as an electronics consultant to the gambling folks he was much more independent than anyone that would have been

part of an organization. Painting him as low level compared to Roselli is certainly fair.

My point would be that either man would have made himself available to any plot only on a personal basis, not on the basis of being an Agency "asset".

[Paul Trejo]

One distinction to make:

"Such a group of Americans would also include such low-level CIA assets as Johnny Roselli and John Martino, both of whom also confessed to participation in the JFK murder."

Johnny Roselli would never have been considered low level by anyone, he served as a money organizer and investment strategists for a variety of major syndicates, putting money first into the film industry and then into Vegas. He was selected not by the CIA per se but by someone who was a true CIA asset - Meheu - because he knew Roselli's standing with the old Casino crowd out of Havana. In fact Roselli had been selected by none other than Havana kingpin Meyer Lansky to bring a number of the more greedy casino operators into line...after one of them stiffed a friend of Richard Nixon. However Roselli's only personal connections to the Agency were Meheu and later a CIA case officer who was succeeded by William Harvey...and most likely Morales and Roberson from an operational standpoint.

John Martino was never a CIA asset at all in any form or fashion and Shackley really wanted to keep him off the Bayo mission, it was only at the insistence of the Alpha 66 exiles that he was allowed to participate. The only CIA officers we can tie him to in any shape or form are Morales and Robertson and exactly what that relationship was is unclear. What we know is that he was aware of both of them and knew both to be CIA, beyond that not much. Its also important to note that Martino was largely a lone operator running his own scams and money games, as an electronics consultant to the gambling folks he was much more independent than anyone that would have been part of an organization. Painting him as low level compared to Roselli is certainly fair.

My point would be that either man would have made himself available to any plot only on a personal basis, not on the basis of being an Agency "asset".

OK, Larry, fair enough, insofar as semantic distinctions are wanted. My point was that neither Roselli nor Martino were CIA Agents -- neither was a full-time employee of the CIA. In my usage of the term, "CIA asset," I meant that they were useful to the CIA in various projects, but were never hired as CIA Agents.

This is an important distinction, because so many low-level CIA assets would brag about their CIA connections on the street and underground, to increase their prestige and perhaps their authority (and perhaps even raise funds). We saw this with Joan Mellen's descriptions of Fred Crisman, David Ferrie and Jack S. Martin.

Yet your point is well-taken. I was lumping all CIA "assets" into one big bucket, and that's not fair.

There were very valuable CIA assets like Johnny Roselli, who provided services on multiple levels -- and then there were low-level CIA assets like Jack S. Martin, who was marginally useful. So, your finer distinction between the CIA assets is correct, Larry. I acknowledge that.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 1, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

So -- as developments in the case against Edwin Walker in the murder of JFK continue to solidify, interest will soon center around the question about a possible confession or near-confession of Edwin Walker.

That is, we have confessions and near-confessions from John Martino, David Morales, Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Jack S. Martin, Thomas Edward Beckham and Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Depending on how we define terms, we might argue for near-confessions from David Ferrie, David Atlee Phillips and Harry Dean.

So -- how do I explain a possible near-confession from Ex-General Edwin Walker? My logic is this -- it comes from Edwin Walker's Warren Commission testimony, specifically the part about the German newspaper, Deutsche-Nationalzeitung.

The Commission attorney asked Edwin Walker about the weekend issue of this weekly magazine, which was published exactly one week after the JFK murder. That magazine's reporter admitted to the German State Police that Edwin Walker told him, on the very weekend of the JFK murder, that Lee Harvey Oswald had been his shooter on 10 April 1963.

The reason that the Commission attorney asked Walker about this is because the Commission -- and even the FBI -- didn't know that Lee Harvey Oswald was Walker's shooter until the first week of December 1963. How did Edwin Walker know, demanded the attorney, that Oswald was his shooter even before the FBI knew it?

At this point Edwin Walker lied to the Warren Commission. It wasn't his only lie, but it was one of his biggest -- Edwin Walker told the Warren Commision that the reporters at the Deutsche Nationalzeitung simply "guessed the truth".

The Commission attorney simply accepted this "explanation" and changed the topic. However, cross-examination (which was notoriously absent from the Warren Commission proceedings) would have shown that the German State Police interviewed the reporter in Germany, and that reporter clearly stated that Edwin Walker -- on the weekend of the JFK murder -- told that reporter point blank that Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter.

One might say that it's a debatable point -- and that I don't have any further proof that Edwin Walker lied. (Actually, I have a Bishop of the Episcopalian Church in Mississippi, Duncan Gray, who insists that Edwin Walker lied to a Mississippi Grand Jury when he claimed he was at Ole Miss on 9/30/1962 to keep the peace, when actually he was there to foment a deadly race riot.)

But this is where the personal papers of Edwin Walker now come center stage. Because for years after the Warren Commission -- and really until the end of his life -- Edwin Walker admitted several times that he knew Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter only "days" after the April shooting!

Walker admitted this to his followers, but he also admitted it to Government officials, e.g. Senator Frank Church. Here's a URL showing that 1975 letter:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf

Yet for some odd reason, this confession just flew over their heads. Walker spread this story for the rest of his life, even to the year before his death. Here's the final publishing of this 1992 story in the Kerrville Daily News:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19920119_EAW_Oswald_arrested.pdf

This, in my opinion, will turn out to be Edwin Walker's near-confession to the JFK murder. With this confession Walker is admitting that he lied to the Warren Commission when he testified that he never heard about Lee Harvey Oswald until the JFK murder.

But with these subsequent confessions that Walker knew about Oswald since 14 April 1963, Walker is actually reaching out to researchers -- he is trying to confess. That's my theory, and despite lots of opposition, I know it's a strong theory.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 5, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...If anyone remembers when General Edwin Walker testified before the Warren Commission, he was one of a handful of persons who came to testify who actually seemed to enjoy delving into the concept of a conspiracy regarding the assassination, albeit with the imprimatur that said conspiracy was left wing in its roots...

Thanks, Robert, for raising this vital issue in the case of Ex-General Edwin Walker, the only US General to resign in the 20th century. The Warren Commission testimony of Edwin Walker reveals so many cryptic clues to the murder of JFK that one hardly knows where to begin.

The solution to the JFK murder, in my opinion, will one day be seen to involve the separation of the Team that murdered JFK from the Team that covered-up the murder. The two Teams were hostile to one another.

The Team that murdered JFK is distinguished by its continual message that the Left-wing killed JFK. That includes blaming Fidel Castro, the USSR and the FPCC (Fair Play for Cuba Committee) which was used to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the JFK murder.

The Team that covered up the murder is distinguished by its continual message that only Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and he did it absolutely alone, and he had no accomplices. This Lone-Nut (or Lone-shooter) theory of the JFK murder was the winner in the marketplace of ideas, because the US government spared no expense to ensure its victory.

