Ed Epstein's tale of George De Mohrenschildt's last day

[Dawn Meredith]

You think Oswald took a shot at Walker?

I disgree in spades. If he had, the FBI would not have had to alter the color and caliber of the bullet that Walker held in his hand. Nor would the WC have had to hide that fact from Walker when he testified.

I also disagree with your characterization of the relationship between the Baron, the Paines, Oswald and the White Russians.

You seem to classify it as all on the up and up, something almost benign and happening willy nilly.

I don't see it that way. I see it as much more malignantly motivated, and much more planned for.

Jim, in order to doubt that Oswald took a shot at ex-General Edwin A. Walker, one must totally discount Marina Oswald's testimony. My starting point (admittedly hypothetical) is that I completely accept Marina Oswald's sworn statements.

That is -- when she wasn't under oath and felt harassed by the press and the FBI, she blurted out defensive statements. But after she calmed down and realized there was a chance for her to raise her children in the USA, she became cooperative. Under oath, she told the truth. That's my starting point.

Next, I believe the testimony of George De Mohrenschildt -- to a point. That is, I can't find a direct lie, but I also believe George did not always answer questions fully -- he always held something back. The same goes for Jeanne De Mohrenshildt. The same goes for Michael Paine. The same goes for Ruth Paine. They told the truth until it came to the final question: "Is there anything else you think the Commission should know?" Nope.

So -- going by the testimony of Marina Oswald (which she never changed, for the HSCA or afterwards), and adding the testimony of the De Mohrenschildts and the Paines -- I believe we can establish a scenario in which Lee Harvey Oswald was at least one of the shooters at ex-General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963.

Let us also add the statements by Brandford P. Angers, the private detective who hired Larrie Schmidt on behalf of H.L. Hunt -- now we have a scenario that matches the DPD eye-witness who saw multiple shooters flee the scene in cars. There are thus two witnesses who establish that Oswald did not act alone.

This is my ultimate conclusion -- Oswald never acted alone in anything (although to Marina it might have appeared that he did).

I realize that there are holes in Marina's testimony -- but even Marina admitted that. She admitted she had very limited information to go on, and she always said that if she had more information she would change her opinions.

But I was never interested in Marina Oswald's opinions -- but only in her eye-witness (and ear-witness) testimony of what she saw and heard at the time, no matter how incomplete or partial it may have been.

By saying you don't believe that Oswald was a shooter at ex-General Walker, Jim, aren't you saying that Marina Oswald was a xxxx? But if so, I believe that is a shaky position.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Of course she lied. I thought everyone knew that. Paul I could not finish your post after I got to the part where LHO shot Walker. Everyone is welcome to his/her beliefs. LHO shot no-one.

Dawn

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

Your trust in Marina, DeMohrenschildt and the Paines is misguided. The picture we have come to accept of Lee Harvey Oswald was built almost exclusively on their testimony. Marina's testimony before the Warren Commission was laughable. Yes, she was under pressure, but her willingness to undermine her husband's memory in order to curry favor with the authorities is so transparent it practically screams out at the reader.

Remember, Marina not only is the primary source for Oswald taking a shot at Walker, she also described him either burying the rifle in the ground or hiding it in some bushes afterwards. She reported that he carried his rifle under a raincoat, and practiced shooting it near a bus stop! That is the kind of ridiculous story a child, or in this case a frightened young woman with little knowledge of English or American culture, would devise. As if this weren't enough, Marina also testified that she had kept Oswald locked in the bathroom (by holding onto the door from the outside) to prevent him from shooting Richard Nixon. Picture the petite Marina being physically strong enough to do something like that.

The backgrounds of DeMohrenschildt and the Paines alone make the entire relationship with the poverty stricken Oswalds highly suspect. Adult relationshps are inevitably tied to class and income. DeMohrenschildt was a vertiable aristocrat; he was friendly with Jacqueline Bouvier's family. Because their ties to the Oswalds bear serious scrutiny, the testimony of the Paines and the DeMohrenschildts must be looked at skeptically.

As for Edward Epstein, he was always given more credit than he deserved, imho, for Inquest. Basically a master's thesis he wrote while at Cornell, it was not a critical examination of the evidence, or the flaws in the official case against Oswald. The fact the CIA singled out Epstein's book as being harder to refute is akin to Brer Rabbit pleading not to be thrown into the briar patch. As author Thomas Pynchon once noted, they don't have to worry about answers if you ask the wrong questions.

Don, you describe Marina Oswald's testimony as "laughable" -- I've heard that before, but I haven't seen hard evidence to warrant that strong conclusion.

You're right to note that our standard picture of Lee Harvey Oswald's behavior in early 1963 was built almost exclusively on the testimony of George De Mohrenschildt, Marina and the Paines.

Yet let's point out that although their testimony was used to portray Hoover's "lone-assassin", none of these witnesses agreed with the Warren Commission conclusion -- either in 1963 or afterward.

De Mohrenschildt always said Oswald was a patsy, even in 1963. Marina thought Lee was the lone-assassin in 1964, but only, as she insisted, because she had very little information to go on. Even in 1963, Michael Paine's office phone called Ruth Paine's home phone, and the male voice told the female voice "we both know who really did it."

The other evidence I would cite about Oswald comes from Dick Russell's well-known book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (2003), which portrays Larrie Schmidt confessing that he and his brother Bob Schmidt drove Lee Harvey Oswald to General Walker's home that night -- with the intent to kill.

That's four witnesses -- who were not Warren Commission stooges -- who portrayed Lee in early 1963 as General Walker's shooter. That's good evidence, IMHO.

Getting back to Marina, I don't see her "undermining" her husband's memory. He was not a good provider -- he spent his time playing 007 instead of taking care of his family. He beat Marina. He left her without visible means of support. What would Marina be undermining? She was telling it like it is.

As for "currying favor with the authorities," that was no trivial situation. The US President had just been shot. She and her children faced deportation to Soviet Russia, and she didn't want to go. But that doesn't prove she would lie. The actual truth was that Lee Oswald abused her. At first she didn't want to admit that to anybody. After she was assured she didn't face deportation, she told the truth. That seems obvious to me.

Also, Don, you recalled that Marina described Oswald as burying the rifle, shooting at Walker all alone and so on -- but she never claimed to be doing more than reporting what Oswald told her. It seems obvious to me that Lee Harvey Oswald was "gaslighting" Marina, i.e. telling her almost nothing about what he was doing, lying whenever possible, and preventing her from seeing other people as far as possible, discouraging her from learning English -- basically acting like her jailer.

Did I mention that he started beating her when they moved to Texas? Now, she was in a foreign country, and she was completely at Lee's mercy, so she did defend Lee when the FBI came snooping around. But ultimately, she hated her life in the USA with Lee.

You're quite right to emphasize that Marina spoke English as a second language -- and not very well. We must take that into account and meet her half-way, reading between the lines and what not. It's only fair (as you know if you've ever been in a foreign country and tried to speak their language in a stressful situation).

I grant Marina some slack wherever possible (for example, maybe it was an abandoned bus stop where Lee practiced rifle shooting). Also, the story about her trapping Lee in a bathroom to prevent him from shooting Richard Nixon -- this is not impossible depending on various circumstances, i.e. Lee might have been teasing her for a joke. Lee seemed to have a passive-aggressive sense of humor.

The disparity in socio-economic status of the Oswalds with the De Mohrenschildts and the Paines is remarkable -- but it doesn't prove a nefarious CIA plot -- although I believe the CIA was involved at some level. (I doubt very much that De Mohrenschildt would have bothered to introduce himself to the Oswald's if not for the CIA promise of a letter of reference to Papa Doc in Haiti.)

The Paines got involved with the Oswalds at a party of Dallas Engineers -- at the house of engineer Volkmar Schmidt. The Oswalds were the only poor people there, from what I gather -- but they were the guests of honor. The reason, as De Mohrenschildt explained in 1977 in his booklet, "I'm a Patsy, I'm a Patsy!", was that Volkmar was going to put on a show of 'psychological transference', to transfer Oswald's hostility toward the Bay of Pigs to a new hostility -- toward General Edwin Walker.

That party changed Oswald's life. That party changed Dallas. My point is that the Dallas high-society were enjoying a game of cat and mouse with the poor Oswalds. They were playing with their minds.

Remember that George De Mohrenschildt first introduced himself to the Oswalds in this way: George was driving around with George Bouhe on a weekday afternoon, and out of the blue George said, "Why don't we go visit those Oswalds that we read about in the newspaper!" Bouhe agreed, and these two strangers dropped in on Marina, when Lee wasn't at home. They invited themselves inside and chatted, and then left before Lee came back home.

Sorry, Don, but that's a game of cat and mouse. It's not surprising that George Bouhe became infatuated with Marina, and brought her dresses (more than 100, said Jeanne De Mohrenshildt) and money for dental work -- at which point Lee started, for the first time in their marriage, to beat Marina. The beatings continued regularly after that.

My point is that the socio-economic disparity between the upper-middle classes and the poor Oswald's is explained by this cat and mouse mood of passive-aggresive teasing, toying and mind-games.

In summary, I don't find Marina Oswald's testimony laughable -- but accounting for her language difficulties -- I find her eminently believable. And granting that Marina Oswald told the truth, then we have Lee Harvey Oswald's own confession that he tried to kill ex-General Edwin A. Walker with his rifle.

Finally, given that scenario, we find George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt obtaining solid evidence three days later, that Lee really was Walker's 10 April 1963 shooter.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited July 12, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

This sounds like Lee Harvey Oswald was psychologically changed into a "hunter of fascists" by Volkmar Schmidt (who used an object-hatred transference trick successfully applied in group/party milieus), because liberal intellectuals winced whenever they heard the name of General Edwin Walker and because Oswald had gotten on de Mohrenschildt's nerves. That's an interesting idea.

Daniel, that's a good summary. If it's an interesting idea, I attribute that to the actual evidence presented by the witnesses themselves.

The key person who did not testify for the Warren Commission in this scenario was Volkmar Schmidt -- but we have him on video in several places. In at least one video he shows some guilt for the General Walker shooting -- but in another video he washes his hands of all guilt, because he never really meant for Oswald to actually kill Walker. (YouTube is a fair source for this.)

Volkmar's confessions -- which appear in various magazine articles over the decades, do clarify the purpose of that famous "party" where Ruth Paine met Marina Oswald. Also at that party was Michael Paine, as were Jeanne and George De Mohrenschildt.

The Walker shooting, according to the evidence offered by Volkmar and George, goes directly back to this party.

Ruth Paine often talked about this party, but never talked about her host, Volkmar Schmidt and his behavior with Lee Oswald that evening. Others who attended that party and who spoke about it for the Warren Commission also carefully evaded the topic of Volkmar's psychological transference trick with Lee Oswald.

The Warren Commission attorneys repeatedly asked those witnesses who attended that party about details, but their general tendency was to evade speaking about the main attraction of the party in the first place. This suggests to me that it was uppermost in their minds -- they did not want to be revealed to the public as Walker-haters. Yet the Warren Commission was actively looking for Walker-haters, which is one reason why the name of ex-General Edwin Walker appears hundreds of times in the Warren Report.

Only Volkmar himself, and George De Mohrenschildt, tell us in detail about the goings on at that party. Their unified account is interesting all on its own accord -- and that is the only reason why, IMHO, it is an interesting idea.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 11, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

By saying you don't believe that Oswald was a shooter at ex-General Walker, Jim, aren't you saying that Marina Oswald was a xxxx? But if so, I believe that is a shaky position.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Of course she lied. I thought everyone knew that. Paul I could not finish your post after I got to the part where LHO shot Walker. Everyone is welcome to his/her beliefs. LHO shot no-one.

Dawn

Dawn, if you're arguing from Jim Garrison's famous theory that on 22 November 1963 "Lee Oswald shot no one at all," that is, Lee shot neither Tippit nor Kennedy, then I'll counter by maintaining that Garrison omitted the 10 April 1963 shooting in that theory. (Oddly, Garrison had little to say about General Edwin Walker, and that's too bad).

However, Dawn, if you're claiming that Lee Harvey Oswald was a pacifist, then I'll counter that Lee was an ex-Marine sharpshooter who kept his own firearms.

Also, if you believe that Marina Oswald was lying, then you're challenged to explain how her story harmonized with George and Jeanne De Mohrenshildt's testimony to the Warren Commission, as well as Mrs. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin's account to Dick Russell, as well as Volkmar Schmidt's account to several journalists, as well as Michael and Ruth Paine's later anecdotes, and more.

To discount so much testimony at once one must postulate a Grand Conspiracy in which all these people were players -- and that would be extremely challenging to prove. That much testimony is unlikely to be orchestrated. But I'll keep an open mind if you have evidence I haven't read yet.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited July 12, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Guest Tom Scully]

Paul,

How much are you allowing for the overlooked conflicts of interest of, and by the WC, FBI, and CIA, taking into account these points to ponder. At the center of what I emphasize here, is the appointment of Albert E. Jenner, Jr. to "invesigate" Oswald's background, putting Jenner in a position to almost exclusively question DeMohrenschildt and his wife, Jean.

Jenner had been defending clients such as the business manager (M. Frank Darling, in 1953) of the first large union local to buy insurance from the Dorfmans, continuing all the way until the U.S. Dept. of Labor accused Jenner in 1973 of setting up a scheme to inflate the value of Allen Dorfman's claims processing business before the "hit" on Dorfman, having the effect of making the Teamster's Welfare and Pension Fund pverpay several million dollars to Dorfman's heirs.

Jenner's largest and most important clients were Henry Crown and General Dynamics....

http://www.nytimes.c...ster-crown.html

THE ORDEAL OF LESTER CROWN - The New York Times New York Times - Dec 7, 1986 "Meanwhile, seven officers and employees of Material Service were padding their expense accounts -at the direction of Crown, according to the Government report - and reimbursing their boss. The project was cut short when Material Service was subpoenaed by a Federal grand jury investigating corruption in the industry. The family turned to Albert E. Jenner Jr., a lawyer and longtime friend who is on the board of General Dynamics. Whenever the kids got into trouble, Jenner says, they never bothered the old man. They talked to me, and I got them out of trouble. In return for his cooperation with the grand jury, Lester Crown was granted immunity from prosecution."...

Earl Warren's daughter, Virginia (source is quote of Virginia's daughter in her recent obituary) "traveled the world with Conrad Hilton...." There was speculation in 1957 that the two would marry. In 1957, Henry Crown and the rest of the board of directors of the Empire State Building and their wives, were hosting a private reception for Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. A book on the history of the famous NYC Skyscraper states that in addition to Crown introducing the other directors and their wives to the royal couple, "quite inexplicably Virginia Warren, daughter of the Chief Justice, was presented to the Queen..."

Tyler Abell, Drew Pearson's stepson, published a posthumous diary of Pearson's files in 1974. In October, 1963, Peason's column, referring to "Songbird" James Ragen and his execution by the mob, wrote that Tom Clark had advised him that based on the interrogations of Ragen by the FBI, confirmed by the follow up investigation of Ragen's secret testimony by a team of a dozen FBI agents, that the principals of Chicago organized crime were businessmen and politicians whose names were familiar to every Chicago household, some say they had reformed, but they still controlled the mob.

The 1974 book edited by Tyler Abell stated that the names of the top mob figures "led to high places," the Hilton Hotel chain, the Jewish financier, Henry Crown, and Walter Annenberg.

Earl Warren told his fellow WC commisioners in December, 1963, that Albert Jenner had been recommended for a position as an Asst. Senior Counsel on the WC by Tom Clark and Dean Acheson. Ragen was murdered in 1946, and Tom Clark chose Crown's son, John as one of his two law clerks for the 1955 Supreme Court session. In 1959, Jenner's lawfirm hired John Crown and he became a partner sometime before leaving in 1969.