The obviously stupid "Magic Bullet" theory about one bullet that caused seven wounds in the JFK limo was defended by the US Government as Gospel Truth. This shows the commitment of the US Government to say ANYTHING to prevent the alternative theory -- that the Communists killed JFK -- from gaining the upper hand in the marketplace of ideas.

The Truth about the JFK murder can be unraveled, therefore, by documenting all those persons who strenuously attempted to promote the idea in the mass media from 1963 to 1965 that JFK was the victim of a Communist Conspiracy.

Those names are readily known to us. They include John Martino, David Morales, Frank Sturgis, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Ex-General Edwin Walker, Loran Hall, Billy James Hargis, and many more.

Some of these people would lobby their local Congressmen, or attempt to forge documents to make the JFK murder look like a Communist plot. The impersonation of Oswald and Duran in Mexico City on the bugged line between the Cuban consulate and the USSR consulate was an attempt to link Lee Harvey Oswald to the KGB Agent Valery Kostikov.

That impersonation started a CIA mole-hunt, as amply proved by Bill Simpich (2014) thus proving that the CIA high-command did not know about it. All of this proves that those CIA Agents involved in framing Oswald (and just murdering JFK) were rogues working along with ultra-right JBS types. (The only unsettled question today, IMHO, is about who was leading whom.)

The whistle-blowers in the Anti-Communist plot became our most valuable research resources, namely, John Martino, Richard Case Nagell, Howard Hunt, Jack S. Martin, Thomas Edward Beckham, Harry Dean and others.

...As far as Edwin Walker, he had his little traveling band touring the country with Billy James Hargis, when JFK was assassinated, Walker and Hargis and their ilk are still very much represented in the America of 2014. The imaginary demons are still on the American political left, and the guys that wear white still push the fear button on a daily basis....

Billy James Hargis, for his part, made an LP album of his own voice dubbed over the voice of the WDSU radio interviewer of Lee Harvey Oswald in the summer of 1963 in New Orleans. Hargis simply asked the same questions as the original interviewer, and simply replaced the interviewer's voice with his own voice, so that it sounded like Hargis was interviewing Oswald.

At the end of the LP, Hargis added his own commentary, emphasizing strenuously that Lee Harvey Oswald proved that he was a Communist, and therefore we must all urgently conclude that the Communists killed JFK!

Billy James Hargis, like Ex-General Edwin Walker, his partner on speaking tours, was just as connected to Carlos Bringuier and the DRE as Walker was. In one of the many right-wing speaking seminars held in the USA during 1963, Hargis speaks alongside Carlos Bringuier, Edwin Walker and Kent Courtney. We still have the program today.

Finally, Robert, your previous post about W.T. Caley, who told FBI agent Louis Nicoletti about a "Counter-insurgency" program was probably referring to a booklet written by Ex-General Edwin Walker. Here's a sample page from that booklet, found among Walker's personal papers:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19620502_Counterinsurgency_2.JPG

The paranoid theme of this booklet is that the US Army under JFK was secretly setting up a "Counter-insurgency" program in order to suppress a coming Right-wing Revolution against JFK, which JFK, as a Communist agent, justly feared, in response to the Fulbright Memorandum (a memo to JFK written by J. William Fulbright in 1961, warning of extremists on the Right).

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited August 8, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

Paul - you make good points about the kill team vs. the coverup team. I'll only note that Richard Case Nagell - overall, and especially in his prison letter to Arthur Greenstein - tended to see the CIA's involvement as more unilateral than factional.

[Robert Howard]

Hi Paul, thanks for the input. There is no question that what is known as "speaking truth to Power" comes with little reward and great risk. Sometimes words are inadequate to even comment on the current State of the World.

There is an old quote, I used to use on my signature at the bottom, that read "We may be through with the past, but the past is not through with us." So, trying to sum up an adequate response that has meaning for "like-minded

people, there are a couple of things. I would like to throw down.....

Some people, I suppose JFK researchers, who are more voyeuristic, [reading posts and visiting forums] see Oliver Stone as a charlatan and via extension Jim Garrison, of course, we are all entitled to our viewpoints.

The other night I watched Oliver Stone's - The Secret History of the United States, Episode about the Bay of Pigs and the chronology up to JFK's assassination. Although Stone does so in a very generalized manner, i.e. mentions institutions, but not persons] in my view he represented the unofficial historical record of that time period. In so many ways not much has changed with America's role in the world in terms of foreign policy.

The Achilles Heel of American Foreign policy from the time of JFK's presidency to former President George W. Bush is an inherent inability to utilize political solutions versus the military option. JFK wanted a political

solution, a negotiated settlement regarding Vietnam. So the death, dying and destruction continue, while the drumbeats "rally round the flag boys."

John Lennon wrote about this in 1973 in a song called Bring On The Lucie Freda People. see below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQbJHTLBaZM

We don't care what flag you're waving
We don't even wanna know your name
We don't care where you're from or where you're going
All we know is that you came

You're makin' all our decisions
We have just one request to you
That while you're thinking things over
Here's something you just got to do

Free the people now
Do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it now

Well, we were caught with our hands in the air
Don't despair, paranoia is everywhere
We can shake it with love when we're scared
So let's shout it aloud like a prayer

Do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it now
Do it, do it, do it, do it, do it now

We don't care what rules you're playing
We don't even wanna play your game
You think you're cool, you don't know what you're doing
And 666 is your name

So while you're jerking off each other
You bear this thought in mind
Your time has come, you better know it
But maybe you just can't read the sign

Free the people now
Do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, now

Well, you were caught with your hands in the kill
And you still got to swallow your pill
As you slip and you slide down the hill
On the blood of the people you killed

Stop the killing now, stop the killing now
Do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it now
Do it, do it, do it, do it now
Do it, do it, do it, do it now
Do it, do it, do it, do it, do it, do it

end

Songwriters
Lennon, John

Published by
Lyrics © EMI Music Publishing, Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

Send "Bring On The Lucie …" Ringtone to your Cell

Discuss these lyrics...

Terms of Use

Edited August 9, 2014 by Robert Howard

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - you make good points about the kill team vs. the coverup team. I'll only note that Richard Case Nagell - overall, and especially in his prison letter to Arthur Greenstein - tended to see the CIA's involvement as more unilateral than factional.

David, thanks for recognizing my points about the kill team vs. the coverup team.

As for your point about Richard Case Nagell, I find it interesting and worthy of a dialogue. I have no hard conclusions yet, but I do have a tentative argument.

Richard Case Nagell was once considered as a possible witness in the Clay Shaw trial, but Jim Garrison decided against it because Nagell's style of speaking was so peculiar.

Nagell was confident that he had something important to share about the murder of JFK, but any three people in his audience would report three different interpretations of what he said. Nagell was deliberately cryptic and guarded in his speech -- as a rule.

Another feature of Nagell's witness, IMHO, is that he was focused on the CIA, which was his employer. Nagell was clearly educated -- and he knew a lot about Marxism-Leninism -- enough to be a legitimate, highly-paid double-agent for both the CIA and the KGB.

By contrast, Lee Harvey Oswald was half-educated. He could speak Russian rather well -- but his knowledge of Marxism-Leninism was amateur. We have two sources for this -- the American consulate in Russia which noted that Oswald used Communistic terms without knowing their meaning, and George De Mohrenschildt, who told the Warren Commission roughly the same thing.

Here's an excerpt from that testimony of George DM speaking of Lee Harvey Oswald:

--------------- Begin Warren Commission transcript of 23 April 1964 ----------------------

Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. His mind was of a man with exceedingly poor background, who read rather advanced books, and did not understand even the words in them...

Mr. JENNER. Did you think he understood it?

Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. He did not understand the words--he just used them. So how can you take seriously a person like that? You just laugh at him. But there was always an element of pity I had, and my wife had, for him. We realized that he was sort of a forlorn individual, groping for something.

Mr. JENNER. Did you form any impression in the area, let us say, of reliability---that is, whether our Government would entrust him with something that required a high degree of intelligence, a high degree of imagination, a high degree of ability to retain his equilibrium under pressure, a management of a situation, to be flexible enough?

Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I never would believe that any government would be stupid enough to trust Lee with anything important.

Mr. JENNER. Give me the basis of your opinion.

Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. ...Well, frankly...He had a chance to be a Marine. Here was a perfect life for him -- this was my point of view. He was a man without education, in the Marines -- why didn't he stay in the Marines all his life? You don't need a high degree of intelligence to be a Marine corporal or a soldier.

--------------- End Warren Commission transcript of 23 April 1964 ----------------------

I relate that testimony only to contrast Lee Harvey Oswald with Richard Case Nagell. Nagell was more highly educated than Oswald -- and Nagell would probably have been able to convince George De Mohrenschildt that he really was a Marxist-Leninist, rather than, like Lee Oswald, someone "who read rather advanced books, and did not understand even the words in them."

Nagell claims that he interacted with Lee Oswald in New Orleans during the summer of 1963, and I believe him. Nagell says he warned Oswald that the "Cuban Communists" who were befriending Oswald at that time were really "Cuban Anti-communists." Nagell was disturbed that Oswald completely ignored Nagell's warnings.

Despite the fact that Nagell was more educated than Oswald -- and probably thought he knew more than Oswald about everything, it is just as likely that Oswald had secret information that Nagell never guessed. In other words, it is just as likely that Lee Oswald already knew that the Cuban Anti-communists who befriended him in New Orleans were only pretending to be Communists. This would explain why Oswald ignored Nagell, although it upset Nagell.

My point is this -- Nagell was smart, but not omniscient. Nagell was myopic -- totally focused on the CIA drama. It seems to me that Nagell was ignorant about the dynamics of the JFK plot that were unfolding outside of the CIA. He was barely aware of them, and unimpressed by them, and he was therefore in no position to suspect that the JFK plotters outside of the CIA were actually in the driver's seat, and giving orders to the CIA rogues who were involved without the knowledge of the CIA high-command.

Joan Mellen, as I recall, says Thomas Edward Beckham attended a meeting in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 with Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Cuban Exiles, Carlos Marcello, Frank Sturgis and David Morales.

Joan Mellen hastily concludes from this that the CIA was plotting something. I look at this motley ground-crew and realize that the CIA high-command is not represented there -- there one was CIA Agent (David Morales) and a half-dozen or so low-level CIA flunkies who probably boasted on the street that they were CIA Agents to naive kids like Thomas Edward Beckham and Lee Harvey Oswald.

It seems to me that Lee Harvey Oswald believed they were CIA Agents, and that's why Oswald let himself get sheep-dipped by them as a phony officer of the FPCC, from May 1963 through September 1963 in New Orleans. Oswald was under the illusion that these "friends" of his were going to give him a legitimate job in the CIA as a reward for his service (in helping kill Fidel Castro via passage from Mexico City).

Richard Case Nagell knew better -- but perhaps even Nagell failed to see close enough to realize that underground, paramilitary right-wing civilians were in charge of the plot, and not the CIA mules and flunkies in the field.

Inside the CIA proper, we have confessions only from David Morales and Howard Hunt (who says he was on the "sidelines".) As for CIA flunkies, we have confessions from Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, John Martino, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin and Thomas Edward Beckham.

These confessors are all low-level CIA assets. Perhaps Richard Case Nagell knew that David Morales was involved, and that was, in his mind, extremely high in the CIA -- compared to Nagell himself. Perhaps that's why Nagell concluded that the CIA was in control of the plot.

My tentative conclusion is that Nagell's opinion about the source of the CIA plot must remain inconclusive until we can fully identify the ground-crew.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited August 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

Paul - don't forget that Nagell's primary employer seems to have been the then newly-created DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, which drew him away from combat service in the Korean theater and into spywork in Japan. Once back in the US, and employed at the California alcohol enforcement board (I forget their acronym), Nagell did covert work for DIA which drew him into the Cuban ops circles, where he ended up on loan to CIA - probably through DIA's approval - and then blackmailed into working for KGB through a double agent in CIA.

As you say, Nagell was cryptic, and satirical, in his revelations, but that doesn't mean he was ignorant of operations conducted beyond CIA. Like Oswald, who tried to contact John Hurt for help, Nagell's back-connections were to military intelligence. Nagell's motives in handling Oswald have been obscured - mostly by Nagell himself - but I believe that at bottom he saw Oswald as another military intel type like himself, who like himself was now caught between different agencies and set up for a fall. Hence Nagell's lifelong air of protest and satire, beginning with shooting up the bank so as to be removed from the whole intel circus whirling around the assassination plans, and so as to avoid shooting the duped Oswald.

I don't strictly buy that Nagell was more intelligent than Oswald. I believe that Nagell was afforded a bigger picture than Oswald, and didn't like what he saw. That, and his previous experiences in multi-agency intel, made him a more cynical and less committed operative than Oswald, rebelling against the intelligence community where Oswald more narrowly tried to work within and across that community, hoping possibly for some greater good to emerge, or at least hoping to fulfill his mission. (It is important to define Oswald's mission, which none have fully succeeded at.) Nagell, though, knew better than Oswald how sheep-dipped Oswald was becoming.

Let us not forget that Nagell, through DIA, helped run Oswald in Japan. Dick Russell's book also points out that Nagell ran Oswald in the operation that linked Oswald to the ordering of a mail-order gun from Klein's in Chicago - ostensibly (to Oswald) for the purposes of exposing Klein's as gun runner for the anti-Castro set, an operation supposedly motivated by Senator Dodd's then recent gun control effort.

So, again, two men whose primary employers were military intelligence, and who were cooperative with other agencies, and were tools in covert planning. Nagell, by higher involvement and painful experience, was more aware of the larger designs than Oswald was.