The FBI records available at maryferrell.org show that Patrick Hoy was close to people who knew Jack Ruby since boyhood. Hoy had been hired by Crown in 1959 with a background only in restaurant and hotel management, to be President of Crown's sand and gravel firm, Material Service, and as senior V.P. of parent corp., General Dynamics, the defense contractor who experienced the relief from extreme financial uncertainty resulting from the sudden end (on 15 Dec., 1963) of the senate committee investigation of the award of the $6 billion TFX aircraft contract.

The FBI also had investigative files showing the Hoy booked travel for Gus Alex, and that Alex and Accardo instructed Sid Korshak to direct Hoy to give orders to the Hilton Corp., since Crown was the largest Hilton stockholder. Hoy instructed the Chicago Hilton management to provide Gus Alex's girlfriend with a no show job, and not to cooperate with a Cook County sheriff's investigation (led by Richard Cain) into"candidate fraud'.

The FBI files showed Conrad Hilton's hotel holdings were a front for Frank Costello of New York, and that Accardo and associates had been given large blocks of Hilton Corp. stock by Crown and Conrad Hilton. All of this, we know from what is official history, was ignored. covered up. Consider also that Conrad Hitlon was a close friend of Earl & Mrs. Warren, they were invited to Hotel openings and other special events, including a flight to Europe in which a plane containing Mrs. Hilton and daughter and other Hilton invitees was forced to turn back for safety reasons.

It is well documented that Hilton partnered with KIrkeby, considered a Chicago mob associate and launderer of mob money via his hotel "investments." The purchases by Hilton were said to mostly be made with Crown's money and on Crown's behalf.

The FBI admitted they conducted no background check of Albert Jenner, although they and the CIA did a rather thorough check of a WC counsel senior to Jenner, Howard Willens, even though the CIA described Willlens as head of the criminal division of the DOJ, the number 3 executive in the DOJ ! Even in such a troubling scenario as I just presented, even the FBI was concerned about Willens being the son of a man who chose to buy the residence next to Tony Accardo's and had been living there since 1958. Accardo moved to a newer home, nearby, beginning in fall, 1963. The CIA omitted this from their background report on Willens, but the report mentioned that Willens was arrested in 1949 at age 17 for breaking street light bulbs.

William Colby describes the WWII service of OSS commando, Col. Serge Obolensky. From 1947, Serge was a Hilton Hotel executive, becoming vice-chairman of Hilton Hotel Corp. by the 1960's. In 1949, it was reported that Obolensky had bought out

Kirkeby's stake in the Sherneth Hotel holding company.

Consider that at the exact same time as Obolensky told the FBI that DeMohrenschildt was revealing his flawed, untrustworthy character, circa 1950, DeMohrenschildt was on record with a net worth of $200 thousand, was partenered in oil exploration with Bush roommate, Edward Gordon Hooker, was ending his marriage to the daughter of CIA's high ranking, Walter Washington of West Virginia, and was a close friend of George Bush's friend, George Kichel, the brother of the FBI agent Bush used for his Dallas alibi.

Here is Obolensky's derogatory statement to the FBI :

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=354228

Here is Obolensky in 1954, advising the FBI on his close relations with the CIA :

http://www.maryferre...530&relPageId=2

Another FBI report advises that Obolensky's daughter can provide more dirt against DeMohrenschildt.

William Colby's brief description of Col. Obolensky of the OSS :

https://www.cia.gov/...99-00/art5.html

https://www.google.c...biw=747&bih=498

1. 
   Obolensky Headed US Chutists Whose Leap Sped Sardinia's...
   ‎
   $3.95 -
   New York Times - Oct 8, 1943
   Theodore Roosevelt followed him by PT-beat to Sardinia several days later Colonel Obolensky was waiting on the dock with a report of a successful mission. ...
   
2. 
   Prince Serge .Obolensky Wants To .Rn Called .Colonel Now .
   ‎
   Palm Beach Post - Oct 25, 1945
   ... to parachute into Sardinia amid 20.000 German and 200.000 Italian troops with ... Until 1942 when Obolensky was commissioned a major in the Unit ed States ...
   
3. 
   Russian Prince Is Reported To Have Aided Sardinia Invasion .
   ‎
   St. Petersburg Times - May 7, 1944
   Serge Obolensky, one time night-club habitue. He had para chuted into Sardinia with four Amer ican officers and men well in advance and had established ...
   
4. 
   Obolensky Leads Parachute Jump .
   ‎
   News And Courier - Oct 8, 1943
   Lieutenant Colonel Serge Obolensky, former Russian prince who Joined the Now ... in a parachute Jump Into Sardinia which established contact between Italian ...
   
5. 
   Thriving Society Legend: Serge Obolensky at 80
   ‎
   $3.95 -
   New York Times - Sep 27, 1970
   Serge Obolensky, who was born a prince and plans to die a public relations man, sat ... Dwight D. Eisenhower to Italian commanders in Sardinia, assignment in ...
   

Sherneth Interest Sold

‎Wall Street Journal - Apr 16, 1949

Arnold S. Kirkeby announced the sale of his interest, constituting working control ... the SherryNetherland Hotel, to a group headed by Colonel Serge Obolensky.

Other interesting and disturbing details to make you wonder if the information that persuades you is akin to depending on a life preserver made of ice as you bob among the waves in the middle of warm ocean waters.:

Alexandre Tarsaidze, 77; Czarist Emigre Acquired Own Public...

‎New York Times - Feb 28, 1978 http://en.wikipedia....ander_Tarsaidze

Alexandre George Tarsaidze, a public relations executive and writer who was ... Together with a fellow , Semge Obolensky, he started Parfums Chevalier Garde, of which ...midshipman Czarist Russian Naval Academy worked as a civi9ian for Army intelligence during the war. ... as-' sistant when the latter was president of the Sherry-Nethemland Hotel. ....

I suspect Serge Obolensky was a witting agent doing his part to confuse contradict, misinform, conceal..... :

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

As it turns out, the FBI and WC not only narrowly focussed their investigative attention (at least what was permitted for inclusion in the WCR) on Dorothy Pierson's long deceased father, instead of on De Mohrenschildt, how he came to be acquainted with Dorothy, who was in their wedding party, who their mutual friends were, i.e., an actual investigation of LHO's "best friend", these government sleuths also missed this:

The FBI reported that De Mohrenschildt told the FBI in 1945 that he happened to be in Palm Beach at the time he met Dorothy, in response to an invitation from a Mr. Kahler of 941 Park Ave., NY, NY, who I've found was Phillips Exeter 1914, a Yale 1918 classmate (a fellow military aviator) of Trubee Davison and Robert Lovett. In 1964, the FBI claimed to have much difficulty in verifying that a Kahler was ever known to reside in Palm Beach. The FBI included a June, 1942, report that Nancy Latimer of Lake Worth, FL, told an FBI agent she was suspicious of the sympathies of one Wood Kahler of Lantana, FL.

It turns out that Kahler was the son of Dallas banker, Harry A. Kahler and his wife, Beulah Pace, later of New York City and Littleton, NH. When finally located and interviewed in 1944, Kahler told the FBI that he still maintained contact with De Mohrenschildt and his wife was in receipt of a recent letter from George.

Both in 1945 during WWII, and in 1964, the FBI also failed to report that Kahler's wife, Olga, was the former wife of Nazi Occupation Parisian Propaganda Chief, Leo Eigner.

WOOD KAHLER MARRIES MRS. EIGNER IN PARIS; Lady ...

New York Times - May 4, 1932

Article image: http://farm8.staticf...b019da144_b.jpg

Olga

New York Times - Mar 17, 1974

http://news.google.c...pg=2488,1024047

Bangor Daily News - Jun 3, 1981

Woody Kame Dies At At Bangor .

Niece of NH Couple to Be Bride Of Heir to Romania King's...

‎

Pay-Per-View -

Daily Boston Globe - Jun 20, 1957

... accompanied by Mrs. Kahler's Russian niece, Prince Olga Obolensky. whose uncle Prince Serge Obolensky, Is a well known figure in New York social ci cles.

Prince Carol Marries US Heiress

Los Angeles Times - Dec 21, 1960

Miss Williams, who has worked here as a columnist, is the niece of Woodland Kahler of New York and Paris who inherited a bank- ing fortune. Carol divorced ....