Edited August 10, 2014 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - don't forget that Nagell's primary employer seems to have been the then newly-created DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, which drew him away from combat service in the Korean theater and into spywork in Japan. Once back in the US, and employed at the California alcohol enforcement board (I forget their acronym), Nagell did covert work for DIA which drew him into the Cuban ops circles, where he ended up on loan to CIA - probably through DIA's approval - and then blackmailed into working for KGB through a double agent in CIA.

As you say, Nagell was cryptic, and satirical, in his revelations, but that doesn't mean he was ignorant of operations conducted beyond CIA. Like Oswald, who tried to contact John Hurt for help, Nagell's back-connections were to military intelligence. Nagell's motives in handling Oswald have been obscured - mostly by Nagell himself - but I believe that at bottom he saw Oswald as another military intel type like himself, who like himself was now caught between different agencies and set up for a fall. Hence Nagell's lifelong air of protest and satire, beginning with shooting up the bank so as to be removed from the whole intel circus whirling around the assassination plans, and so as to avoid shooting the duped Oswald.

I don't strictly buy that Nagell was more intelligent than Oswald. I believe that Nagell was afforded a bigger picture than Oswald, and didn't like what he saw. That, and his previous experiences in multi-agency intel, made him a more cynical and less committed operative than Oswald, rebelling against the intelligence community where Oswald more narrowly tried to work within and across that community, hoping possibly for some greater good to emerge, or at least hoping to fulfill his mission. (It is important to define Oswald's mission, which none have fully succeeded at.) Nagell, though, knew better than Oswald how sheep-dipped Oswald was becoming.

Let us not forget that Nagell, through DIA, helped run Oswald in Japan. Dick Russell's book also points out that Nagell ran Oswald in the operation that linked Oswald to the ordering of a mail-order gun from Klein's in Chicago - ostensibly (to Oswald) for the purposes of exposing Klein's as gun runner for the anti-Castro set, an operation supposedly motivated by Senator Dodd's then recent gun control effort.

So, again, two men whose primary employers were military intelligence, and who were cooperative with other agencies, and were tools in covert planning. Nagell, by higher involvement and painful experience, was more aware of the larger designs than Oswald was.

OK, David, these are relevant and worthy points.

It's interesting that Nagell's actual employer was the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) and he was was only on loan to the CIA. It's equally interesting that Nagell was blackmailed into working for KGB as a double-agent. Those details complicate my simple narrative.

I must concede that Nagell wasn't entirely ignorant of operations conducted outside of the CIA; e.g. Nagell retained connections with the DIA, which is technically outside of the CIA.

You admit that Nagell deliberately obscured his own motives in handling Lee Harvey Oswald. I think we both agree that this remains a problem. You offer a guess -- that Nagell saw Lee Oswald as quasi-DIA, who had also become lost in the maze of the CIA Agents, CIA Rogues and CIA Flunkies -- and was being framed.

This certainly could explain Nagell's famous behavior of shooting up a bank in Texas in mid-September to get himself arrested -- to guarantee that he himself would not be made into the JFK murder patsy. That is, Nagell possibly (or probably) saw that Lee Oswald was being set up as a patsy in the JFK murder.

I would note here that there were three others about whom fears were expressed that they were also being set up as patsies to be framed for the JFK murder, namely, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Harry Dean. Like Lee Oswald and Richard Nagell, the common thread throughout all their cases is that they once fought or publicly spoke out on the side of Fidel Castro at one time or other.

In the case of Nagell, he was a double-agent for the CIA/KGB -- and so notoriously lacking in protection and always plausibly deniable by the CIA. One can make a mildly similar case for Lee Oswald -- he was a Marine who blamed JFK for the Bay of Pigs (according to George De Mohrenshildt, Volkmar Schmidt, Loran Hall, and as I recall, Michael Paine) on the one hand, and yet also a supporter of Fidel Castro via the FPCC on the other hand.

Was Lee Harvey Oswald a true Marine or a true Communist? (In 1963 it is implausible to have been both, simultaneously, and the most plausible answer is that Oswald was a sort of double-agent, playing on both sides.) The traditional trouble with double-agents is that the CIA never fully trusts them -- so they become more expendible than ever.

So, Nagell's behavior was rational when he escaped being set up as the patsy in a JFK plot. Yet that suggests that Richard Nagell knew that Lee Oswald was involved in a JFK plot, while clearly Lee Oswald himself was ignorant of that fact.

In that sense, Nagell knew more about Oswald than Oswald himself. I am arguing that Lee Oswald acted in cooperation with his handlers and framers on the pretext that he was training for a CIA mission to murder Fidel Castro inside Cuba, pretending to be an FPCC officer, and getting an instant Visa from the Cuban consulate in Mexico City.

This, better than any explanation I've seen so far, explains the foolish behavior of Lee Oswald in Mexico City during the final week of September, 1963.

If I'm correct, then Lee Oswald had no idea he was involved in a JFK murder plot, but Richard Case Nagell was totally aware that Lee Oswald was involved in it. The only question remains whether Nagell plainly warned Lee Oswald about this scenario. From the cryptic testimony and reports we receive from Nagell, it is extremely difficult to answer this question.

Also, David, I revoke my claim that Nagell was more intelligent than Oswald -- but I still maintain that Nagell was more highly educated than Oswald. That counts for something -- at least it counts for the amount of trust and responsibility that the CIA would place in any given individual.

It seems to me that the CIA didn't trust Lee Oswald very much, but Lee Oswald strongly desired a job in the CIA -- and that is how the handlers and framers of Lee Oswald were able to manipulate him so easily. These CIA flunkies simply pretended to be CIA Agents, and they promised Lee Oswald a regular job in the CIA if he would play their undercover role.

We both do agree, David, that the CIA allowed Richard Case Nagell to have a "bigger picture" than they allowed Lee Harvey Oswald to have. In fact, in my theory, the official CIA gave Lee Harvey Oswald almost NO information whatsoever. All the information that Oswald received was from CIA flunkies, who were lying to Oswald.

I agree with you that somebody must define Oswald's mission, and that the theories we have so far are unsatisfactory -- so I propose my own theory -- namely -- that Oswald had NO MISSION AT ALL from the officlal CIA, but was operating on a BOGUS MISSION hatched by low-level CIA flunkies.

The creators of the BOGUS MISSION were probably Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Clay Shaw, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier, Thomas Edward Beckham (as Jim Garrison claimed) along with other players -- the ones who invented this entire "punking" operation in cooperation with JBS elements such as Ex-General Edwin Walker, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Guy Gabaldon and others (as Harry Dean claimed).

That original BOGUS MISSION was evidently abetted by Frank Sturgis and Johnny Roselli, who obtained the help of the one CIA Agent in the batch, David Morales. Frank and David tried to recruit CIA Agent Howard Hunt, using the myth that LBJ and Cord Meyer were in charge. Howard didn't join, but he didn't turn them in, either; instead he remained "on the sidelines." (Maybe a few other CIA rogues knew about it, but I require more hard evidence to be certain.)

We both seem to agree that Nagell knew that Oswald was being sheep-dipped (i.e. framed).

Your linkage of Nagell to Oswald in 1959 in Japan is important -- yet it tends to show that Oswald probably didn't respect Nagell as much as he should have.

As for your conclusion, David, we can't verify that final suggestion, i.e. that Lee Oswald was "employed" by the DIA while in Dallas and New Orleans, simply because Oswald's Tax Records remain Top Secret in US Government files. It seems to me today that Oswald was not very obedient, and so not a very good candidate for full-time employment, and that's why he shuffled around from one low-paying job after another.

It seems to me today that Oswald was very hopeful that he could in the near future obtain full-time employment by some Intelligence Agency, and that is precisely how the JFK kill team was able to "punk" him.

Does my theory sound implausible to you?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited August 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

I won't disagree, just clarify myself:

I should have distinguished that Oswald probably originates with ONI, while Nagell through DIA was "US Army Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC), 441st Counter Intelligence Corps Group, at Field Operations Intelligence's Far East headquarters in Tokyo." (I don't have my copy of the Russell book available, so I have to rely on a reviewer's paraphrase.)

Jim Di Eugenio recaps Nagell's stateside adventures this way: "When Nagell left his Far East assignment in late 1959, he moved to Los Angeles, and a he got a job working for the state of California. But, he told the author [Russell], that he was still working for the CIA. Specifically, in the Domestic Intelligence unit, which would later be formalized under Tracy Barnes as the Domestic Operations Division."

So two guys with military intelligence background who went over to domestic spywork for a civilian agency or agencies.

I suspect that Oswald's original stateside mission was to present himself as a dangle for all comers, left and right, using his Russian residency as bait. His work, perhaps under the influence of "rogues," gravitated toward monitoring assassination of Castro and assassination of Kennedy. I think, though, that Paul Brancato makes an excellent point about a "rogue" sometimes being an empowered person without a paper trail to his directors. I also take your point about Angleton's post-Dealey molehunt, and I appreciate it.

[Paul Trejo]

...I also take your point about Angleton's post-Dealey molehunt, and I appreciate it.

David, I gather from this comment that you're familiar with the 2014 work by Bill Simpich, "State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald." IMHO, Bill Simpich significantly advanced JFK research this year. Sure, he stood on the shoulders of giants and he enjoyed recent CIA disclosures under the FOIA and JFK Information Act. Still, he just leap-frogged ahead of everybody.

I don't hesitate to call Bill Simpich a genius -- yet I also propose that he made one error. Well, not exactly an error, because Bill Simpich offered his interpretation of the facts only tentatively, in the interest of getting the facts out to the public ASAP. For example, he wrote in Chapter 5:

"...Now let me offer a hypothesis that provides what I call the Mexico City solution to the suppression of Oswald’s connections to Cuba, why the assassination was covered up -- and, just maybe, an important insight into the assassination itself...What is presented here will not answer all the questions, but it offers a working solution that is based on the facts that we know...The reader is invited to join in, contribute, and add to this body of research. There’s more to learn, and I could be wrong, but I think I have the gist of it right." (Bill Simpich, 2014, STATE SECRET, Ch. 5)

So Bill Simpich graciously offers his interpretation as a tentative hypothesis. He has, IMHO, clearly established key facts, namely, that somebody inside the CIA impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald and Sylvia Duran from the Cuban consulate in Mexico City, calling on a known wire-tapped line to the USSR consulate in Mexico City on 28 September 1963, knowing this would set off alarms inside the CIA.

Simpich shows that this impersonation was quickly detected by the CIA and caused a CIA mole-hunt, which in turn caused the CIA 201 file on Lee Harvey Oswald to be deliberately altered per SOP in order to catch the mole, and that twin 10/10/1963 memos were published by the CIA, designed to whack a mole. Brilliant work, and IMHO no theory about Lee Harvey Oswald's relationship with the CIA can be valid from this point forward without taking the findings of Bill Simpich into consideration.

OK, that's the genius. The error, according to me, is his final speculation on the *motives* of the impersonators and as he terms it, "why the assassination was covered up." Here's what Bill Simpich wrote:

"Whoever imitated Oswald on the telephone in Mexico City knew that such a paper trail would be a powerful way to blackmail the involved CIA and FBI officers after November 22 into deep-sixing any serious investigation of the assassination -– even an internal inquiry that could be hushed up on the grounds of 'national security.' If it went public that these officers had used the Oswald legend for a molehunt prior to the assassination, the result would be not only embarrassment or a security breach, but suspicion that they were involved in the assassination itself. At a minimum, it would mean the end of the careers of these officers. The impact on their families and their agencies would be devastating." (Bill Simpich, 2014, STATE SECRET, Ch. 5)

My problem here is that the issue of National Security just doesn't match the projected disaster, namely, "the end of the careers of these officers." The CIA would botch the murder investigation of a US President in order to save a few jobs of a few CIA people? I sincerely doubt it. Bill Simpich urges that, "the impact on their families and their agencies would be devastating." To a few people, yes, but not to National Security.

So blackmail hasn't been satisfactorily demonstrated by his argument. Rather, a better explanation, IMHO, is that National Security really means National Security -- that is, if the American Public really knew the truth about the JFK murder, then there would have been riots in the street, and possibly a Civil War in 1963. That's plausible.

See, there were three stories that hit the street on 11/22/1963 -- almost immediately.

(1) The first story was voiced by Bernard Weissman in his Warren Commission testimony about his opinion in the first minutes after CBS announced the death of JFK, namely, that the Right-wing had murdered JFK. Weissman used the name of Ex-General Edwin Walker openly in this context. Several Americans thought this immediately. (This was the true story; the truth about what actually happened.)

(2) The second story was that the Left-wing had murdered JFK. This was plain as soon as Lee Harvey Oswald was presented on TV as the main suspect. He was "a Communist." (This was the cover story created by the JFK Kill Team.)

(3) The third story was that Lee Harvey Oswald was a "Lone Nut," and was the "Lone shooter" at JFK, and "had no accomplices." That story was presented by J. Edgar Hoover himself, before the sun set on 11/22/1963.

The first story, however, seemed to fizzle into nothingness one day after Lee Harvey Oswald was identified as a Communist and a Castro supporter, because TV began showing film footage of Oswald in New Orleans passing out FPCC leaflets during the previous summer, and news about Oswald getting arrested because of a street fight with Carlos Bringuier, and appearing on radio and TV because of his FPCC antics. All of this filled the mass media just about continuously.

So two stories remained on 11/23/1963. Those who insisted that the Communists murdered JFK were outspoken well into 1964, adding that we must invade Cuba right away, kill Fidel Castro and take back Cuba for the Free World. Among them were Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, John Martino, David Morales (via some shills he set up to feed the mass media) as well as Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Billy James Hargis, Ex-General Edwin Walker (even to the Warren Commission) and others within the John Birch Society.