CHIMPANZEE ARRIVES IN A FIRST-CLASS CABIN; Suze, Pet of Mr...

New York Times - May 28, 1932

Mrs. Kahler has had the chimpanzee for two years, having obtained the pet in Algiers ... Before her marriage to the American novelist Mrs. Kahler was Mrs. Olga ...

http://books.google....as sons&f=false

A history of Texas and Texans, Volume 3

By Francis White Johnson

....William Grobe Breg...St. Paul, ...1893...he came to Texas and established his residence in Dallas,.... in 1897 he became associated with Harry A. Kahler, now of New York City, in the real estate, mortgage, and loan business....

http://freepages.his...2/biogs92d.html

....5. Beulah Pace, born March 13, 1871, is the wife of Harry Kahler, agent for the Middlesex Banking Company, of this city

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

How much are you allowing for the overlooked conflicts of interest of, and by the WC, FBI, and CIA, taking into account these points to ponder. At the center of what I emphasize here, is the appointment of Albert E. Jenner, Jr. to "invesigate" Oswald's background, putting Jenner in a position to almost exclusively question DeMohrenschildt and his wife, Jean.

Jenner had been defending clients such as the business manager (M. Frank Darling, in 1953) of the first large union local to buy insurance from the Dorfmans, continuing all the way until the U.S. Dept. of Labor accused Jenner in 1973 of setting up a scheme to inflate the value of Allen Dorfman's claims processing business before the "hit" on Dorfman, having the effect of making the Teamster's Welfare and Pension Fund pverpay several million dollars to Dorfman's heirs.

Jenner's largest and most important clients were Henry Crown and General Dynamics....

Tom, if I understand you correctly, you're questioning the appointment of Albert E Jenner, Jr.to investigate George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt with regard to Lee Harvey Oswald. Your concern seems to revolve around the fact that Jenner was closely connected to big business interests with unsavory deals involving union pensions.

In other words -- Attorney Jenner was not very objective, and could be trusted to side with his wealthy comrades. Thus, in any plausible JFK plot scenario, Jenner could be counted on to be a Team player and to protect the secrets of any wealthy members of a JFK plot.

I can't disagree with that, at a general level, Tom, because the entire Warren Commission was founded on the premise that J. Edgar Hoover could never be doubted, no matter what evidence came forward. The entire Commission had to conform to Hoover's pre-judged conclusion that Lee Oswald acted alone, and therefore (and most of all) could not have had any accomplices who were still at large. This was set in stone before the Warren Commission moved into their office space.

To me this implies (at a general level) that the Warren Commission, through the FBI: (1) knew very well that Oswald had accomplices; (2) knew exactly who these accomplices were; and (3) was established with the central purpose of protecting the identities of these accomplices at all costs.

Given that starting scenario, it was absolutely necessary to select Attorneys that the Warren Commission could trust implicitly to keep every relevant secret of the wealthy and powerful members of any JFK plot, should their identities happen to arise at any time during the proceedings.

Insofar as that is your point about Jenner, Tom, I agree with you fully.

I will speculate, however, that George De Mohrenschildt was most likely a member of a different plot, namely, the plot to shoot ex-General Edwin Walker. Yet the Commission never delved deeply enough into that scenario, knowing that Walker was a member of the group they had vowed to protect.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited July 15, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

I agree that you cannot trust the WC investigation.

Much of the data was compromised and their conclusions are so off the wall as to be Orwellian.

As per the Walker case, the two best treatments I have see of it are by Jerry McKnight and John Armstrong.

In addition to the fact that the FBI changed the bullet retrieved by Walker and the DPD, there is also this fact: Oswald was never even considered a suspect in that case until seven months later, after the JFK assassination.

Further, the police always thought there was more than one person involved. And one of the witnesses actually trailed a getaway car that had cased Walker's home four nights before. This matches Kirk Coleman's testimony from the night of the shooting. He said he saw two men drive off hurriedly that night after the shooting. In separate cars. Which leaves us with the facts that 1.) Oswald allegedly did not drive, and 2.) Who could possibly be the accomplice? But further, Coleman got a lookat both men. According to him, neither one resembled Oswald.

Guess what?

Coleman never testified to the Commission. Further Coleman had been told by the FBI not to talk to any reporters or to Walker.

The police and Walker always suspected it was an inside job, that is, a disgruntled ex employee named William Duff, who had actually confessed to a former girlfriend.

Now, what caused the sea change after JFK's murder? Two things:

1.) A rightwing West German newspaper

2.) Ruth Paine

WIthin 72 hours of JFK's murder, the former printed an interview with Walker, in which he now said he suspected Oswald may have been the assailant. Something which Walker denied he told the paper in his testimony before the WC. And, in fact, he had never done so in the intervening seven months.

Ruth Paine, in one of many "discoveries", found a book which Marina just had to have since she used it every day. It was called The Book of Helpful Instructions, and Ruth figured Marina needed it even when she was being detained by the Secret Service at a hotel. In that book was the note about what Marina should do in case Oswald was arrested. The DPD failed to find this note in two searches of the house. A search that amounted to a 49 page inventory list. Further, the undated note took up a good part of one page of the paper. Yet, Latona could not get any fingerprints of value from the paper identifying it as Lee or Marina's. But he did get seven other prints off it from some undetermined person (s).

Now, this was so absurd that even Wesley Liebeler had to ask: Why would Oswald keep that note around for seven months!?

Good question Wes.

(1) Jim, we agree that the WC investigation was biased. However, in comparison with the HSCA investigation (whose conclusions I prefer to the WC conclusions), the WC had far more eye-witnesses surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald's life. Also, the WC had many eye-witnesses surrounding General Walker's life, while the HSCA had zero.

From a comparative viewpoint, then, the WC testimony is priceless. It is only that, as Allen Dulles told Jacques Zwart (Invitation to Hairsplitting, 1970) we must read the Warren Report between the lines.

I've also read Gerald McNight's Breach of Trust (2005) and I agree he's a valuable critic of the WC. (As for John Armstrong, are you speaking about his personal papers? I've seen only a few of those.)

(2) Let me say a word about the allegation that the FBI 'changed the bullet retrieved by Walker.' Much as been made out of this tempest in a teapot. The FBI actually has the bullet retrieved by Walker. All that really happened that ticked off Walker so badly was that Robert Blakey displayed a pristine bullet to the camera while making his presentation, merely as a symbol to stand in for Walker's bullet, for the benefit of TV viewers (since the Walker bullet is so mutilated).

Walker hit the roof. He wrote to Blakey, to the HSCA, to his lawyers, to Congress -- he wanted to make a big deal about it -- but it was over nothing at all, really. The FBI (i.e. NARA) does not have a second bullet on file -- there is only one, as shown here:

(front view) http://www.pet880.co...er_bullet_1.gif

(reverse view) http://www.pet880.co...er_bullet_2.gif

So, why would Walker get so upset about it? I believe it is because the Oswald-Walker shooting removes all suspicion from Walker as a plotter. If Walker was a victim, then he can't be an instigator...that's the sloppy logic still in place.

So, Walker was terrified that his main alibi, the Walker bullet, was being diluted by this careless treatment of his case by showing a mere symbol of his bullet on TV. Here is documented proof that this interpretation is correct: http://www.pet880.co...r_Blakey_TV.pdf

(3) Jim, you say that Oswald was never considered a suspect in the Walker case until Marina Oswald confessed it soon after the JFK assassination (December 3, 1963). But this is exactly where George De Mohrenschildt enters the picture. The WC testimony makes a big deal about the Walker shooting. Walker's name appears hundreds of times in the Warren Report.

The De Mohrenschildt's in particular were grilled on this topic repeatedly. So were Michael and Ruth Paine; but George De Mohrenschildt talked more openly about it than anybody -- not only in his WC testimony, but also in the booklet he wrote for the HSCA, namely, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy! (1977). George and Jeanne clearly suspected Lee Harvey Oswald in the Walker shooting three days after shooting.