The third story, that Lee Harvey Oswald was nothing but a Lone Nut, was pushed hard by the US Government, and won the day. Those who argued for stories #1 and #2 faded away (for a half-century).

Nevertheless, IMHO, the best explanation for the Mexico City impersonation of Lee Harvey Oswald can be found inside the bugged conversation itself. As Bill Simpich relates it, the impersonator made the USSR consulate clerk say the name of 'Valery Kostikov' on tape. Kostikov worked at the USSR consulate in Mexico City and was known by the CIA to be a dangerous KGB Agent. THAT was the payoff. That Oswald was partners with Kostikov -- THAT's the bogus idea that the impersonators wanted to implant.

So, this is the only error of Bill Simpich, IMHO. I propose, instead, that whoever imitated Oswald on the telephone in Mexico City believed that such a paper trail would be a plausible way to convince the CIA and FBI that Lee Harvey Oswald was in league with KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. With that connection, the US Government would have had all the proof they needed to conclude that the Communists killed JFK, and that we should immediately commit military forces to war against Cuba and the USSR.

In my opinion, the US Government figured this out very early -- perhaps before November was over. They knew exactly who the JFK murderers were -- but rather than risk Civil War, they decided to cover-up the JFK murder for 75 years.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 17, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

Taking your commentary in the post above, I ask: How elevated does a rogue have to be to not be a rogue? Bill Harvey's height? David Phillips's height? Shackley? Angleton? Helms coached by Dulles?

Laying a paper and photo and recording trail that circumstantially associates Oswald with the KGB tends to the efect of not only hoodwinking the CIA unilaterally, but giving a successor president and Congress reason and motive to act - or to lay blame exculpating the real killers, but not act against Khruschev and Castro out of fear of MAD.

Angleton, through his multifarious intelligence connections, had reason to go on molehunts apart from JFK's assassination, and did so for another dozen years. Why not justify them through assassination? If he had been questioned on it, Lyndon Johnson might have justified his immediate reversal of Kennedy's Vietnam policy as a long range move against ultimate Soviet aims, inspired by a KGB assassination plot.

I rather think that JFK's assassination is a policy move carried out by high-ranking elements of CIA, under instigation and approval of parties above the CIA and outside of government service - yet to the benefit of many in government service. If a majority of the rank-and-file CIA had to be hoodwinked into accepting evidence of a KGB origin to the assassination, it was part of the same process of convincing the Executive and Congress.

Let us not forget that, in the same period as the Mexico City adventure, another group was painting Oswald as a lone nut in the Sylvia Odio incident. It is possible, however, that the cover-up element coerced the Odio sisters to come forward with this story for its own cross-purposes. It is also possible that the Odio incident is just a muddying of the waters by the assassination planners - or just a miscalculation by the two men accompanying the "Oswald" figure to Odio's apartment, a miscalculation based on previous orders that could not be changed due to impaired communication between CIA and these three caballeros. We are left with Sylvia dark (Duran) and Sylvia light (Odio) to ponder, like queens in a hand of cards. You can stare at them forever but you still have to bet.

Edited August 12, 2014 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

Taking your commentary in the post above, I ask: How elevated does a rogue have to be to not be a rogue? Bill Harvey's height? David Phillips's height? Shackley? Angleton? Helms coached by Dulles?

Laying a paper and photo and recording trail that circumstantially associates Oswald with the KGB tends to the efect of not only hoodwinking the CIA unilaterally, but giving a successor president and Congress reason and motive to act - or to lay blame exculpating the real killers, but not act against Khruschev and Castro out of fear of MAD.

Angleton, through his multifarious intelligence connections, had reason to go on molehunts apart from JFK's assassination, and did so for another dozen years. Why not justify them through assassination? If he had been questioned on it, Lyndon Johnson might have justified his immediate reversal of Kennedy's Vietnam policy as a long range move against ultimate Soviet aims, inspired by a KGB assassination plot.

I rather think that JFK's assassination is a policy move carried out by high-ranking elements of CIA, under instigation and approval of parties above the CIA and outside of government service - yet to the benefit of many in government service. If a majority of the rank-and-file CIA had to be hoodwinked into accepting evidence of a KGB origin to the assassination, it was part of the same process of convincing the Executive and Congress.

Let us not forget that, in the same period as the Mexico City adventure, another group was painting Oswald as a lone nut in the Sylvia Odio incident. It is possible, however, that the cover-up element coerced the Odio sisters to come forward with this story for its own cross-purposes. It is also possible that the Odio incident is just a muddying of the waters by the assassination planners - or just a miscalculation by the two men accompanying the "Oswald" figure to Odio's apartment, a miscalculation based on previous orders that could not be changed due to impaired communication between CIA and these three caballeros. We are left with Sylvia dark (Duran) and Sylvia light (Odio) to ponder, like queens in a hand of cards. You can stare at them forever but you still have to bet.

In general, David, I agree with you. Yet there are nuances.

(1) Your first question is difficult: How high does a CIA rogue need to attain to cease being a rogue?

1.1. You named Bill Harvey. We know that Bill Harvey was busted down to size by RFK for his insubordination during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and he was stationed in Italy after that, to keep him out of the way. Harvey basically drank himself to death in Italy. Now -- did Harvey hate JFK and RFK enough to kill them? Evidently so. Did he participate in the sheep-dipping of Lee Harvey Oswald all the way from Italy? Maybe, maybe not.

1.2. You named David Atlee Phillips. We know that David Atlee Phillips was seen with Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas during September 1963 by Antonio Veciana of Alpha 66, a notoriously violent Cuban Exile group. The connection seems very suspicious, except that Veciana says that the context of that meeting was the murder of FIDEL CASTRO, and not the murder of JFK. In his book, "The Night Watch" (1982) Phillips suggests that he was training Lee Oswald to murder FIDEL CASTRO, when Lee was "diverted" by other forces to murder JFK. Admittedly, Phillips confessed to his brother that he was in Dallas on 11/22/1963. So I agree that he is very suspicious. However, there is still no full confession or "smoking gun" to link him. His alibi seems to hold for the time being.

1.3. You named Theodore Shackley, who was the immediate superior of David Morales, who basically confessed to a JFK plot. The immediate connection of Shackley to Morales is most suspicious, IMHO, because it seems next to impossible to keep secrets from one's immediate supervisor, who can ask about every minute that one was on duty and off duty. The politics of Shackley also seem to fit an anti-JFK agenda. Yet I don't have further evidence, aside from innuendo. I need a confession or a "smoking gun" and I don't have those from Shackley. It remains possible -- however unlikely -- that David Morales kept a JFK plot secret from his immediate supervisor.

1.4. You named James Jesus Angleton. While he was openly suspicious that JFK was too close to Castro and Khrushchev for his political comfort, it seems that Angleton was one key CIA officer who was targetted to be fooled by the impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City. It seems that Angleton was fooled, and the mole-hunt begins with him. I know Angleton distrusted JFK, but that isn't enough evidence to accuse him. I don't see enough evidence here, yet.

1.5. You named Richard Helms coached by Allen Dulles. Allen Dulles was fired by JFK, so according to many people he had a strong motive to kill JFK. I disagree; Allen Dulles was a mature adult and he could tolerate being fired without plotting a murder. Stronger evidence is needed. As for Richard Helms, he was promoted to Director of Plans after JFK fired Dulles and Bissell over the Bay of Pigs disaster. Richard Helms was inside the CIA high-command, and he authorized many economic attacks on Cuba. By 1962 Helms was already taking a bigger role in Vietnam. One can try to link Helms through Bissell to the many Mafia plots to kill Fidel Castro, but that is a stretch, and farther than that I've seen no evidence. From what I've seen so far, Richard Helms was caught off guard by the murder of JFK.

In my opinion today, with the evidence I've seen so far, David Morales is the highest-level CIA Agent involved in the JFK murder. We pretty well have his confession on this. We also have the death-bed confession of Howard Hunt. Hunt was over-the-hill when he was approached by Frank Sturgis (a CIA flunky) on behalf of David Morales to join their plot. Hunt claims he stayed "on the sidelines."

That's what we have in the bank; these two mid-level CIA Agents, David Morales and Howard Hunt. Underneath them I perceive dozens of low-level CIA flunkies, including Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, John Martino, Gerry Patrick Hemming, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, and players of that level. (Many of these folks confessed in one way or another.) The common element of all those men is that they spoke some Spanish as well as English. So underneath them we have countless Cuban Exiles, many of them very motivated and very well trained paramilitary types, passionate about revenge for the Bay of Pigs.

(2) Your second question is even more complicated, David. First you agree that the Oswald impersonators in Mexico City wanted first and foremost to fool the CIA high-command that Oswald was linked to the KGB. However, after this, you interpret the events differently than I do. In your speculation (as I understand it) the JFK plotters had the foresight to see that the next US President and the US Congress would learn from the CIA that Oswald made a deal with the KGB, and therefore would let the real killers go free because of the fear of World War III and Mutually Assured Destruction. (Thus the impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City was all about frightening LBJ and the Congress.)

Did I get that right? If so, it doesn't match very well. It suggests that the JFK murderers had only one goal -- to get away with murdering JFK. That's all they wanted? Their only motive was revenge and hatred -- and they didn't care about sending a message to the USA about why they did it?

That doesn't match well because (until JFK) every assassin of a US President has always (1) admitted it; and (2) explained why he did it, even knowing he was going to be hung for his act. It's part of the unwritten honor code of Presidential assassins.

So, the idea that the JFK murderers were merely cowards who wanted to hide in the shadows for the rest of their lives, content only in the knowledge that JFK was dead, and not caring who else that hurt, but just gloating over his death -- that doesn't really fit the profile of a Presidential assassin. Nor does it fit the psychology of high-powered paramilitary types who had been trying for years to kill Fidel Castro and to get Cuba back into the Free World.

(3) Your third question, about whether the many mole hunts of James Jesus Angleton, for years after the murder of JFK, were all just coverups of assassinations, doesn't move me. Mole hunts are by definition Top Secret. Nobody knows they are even going on except the CIA high-command. As for LBJ, he never referred to CIA data on a KGB plot to justify any decision he ever made.

(4) In your view, the molehunt conducted by the CIA was done to "hoodwink a majority of the rank-and-file CIA." But that doesn't fit because a mole-hunt is Top Secret and reserved only for the CIA high-command.

(5) Your theory, David, is like the most popular theory I've seen on the FORUM, namely, that JFK was killed by an "Invisible Government" involving the high-command of the CIA and others with high positions inside the US Government and high positions of influence over the US Government. Certainly this was suggested by Howard Hunt in his death-bed confession, when he basically blamed LBJ for the whole plot.

But Howard Hunt also admitted he was on the "sidelines" of the plot. So, how did he hear all the sordid details? We only know that he was approached by Frank Sturgis (a notorious rascal) and David Morales (the main CIA plotter, IMHO). Ascribing their JFK plot to LBJ and Cord Meyer would be a typical come-on for a sales pitch. The rumors were well-known in the CIA that JFK had slept with Cord Meyer's ex-wife. The mythology of an LBJ/Cord Meyer plot fits better with a sales pitch come-on than the truth.

(6) Also, David, you cite the Sylvia Odio incident as "painting Oswald as a lone nut." I interpret that incident in just the opposite fashion, and so did the Warren Commission and the FBI.

On the contrary, the Sylvia Odio incident proves that Lee Harvey Oswald had "accomplices" in the murder of JFK, and that he was far from a Lone Nut. The fact that the FBI strove energetically to brand Sylvia Odio as a "mental case" is hard evidence that Hoover could never let her story come out -- because it directly contradicted his "Lone Nut" theory.

In my humble opinion, Sylvia Odio told the truth -- it was Lee Harvey Oswald at her apartment with two Latino men. This story -- which many in the FBI found credible, and Gaeton Fonzi also found "eminently believable" -- is totally true, and also confirms (and is confimed by) the story of Harry Dean, who claims that he heard Loran Hall and Larry Howard receive orders in mid-September 1963 from Guy Gabaldon to drive to New Orleans to pick up Lee Harvey Oswald, and drive him to Mexico City, where Guy Gabaldon would meet Oswald. Evidently Gabaldon would pretend to be a CIA Agent and give Oswald $500 to play along with his new "mission" in Dallas. (Richard Case Nagell also learned that Oswald was going to Mexico to get $500 from somebody.)

The miscalculation was made by Loran Hall (who was probably Leopoldo, because the FBI picked Hall up in that context) who alone decided in their trip from New Orleans to Mexico that the three would drop by the apartment of Sylvia Odio, and shake her tree. Sylvia Odio testified later that she thought Leopoldo was getting "fresh" with her and was seeking a date. Loran Hall was such a macho show-off that her story rings true as a bell.

(7) Finally, David, you compare all these suspects to cards in a deck, and that "you can stare at them forever but you still have to bet." Yes, we are still guessing to some degree -- I admit that. However, some hands make more sense than others.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 10, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

I hope that I've provided sufficient information about resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker to generate interest about his possible role in the murder of JFK.

To that end, I want to review the main 'urban myths' still told about him. I'll start with the first myth; that General Walker was fired by JFK for teaching his 10,000 troops in Germany from John Birch Society books.

That's inaccurate on many counts.

Actually, the Joint Chiefs dismissed General Walker from his command in Augsburg in April 1961, not JFK.

Actually, JFK offered Walker another position -- a training position -- in Hawaii, because JFK knew that the resignation of a US General would make scandal headlines (and it did), and JFK wanted to avoid that.