Now, according to Dick Russell (TMWKTM) George De Mohrenschildt told his friends Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin about his suspicions about Lee Harvey Oswald on Easter Sunday 14 April 1963. Mrs. Voshinin told Dick Russell that she called the FBI immediately after George left their house that day, and she told the FBI everything that George told her.

Therefore -- it is not quite correct to say that nobody suspected Lee Harvey Oswald of shooting at General Walker in April of 1963.

Furthermore, in my own theory, the FBI (or other high-level intelligence operative) told General Walker about this suspicion on that very same day.

In my personal theory, therefore, Walker knew that Oswald was shooter in April, and made a deal with his Minuteman comrade, Guy Banister from New Orleans, to get even with Lee Harvey Oswald. Two weeks later, Lee Harvey Oswald moved to New Orleans, and got a job down the block from Guy Banister's offices, and used Guy Banisters address (544 Camp Street) on his political flyers a few weeks later.

(4) As for the police report that more than one person was involved, Dick Russell has an answer for that, too. Although Marina testified that Lee confessed to her that he shot at Walker, Lee also lied to Marina by saying (i) he was alone that night; (ii) he was on foot that night; and (iii) he buried his rifle that night.

Actually, writes Dick Russell, Lee Harvey Oswald was with accomplices, his accomplices had cars, and his accomplices stored Oswald's rifle for him. Lee simply lied through his teeth to Marina.

So, the police report was correct. There was another police report from only two nights before (the one you referred to) of a prowler at Walker's house. Robert Allen Surrey (an American Nazi) was Walker's publisher and had his American Eagle Publishing Company office in Walker's home, chased that prowler's car but didn't catch it.

Kirk Coleman, a boy of about 14, saw three men drive off that night after the shooting from the Church parking lot behind the alley behind Walker's back yard. Two men hurriedly drove off in separate cars, and one man slowly drove off in a second car.

Clearly, Oswald's accomplices could drive and owned cars. Coleman, however, said he did not get a good look at the two men; it was, after all, 9pm at night, and the boy was looking over his own back yard fence as the men ran into their car and sped away.

While it is true that Coleman never testified to the Commission, he was also terrified, and he begged the police to keep his name out of he papers, because he was afraid the men would come back to try to kill him. Sadly, the DMN could not resist printing his name, and the boy was terrified for weeks afterwards, afraid to talk to anybody.

By the way, the best source on this story is still the DPD report.

(5) Also, Jim, I disagree that the police and Walker immediately suspected Bill McDuff of the crime. It was Robert Allen Surrey and Walker's volunteer secretary, Julia Knecht who suspected Bill McDuff, while Walker thought of McDuff as a great fellow and a dear friend. McDuff was an unemployed drifter, who liked Walker very much (and was probably bisexual) and Walker enjoyed McDuff's company very much (as Walker was almost certainly homosexual) and Walker never suspected McDuff himself.

McDuff came off the street to live with Walker shortly after Walker was released from his five-day stay inside that insane asylum into which RFK had condemned him for a 90-day evaluation. McDuff said he was a big fan, and offered to work for room and board. Walker invited him right in.

The trouble was that Robert Allen Surrey and Julia Knecht simply despised Bill McDuff, and were continually looking for excuses to get rid of him. For one thing, after a few days McDuff said he would rather read books and watch television than work, and Walker was happy to let him do that! For Surrey and Knecht, McDuff was a lazy, good-for-nothing leech, and they demanded his ouster ASAP. Walker just laughed and told them that McDuff was a good guy.

However, after Walker was acquitted by a Mississippi Grand Jury for any role in the riots of Ole Miss University, Walker immediately went on a Miami to Los Angeles speaking tour (the "Midnight Ride" rally) with segregationist preacher Reverend Billy James Hargis, from February through early April, 1963. So, Robert Allen Surrey and Julia Knecht took that opportunity to pack Bill McDuff's bags and set them outside the door. McDuff took the hint and moved on. (McDuff was evidently somewhat of a gigolo, so he had plenty of other places to stay.)

When Walker returned from the Midnight Ride rally, he was sorely disappointed that McDuff had "decided to move out." Walker tried his best to locate McDuff, but could not find him.

The night after his return from the Midnight Ride rally, the shooting happened. Robert Allen Surrey and Julia Knecht told the police right away that they suspected Bill McDuff of the shooting. Walker laughed it off. He expected the Police to find a suspect -- but they never did.

The rumor that McDuff confessed to a former girlfriend was proved false by the person who stared the rumor -- the mother of one of the girls that McDuff had promised to marry, but instead simply used for her money. The mother admitted she had no evidence behind her angry accusation.

However, Surrey and Knecht nagged Walker about this sufficiently to engage his lawyer, Clyde Watts, to hire a private eye to arrest McDuff and bring him in for questioning. This was now about June, 1963. Bill McDuff was held on suspcion and subjected to intense questioning and even a lie detector exam. All of McDuff's alibis checked out, and McDuff passed the lie detector test with flying colors. The police let him go, and had no further suspects. General Walker begged McDuff to stay around, but McDuff had endured enough from Surrey and Knecht, so he left Dallas entirely.

Again, Jim, the best source about this episode is still the DPD report.

Walker often tried to locate McDuff, and we notice in the Warren Report that he speaks of McDuff in friendly tones, with fond memories.

(6) As for that rightwing West German newspaper, Deutsche Nationalzeitung, let's clarify that a bit more. The entity that brought that episode to the attention of the FBI was the German FBI (BKA) who nabbed the German reporter (Helmut Muench) and grilled him for details. Muench told the BKA that Walker called him early in the morning of 23 November 1963 with a promise of an exclusive interview about JFK. One of the things he reported was that Oswald was also his shooter; Walker told Muench that Oswald had been arrested that same April night, but was released on higher orders from Federal authorities.

Walker also indicated that he was good friends with the newspaper's editor, Dr. Gerhard Frey, formerly a Nazi propaganda specialist. Dr. Frey edited the story, and added a nuance -- it was actually Robert Kennedy who personally set Oswald free on 10 April 1963, wrote Frey, and if RFK had properly held Oswald in prison, then Oswald would not have been free to kill JFK. Frey published the Walker interview in his next weekend edition, 29 November 1963. Here's the lead article: http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg

IMHO, Dr. Frey also changed the name of the reporter from Helmut Muench to 'Hasso Thorsten,' and possibly made the interview sound more scripted (because it sounds scripted to me. The full article and the full FBI report can be found on the Mary Ferrell web site).

Walker denied to the Warren Commission that he told Helmut Muench any such thing. However, Walker had detested Earl Warren for many years, and had no genuine respect for the Warren Commission from the start. So, we have the BKA's word against Walker's word on this.

(7) We should note, also, that on 23 November 1963, Robert Allen Surrey told the Dallas Times Herald that Oswald might have been Walker's April shooter. So, this story was getting around very soon after JFK's death.

(8) Also, remember that Harry Dean, a member of this Forum, avers that he sat in a JBS meeting with General Walker and Loran Hall in September 1963 in which Walker gleefully announced that he found the perfect patsy for their Dallas plot.

(9) Walker was well aware of Lee Harvey Oswald before December, 1963. That's my theory, and I'm not alone in it.

(10) Ruth Paine's account of finding Oswald's "Walker letter" to Marina sounds genuine to me. Also, the question asked by Wesley Liebeler -- why would Oswald keep that note around for seven months -- was answered adequately by Marina, IMHO, namely, Lee did not keep the letter, but Marina kept it, and she kept it hidden. In her mind, she used it to blackmail Lee so that he would never again take his rifle out on another shooting spree. Marina sticks to that story to this very day. I find her believable.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited July 15, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Jim, you raise a lot valid questions, I do admit. Also, my aim is to be open to the facts, and nothing but the facts, and not allow my theory to fall into innuendo or bias, or jump to any conclusions on the basis of limited data. However, I think I can address most of your questions with my theory.

(1.0) I'm aware that the original report indicated a 'steel jacket' and this question came up in the Warren Commission several times. The Walker bullet on file in NARA is a 'copper jacket.' The Warren Commission FBI specialists concluded that the original report was mistaken, as it was not uncommon to use the phrase, 'steel jacket' as a generic term.

(1.1) The three sources of the 'steel jacket' report were, as you noted: (i) Officer Van Cleave; (ii) the DMN report the next morning; and (iii) AP report in the New York Times. However it is clear that DMN got the story from Van Cleave, and the AP got the story from the DMN. So there was really only one source -- Van Cleave -- and he wasn't a ballistics expert. So, he might have been mistaken. (In any case, the WC concluded that even the official Walker bullet on file could not be traced to Oswald's MCC to the exclusion of all other rifles; this was established by several independent ballistics experts, and is the official conclusion of the WC.)

(1.2) Once we admit that Oswald had accomplices in the Walker shooting, the problem of the bullet and the rifle becomes less important, because the accomplices might have brought their own weapons. Oswald might have used another person's weapon. Oswald might have been only a supporting accomplice, and another accomplice the shooter.

(1.3) It is interesting that the FBI requested the Walker bullet from the DPD on 30 November 1963, because Marina hadn't told the FBI about Lee Oswald shooting at Walker until 3 December 1963.

(1.4) So, I'm doubting your claim that the FBI requested the Walker bullet only "after the two incidents" of (i) the German newspaper article; and (ii) Ruth being questioned about the Russian letter in this book. It remains possible that the FBI followed a separate track (as Dick Russell suggests in TMWKTM)..

(1.5) I maintain that your speculation that the FBI switched bullets at that time does not qualify as a fact. It is a surmise on your part. The FBI did not switch any bullet at that time. Walker complained about Blakey switching the Walker bullet for a television camera -- showing a pristine bullet instead of the actual, mutilated bullet. It was a tempest in a teapot.

(2.0) You deny credibility to Marina Oswald -- and that is the lynchpin of your opinion, Jim. There are obvious flaws in Marina's description of the events that actually happened, as you pointed out, but almost all of them can be explained by the simple fact that Lee Harvey Oswald lied to Marina habitually.

(2.1) You are right that you previously only claimed that the DPD did not suspect Oswald in the Walker shooting until December 1963. I stand corrected.

(2.2) The FBI suspected Oswald before Marina's confession of Lee's confession -- you and I agree on this point, also.

(2.3) Yet you trace the FBI suspicion only to the 29 November 1963 publication of the Walker story in the Deutsche Nationalzeitung. I would also point out that the 23 November 1963 issue of the Dallas Morning News included an anonymous article offering the opinion that Oswald was Walker's shooter. (This was shown to me by David Lifton, who notes that the report would have necessarily been written on the evening of 22 November 1963 in order to get into the next morning's issue.)

(2.4) I would also add that the 24 November 1963 issue of the Dallas Times Herald included an interview with Robert Allen Surrey in which he offered the opinion that Oswald might have been Walker's shooter back in April 1963.

(2.5) I submit that ex-General Edwin Walker himself was the source of all three articles from the Deutsche Nationalzeitung, the Dallas Morning News and the Dallas Times Herald.

(2.6) I further submit that Walker himself was the source for the December 1963 and January 1964 articles of the National Enquirer which claim Oswald was arrested for the Walker shooting, then released. I further submit that Walker himself was the source for the January 1964 and February 1964 issues of the American Opinion magazine which also claim that Oswald was arrested for the Walker shooting, then released. (These articles were mentioned in the Warren Commission testiomony of Revilo Oliver -- the next to last of the WC witnesses.)

(2.7) On a completely different track, Dick Russell (TMWKTM) provides evidence that the FBI learned that Oswald was a suspect in the Walker shooting on Easter Sunday 14 April 1963.

(2.8) As for the Oswald note in Russian that the Secret Service discovered in a book that Ruth passed over to Marina while Marina was in custody, I do not count your allegation of forgery as a fact.

(2.9) You and many others suspect Ruth Paine of a deeper involvement than she admitted. I do, too. But my suspicions don't include the Russian letter.

(2.10) Since no spy would never have been so silly as to imagine that she could pass a secret, Russian note to Marina inside the pages of a book that she handed directly to the Secret Service, the allegation must be that Ruth Paine wanted the Secret Service to find his note in order to more fully condemn Lee Oswald. Yet the note merely confirms Marina's testimony that Lee Oswald confessed to being Walker's shooter. It was not even vital evidence. If it was really a forgery, why risk exposure for such a weak ruse?

(2.11) I probably have a lot more trust in Ruth Paine than many others here -- and yet I've read the allegations against her. I suspect that both Ruth Paine and Michael Paine withheld information from the WC principally about one important fact -- their degree of involvement in the shooting at ex-General Edwin Walker.

(2.12) In my reading, Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenshildt put Lee Oswald on display in a social experiment to convert his anger over the Bay of Pigs into anger over ex-General Walker. They did this in a party in Dallas in late January, 1963.

(2.13) The De Mohrenshildt's were at this party, and so was Ruth Paine (and possibly Michael as well). It was a cat and mouse game of the comfortable class over the lower class. It was a shameful spectacle. They toyed with Lee Oswald's mind.

(2.14) Marina Oswald told the Warren Commission that Michael Paine and Lee Oswald would talk about nothing but politics together, and would even go to political meetings together. Marina Oswald told the Commission that Lee Oswald told her personally that he confessed to Michael Paine that he had been Walker's shooter back in April. The WC asked Michael Paine directly about this, and he denied it firmly. But the WC asked the Paines many questions about General Walker, and they continually denied any knowledge or involvement of any kind. I'm inclined to believe Marina Oswald on this point.

(2.15) Still, at the very first party the Paines attended where they met the Oswalds -- their participation at that party was firm evidence that they were part of a hate-Walker movement in Dallas. This would prove to be relevant to the JFK assassination -- and they knew it. But they just put all the blame on Lee Oswald, and the WC was happy to accept that "lone nut" conclusion.

(2.16) I'm aware, Jim, of the upper-middle-class and very conservative background of Ruth Paine, and of the educated yet very liberal background of Michael Paine. However, when you allege "false statements" on their part, I wonder how far we will agree on which of their statements are false, and which are true.

(2.17) I will agree on a key point with you -- if the JFK case is ever re-opened, I would also like to see Michael and Ruth Paine questioned again, along with every surviving person who attended that party at Volkmar Schmidt's house in January, 1963.

(2.18) But I wouldn't ask about the Russian letter -- I think that's been answered adequately. I would, instead, ask about that first party in which Volkmar Schmidt played with Lee Oswald's mind. And I would also probe much deeper into the politics of the Anti-Walker movement in Dallas.

(2.19) I have no problem believing that an urban, middle-class Quaker would take Marina into her home a few weeks before Marina was going to give birth. I have no problem believing that a Quaker would relieve Marina of any feeling of obligation by pretending to take Russian lessons from her. I find Ruth Paine believable on most of her testimony -- it's what she refused to talk about that I would want to question her.

(2.20) As for Michael Paine's testimony before WC attorney Wesley Liebeler, his confusion about the date in which he met first met Oswald is not a defining issue, nor is the correction by Liebeler, even if it came from Ruth Paine. Yet I suspect that Michael Paine bore more guilt for the behavior of Lee Harvey Oswald than he was willing to admit. I suspect that Michael Paine goaded Oswald on and on to despise General Walker. I believe Michael should be obliged to account for each and every minute he ever spent with Lee Oswald.

(2.21) Michael Paine admitted to the WC that he drove Lee Harvey Oswald to General Walker's "US DAY" rally on 23 October 1963, very likley in order to observe the enemy. Yet I suspect that Michael Paine really entered the auditorium with Lee Harvey Oswald that night, even though he claims he himself attended an ACLU meeting down the street. I sincerely doubt that, and I think it betrays that Paine knew that his anti-Walker attitudes played a distinct role in forming the mind of Lee Harvey Oswald.

(3.0) I did notdismiss Coleman as a witness because it was dark out. I accepted most of his testimony as correct, precisely because there were night lights out. However, I cannot accept the premise that Coleman could make a facial identification at night from the distance in which he observed the shooters.