The Joint Chiefs reviewed Walker's case immediately, and produced several hundred pages of documentation in June, 1961. In that report, it was denied that the John Birch Society (JBS) was the cause of Walker's termination. The real cause, according to the official report, was twofold: (1) Walker told a gathering of his troops and their wives that former President Truman was "definitely pink"; and (2) Walker tried to influence the votes of his troops.

Although most of the top brass rejected the JBS, because the JBS taught that every President since FDR was a Communist, there were some who tolerated it, because at least it moved the troops closer to the right-wing, where they believed troops ought to be. After all, there had to be SOME ideology of Anticommunism among the troops, and anything was better than nothing.

So, Walker wasn't fired for distributing JBS literature as such -- but he was fired for openly preaching its key doctrines in public gatherings, namely, that President Harry Truman, if not an outright Communist, was "definitely pink".

Also, Walker tried to influence his troops' voting using the Conservative Voting Index which was designed by Kent and Phoebe Courtney -- two influential JBS members from New Orleans, Louisiana. The CVI came complete with a telephone number which provided advice about which candidate was truly "American" and which candidate was really a "Communist sympathizer" -- in the opinion of Kent and Phoebe Courtney. This was a violation of the Hatch Act within the US Army.

Anyway, Edwin Walker turned down JFK's offer of a transfer. Walker resigned from the Army -- which is not the same as retiring. With retirement you get an Army pension. With resignation you forfeit your Army pension.

Walker knew what he was doing when he resigned. In fact, he first submitted his resignation under Eisenhower, but Eisenhower rejected the resignation and gave Walker his command in Augsburg.

Walker gave JFK his reasons for not accepting the position in Hawaii -- it was only one step away from Vietnam, he said, and he already swore after the Korean War that he would never again become involved in another No-win War run by the 'Communistic' United Nations.

But there were other reasons. Remember that no other US General in the 20th century ever resigned. This was an odd act -- Walker wanted attention. But why?

Perhaps the answer can be found in his first resignation letter to President Eisenhower in 1959. In that letter, Walker cited a "conspiracy" in the US Government that was preventing him from doing his duty. We should remember that this was exactly the time when Walker joined the JBS, which taught him that the Communist Conspiracy had reached the highest offices in Washington DC, and that even Eisenhower himself was a "conscious, deliberate agent of the Communist Party."

Walker submitted his resignation to Eisenhower because the JBS convinced Walker that Eisenhower was a Communist.

If that sounds odd, we should also remember that Walker graduated from West Point in the bottom ten percent of his class. He was not much of a reader. His personal papers reflect his reading level -- it was not very high. Evidently the JBS was the limit of his intellectual horizon.

In summary: Walker wasn't fired by JFK. That's an urban myth. Walker resigned for political reasons -- and this was his second resignation.

As soon as Walker quit the Army (in November, 1961) he made a bee-line for Dallas, Texas. Why? He'd never lived in Dallas before. Also, his family had little money, and he now had no income himself (because his paycheck and his pension were now entirely gone).

Not only did the penniless Walker move to Dallas, he moved into a nice family home in a nice neighborhood -- the same neighborhood where the relatives of H.L. Hunt were living in Dallas, on Turtle Creek Boulevard. Where did he get the money? The answer will be obvious when we look closer.

Within twelve weeks of resigning from the U.S. Army, H.L. Hunt himself financed Walker's political campaign for Governor of Texas. The keynote of Walker's campaign would be the JBS slogan "Impeach Earl Warren!" That is, Walker would oppose Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren's Brown Decision and its mandated, racial integration of US Public Schools. Notice that this was the opposite political position of General Walker's successful racial integration of the high school in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957.

Here's my theory: H.L. Hunt financed the campaign of General Douglas MacArthur in 1948, and lost. MacArthur was wildly popular as a victorious General of WW2 -- then he was fired by Harry Truman for insubordination. This "firing" increased MacArthur's popularity in the polls.

I think H.L. Hunt saw an opportunity of using the urban myth that Walker was fired by JFK as a way to capitalize on the public feeling he observed regarding Douglas MacArthur.

In fact, H.L. Hunt might have planned the whole thing -- including Walker's notorious "resignation", which they hoped could win Walker popular sympathy. There was no real risk -- H.L. Hunt was a billionaire, and could afford to support General Walker for a while -- especially if he was going to be President of the USA.

It may sound far-fetched today, a half-century later, to imagine that anybody would consider Ex-General Edwin Walker as US President -- but Kent and Phoebe Courtney actively promoted Edwin Walker for President, not only in their newspaper, Independent American, but also in a book they wrote dedicated to Walker, The Case of General Edwin A. Walker (1962).

In preparation for Walker's first political campaign for Texas Governor, Walker took a small office inside a Dallas oil company, and began writing speeches. He gave his first speech in December, 1961, at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium (the same auditorium where Adlai Stevenson would be humiliated in October, 1963).

In that first public speech as a citizen, Walker addressed the NIC (National Indignation Convention), and his right-wing audience simply LOVED him. YouTube offers a snippet from that first speech at this URL: []https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYyONwsHqbw]

The success of that speech encouraged Walker to write many speeches -- he copyrighted six speeches in the next three months. In every place that Walker spoke throughout the South in early 1962, his audiences gave him thunderous applause and long standing ovations. This revved up Walker to run for public office as "the General who resigned," with H.L. Hunt as his backer.

Having read all of his copyrighted speeches, I can say that Walker was nowhere near as radical as his contemporary, Governor George Wallace of Alabama. Still, Walker had a sizable following. Newsweek magazine plastered Walker's face on its cover during this period, calling him the Leader of the Right. (A movie script was written with Edwin Walker as a model -- Seven Days in May -- starring Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas, finally released in 1964, having received lots of support from JFK and RFK.)

In all of his copyrighted speeches, Walker would promise that he would be justified by the Senate for having been "fired" by the JFK administration because of his political views. Walker looked forward to the Senate "Military Muzzling" Hearings organized by Strom Thurmond (Military Cold War Education and Speech Review Policies; Hearings before the Special Preparedness Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 87th Congress, 2nd Session)

In those Senate hearings, Walker appeared in April, 1962, and gave an impassioned plea for his cause, to explain why he was "fired" by the JFK administration, in violation of his Freedom of Speech.

Walker, however, made a very poor showing at those hearings. Walker was at his best when he was preaching to the choir, so to speak. His right-wing audiences never challenged him, but always encouraged him. Walker spoke poorly under cross examination. He stumbled, stuttered and lost his temper. He even punched a newspaper reporter in the face.

Walker's focus -- to the dismay of his supporters -- was less about Reds in Washington DC as much as it was the US Army newspaper, Overseas Weekly. Walker spent perhaps most of his time denouncing the Overseas Weekly. Everybody was bored by this.

But the question of the Overseas Weekly also raises another critical question about Edwin Walker -- the question about his homosexuality. More later.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
<edited>

Edited September 11, 2014 by Paul Trejo