(3.1) That is, the 14-year old Coleman said that he could not identify any of the shooters he saw as Lee Harvey Oswald. But did he see close-ups of the shooters' faces? No. Nor was Coleman asked this in April, when his memory was fresh, but only in December, eight months later. Coleman's claim that Oswald wasn't one of the Walker shooters that night is open to question and doubt -- how could he make a night-time witness at a considerable distance eight months later?

(3.2) It seems, Jim, that you suspect Hoover and the FBI of suppressing Coleman's testimony before the WC, while actually the DPD report specifically says that young Coleman was terrified of appearing in public as a witness in the shooting, because he feared the shooters would come back to shoot him. He had nightmares at night after the DMN insensitively printed his picture in the papers. He would cry and refuse to go outside. He was terrified. This was not the kind of witness we can rely upon.

(3.3) You note that Walker's home had been cased twice in the days leading up to the shooting, as reported Robert Allen Surrey and Max Claunch. Yet this conforms to Marina's testimony that Oswald took photographs and drew careful maps of Walker's house and the surrounding area. It also conforms to Bob Schmidt's claim (TMWKTM) that he and Larrie Schmidt were Oswald's drivers.

(4.0) As for the flip-flops in Marina Oswald's story before she was sworn in and after she was sworn in, this was also discussed in the WC transcripts. Marina was terrified after Lee was arrested. She was also humiliated and wanted the world to go away. Now here was the FBI, pushing their way into her life, taking her into custody, and so on. She did not know how to behave with them -- her only knowledge of such entities would have been the Russian secret police -- and they were horrible.

(4.1) So, yes, I'm very forgiving of Marina's testimony before she was sworn in. However, after she had an opportunity to learn the ground rules, and after she received a ton of money from sympathetic Americans who sent her and her children money through the mail, she calmed down quite a bit. After she was assured that if she cooperated by telling the whole truth as she knew it that she and her children would not be deported back to Russia, as a humiliation to all Russians, she sat down and wrote out her full story.

(4.2) After Marina was sworn in, she gave full and truthful testimony -- and she never wavered from that testimony to this very day. Her sworn testimony is believable, IMHO.

(4.3) Now, somebody might say that Marina believed in 1964 Oswald was JFK's lone killer, but today she doesn't believe that. That's not quite accurate. Marina said many times, to the WC itself, that she had very little information to work with, since Lee Oswald kept her isolated and in the dark most of the time. Based on the little information she had in 1964, it appeared to her that Oswald acted alone to kill JFK. However, she added even in 1964, that if she had more information she might easily change her mind. Today Marina Oswald Porter believes that Lee Oswald couldn't have acted alone. That also happens to be the official position of the HSCA, i.e. of the U.S. Congress.

(4.4) Also -- and this cannot be repeated enough -- just because Marina told the truth about what she observed Lee Oswald do and say, this does not mean that this is exactly what Lee Oswald actually did, because in point of fact, Lee Harvey Oswald lied habitually to Marina Oswald.

(4.5) So, naturally she would get many, many facts wrong -- she would rarely question Lee, who had already beaten her several times, and who was her only visible means of support in the USA.

(4.6) Again -- I emphasize the difference between her sworn testimony and the defensive claims that she made before she was sworn in.

(4.7) So, the mistake about the typing class was simply the result of Oswald's lie to her. Very simple.

(4.8) Also, the mistake about the parking lot being full -- again, that was the result of Oswald's lie to her.

(4.9) Marina's claim that Oswald kept a secret notebook with plans, sketches and photos of Walker's house is believable to me. We have some of the pictures.

(4.10) I know many people believe that the photos were forgeries -- but I see no compelling reason to allege that speculation.

(4.11) The notebook was not out in the open -- it was locked in Oswald's private room. Wasn't that risky? This same question was asked by the WC attorneys. But we're dealing with a 23-year old Marine with a dishonorable discharge handicap, and with a wife, a baby, and another baby on the way. Lee had no father to rely upon -- and his mother was unreliable. Nor was Lee the brightest bulb on the tree. Boasting was evidently his biggest weakness -- and if he could make postal boxes with special binary codes, and with messages that also glowed in the dark, and if he was also a boaster, then I can easily imagine Lee snapping his fingers at risk.

(4.12) As for Lee burning his notebook after the shooting, as Marina claimed he did, you allege that Marina changed her story. Actually she said she saw the photos both before and after the burning, and that Oswald decided to keep some of the photos. Risky? Yes, but in the case of Lee Harvey Oswald, entirely plausible, IMHO.

(4.13) As for Marina claiming that Oswald buried his rifle -- don't forget that she was only repeating what Oswald told her. I am confident that Lee Oswald lied to her repeatedly. The green military raincoat was another probable lie.

(4.14) As for Marina not knowing that Lee lost his job at J-C-S, I find that very believable. A xxxx would withhold that sort of a lie almost automatically. This happened twice -- first in Dallas and later in New Orleans. Lee would lose his job, and not tell Marina, but would leave the house every morning around 7am and return every evening around 6pm just as though nothing had happened. In both cases this went on for 3-4 weeks before Lee finally admitted the truth to Marina!

(4.15) Finally, Jim, the fact that Marina spoke English as a second language, and that fairly poorly, must be taken into account in her testimony, yet it seems many critics of Marina Oswald will not grant her that rightful courtesy. Probably most of the documented contradictions in her testimony could be explained by her ESL. But in 1963 ESL did not get much attention. Yet without taking ESL into account, the full purport of a person's communication is not fully appreciated.

Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
<edit typos>

Edited December 18, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

This sounds like Lee Harvey Oswald was psychologically changed into a "hunter of fascists" by Volkmar Schmidt (who used an object-hatred transference trick successfully applied in group/party milieus), because liberal intellectuals winced whenever they heard the name of General Edwin Walker and because Oswald had gotten on de Mohrenschildt's nerves. That's an interesting idea.

That's right, Daniel. Let's delve into this more fully by reading the words of Volkmar Schmidt himself. Below is a transcript from the telephone interview of Volkmar Schmidt taken in January, 1995, by a well-known member of this FORUM, William E. Kelly.

I'd like to highlight four points within this interview: (1) Schmidt admitted that he probably 'triggered' Lee Harvey Oswald's impulse to kill General Walker; (2) Schmidt admitted that his motive (and that of his party) was that Oswald had been criticizing JFK, the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban situation; (3) Schmidt cited the Ole Miss riots as proof that Walker was like Hitler; and (4) Michael and Ruth Paine were connected in various ways to this party.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

----------- begin transcript -------------------------------------------------------------

KELLY: Hello, Volkmar Schmidt?

SCHMIDT: Speaking.

KELLY: I’m a journalist from Atlantic City and I’m affiliated with the Committee for an Open Archives in Washington D.C. First let me make sure I’m talking with the right Volkmar Schmidt. Were you friends with George DeMohrenschildt.

SCHMIDT: Yes. With whom are you affiliated?

KELLY: I’m a freelance writer and I’m associated with the Committee for an Open Archives, which lobbied for the release of the JFK assassination files that they are now releasing. I think it’s important as a journalist to try to track down as many witnesses as possible and talk with them to get as much information on the record as possible.

SCHMIDT: I have no problem with that at all.

KELLY: Do you have a few minutes to talk with me?

SCHMIDT: Absolutely, no problem.

KELLY: Can you relate to me how you first came to meet DeMohrenschildt and Oswald?

SCHMIDT: I met the DeMohrenschilt through some of the people who worked with me at the research lab.

KELLY: Magnolia?

SCHMIDT: Yes, Magnolia, or Mobil Oil. I think the fellow who got us in touch was Everett, Doctor Glover, and they knew that two of us at the research lab, Norm Fredrickson and myself wanted to study Russian. So we were introduced to them. I forget the details, but it was through the people at the FRL. Soon after I met them they arranged this dinner party at their place at which they invited Lee Harvey Oswald. That was the only time I met the Oswalds.

KELLY: You talked with him at length that night?

SCHMIDT: Yes, I spent about two solid hours with him.

KELLY: What was your impression of him?

SCHMIDT: The same impression as my colleagues had, who all met them because I had arranged a party after that for them to meet Lee Harvey Oswald and his family...A very disturbed man. A man desperate, spiritually, totally desperate. That’s why I talked with him, to try to get him back to sanity. His determination to leave an imprint in history was just incredible. The warning flags went right off for me that this man was ready to explode and do harm to him and others. Specifically what flashed to me, the logical suicide of Dostoevsky, that story, a man is devoid of spiritual meaning in life, then the knowledge of power of intellect creates a great dilemma. That’s what Dostoevsky beautifully put down. So anyway, I had been around people who were even more disturbed during my youth because I grew up in the house of a psychiatrist.

KELLY: ...How did you come to Dallas?

SCHMIDT: I got a job with Magnolia in Germany because I worked for the German subsidiary as a co-op student in Germany, so they hired me after I graduated. They interviewed me in Paris and hired me on the strength of my thesis work.

KELLY: DeMohrenschildt had some high praise for your work.

SCHMIDT: I didn’t know that.

KELLY: On research on petroleum bearing rock formations?

SCHMIDT: Yes. I’m a specialist, and I’m still appreciated although I am ready to retire now.

KELLY: Can you give me some more of your impressions of Oswald?

SCHMIDT: Oswald found out that if you really want to do something you can succeed in a lot of things, it just takes determination. That’s how he learned Russian, yeah? It took incredible determination. And he pulled himself out of really low class upbringing in Fort Worth, which was hell, so he was a bitter young man because of social injustice, which quite frankly existed in Texas especially. So he was a nothing, who tried to make something out of himself. And he was looking, like many Americans, for notoriety. It was subconsciously, the only avenue to succeed. He would kill himself if he could leave a mark, and he left a terrible mark. So he was a very, very desperate man.

KELLY: You mentioned General Walker when you talked with Oswald?

SCHMIDT: Yes, Professor Kuetemeyer told me you know, to deal with people like this who are disturbed, you have to use empathy, be slightly over zealous yourself to like up with them and that total insanity, towards reality. When I heard how hateful he was towards Kennedy and Cuba, which was kind of irrational, I tried to say "hey, there’s something much more real to be concerned about," because I don’t know about Castro, but I know about this Walker, he’s kind of a Nazi, yeah? Not so bad as those Nazis in Germany, but I had specifically mentioned to Lee Harvey Oswald, that Walker had given a speech to the students at the Mississippi campus and those guys went off and killed a couple of journalists.

KELLY: Yes, reporters died during those racial riots.

SCHMIDT: Absolutely, and here's something that we have to protest, and think about it. But I said it has to be all constructive, yes? There was a racial problem and you have to bring justice to the minorities.

KELLY: So do you think your conversation with Oswald about Walker may have instigated him to take a pot shot at him?

SCHMIDT: Yes, he did, and naturally it was a terrible responsibility, and for years when I drove past the underpass I literally had to cry because, you know. But I exonerate myself completely because I had the best intent, defend Kennedy, and I certainly didn’t tell him to take a pot shot at Walker.

KELLY: I didn’t think you told him to do it, just because you were talking to him about it...

SCHMIDT: I may have triggered it. Actually, a few days after I talked with him, he bought his weapons.

KELLY: It’s a shame that it’s been 30 years and we are just beginning to look at the files.

SCHMIDT: One thing is that the DeMohrenschildts were terribly afraid of all kinds of things, people disappearing and what not, and were afraid to talk about it. They also said that Oswald didn’t do it, but I think it could have been that they had the key in their hand. When they saw this nut giving them a picture with, "the Nazi killer." It was totally irresponsible for George DeMohrenschildt not to make a noise about it. He told me about it.

KELLY: He knew that Oswald had the rifle.

SCHMIDT: Yes.

KELLY: Now DeMohrenschildt had a shady background himself. And by shady I mean he had these affiliations with intelligence agencies, which leaves open the possibility that the assassination was a covert operation disguised as a patsy as the lone nut. Do you think that is possible?

SCHMIDT: No. He (DeMohrenschildt) was a bit of a nut, but he was also a very spread out person. He was totally irresponsible, the playboy, being the old man, but he was loyal in certain ways to his family and friends, and I don’t think George used this to make money, but he was an opportunist to the first degree, but he had some ideals, like Hemingway.

KELLY: He was a debonair kind of guy.

SCHMIDT: He was too disorganized to be a truly efficient conspirator. He was a good operator.

KELLY: You knew him up until he died?

SCHMIDT: Up until his death, and I could have probably avoided his suicide because he wrote me a very moving, desperate letter to me, asking if he could come and stay with us in my basement. A desperate letter. And I probably would have let him come, but his wife Jeanne and her dogs, she would have been a vexation to my wife.

KELLY: That’s a shame, because I read his manuscript, "I’m a Patsy," and I learned that Jeanne just died recently.

SCHMIDT: I lost touch. She became a vexation to me. I visited her, and she became more and more irrational. And she used the daughter of a Mexican friend, a common friend of my family and really disturbed her life.

KELLY: Do you know what became of the slide show of their walking trip through Mexico and Guatemala?

SCHMIDT: I don’t know what happened to that.

KELLY: Did you see that?

SCHMIDT: Yes.

KELLY: What was your impression of that?

SCHMIDT: Well it was truly an adventure when he and Jeanne got together and traveled through the back country there. It was an adventure trip.

KELLY: Yes, I was interested in it and was disappointed that it wasn’t among the official records.

SCHMIDT: He wrote a whole story about it. I read a manuscript on it. Do you have that manuscript?

KELLY: No, but I was trying to locate it.

SCHMIDT: It was interesting. They ran into bandits, and so forth, and visited Mexican friends. The guy had spirit and guts, very smart, spoke many languages. He was a fellow, despite all of his flaws, which I saw, I was really a loyal friend to him. And he knew that I am a solid Christian in my actions, and he respected my honesty and I respected him, despite all his flaws, for whatever good was in his personality. It shows a lot. There was also a lot of irresponsibility in him.

KELLY: What about Michael Paine, did you know him?

SCHMIDT: I did not know them very much, but they were a wonderful family that I knew through the circle of young professionals at the Magnolia labs.

KELLY: Magnolia was at one time owned by a man named Little, did you know him?

SCHMIDT: That must be before me. When I came in it was solidly in Mobil Oil’s hands.

KELLY: I think he must have been in the 50s.

SCHMIDT: I came in 1961.

KELLY: Then you moved to Canada.

SCHMIDT: I moved to Canada in 1968, but I still worked for Magnolia and Mobil Oil until 1976, so I was very often down in Dallas.

KELLY: When you organized the party for the Paines to meet the Oswalds, you were on a business trip?

SCHMIDT: A whole bunch of people came there, but I was on a trip to Libya and overseas. But I put some money down and arranged it, and did my best.

KELLY: You were trying to help Oswald out.

SCHMIDT: Absolutely, especially Marina. That was the other thing. I saw Marina and the little child and Oswald just didn’t take any notice of them, and I thought, "boy, are you in trouble."

KELLY: ...Thank you for talking to me. Do you mind if I call you back if I have any more questions?

SCHMIDT: No, I don’t mind. You see the one thing I can do, is you have to be very honest and upright and open to anybody. I’m not scared of conspiracy. If anybody wants to go after me, fine.

KELLY: Well my goal, as a journalist, the only thing I am after is the complete truth.

SCHMIDT: Well good luck, it is an important endeavor.

----------------- end transcript ------------------------

Edited August 11, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[B. A. Copeland]

Of course the CIA was working against Readers' Digest's Epstein, which means the CIA was working against itself, chasing its own tail, makes perfect sense. If you don't sit down and break bread with lizards, you'll never risk being influenced to belief they are regular guys, just like you and me!

My point exactly Scully. It can be demonstrated that often times there have been times where the CIA will "beat itself up" in public using assets/operatives on both sides (alex jones, the 9/11 issue, the plethora of fake alternative reporting websites anyone?).

I remember learning how fake the Oswald/Walker story was lol...

[Paul Trejo]

...I remember learning how fake the Oswald/Walker story was lol...

I've heard the arguments about how the Oswald/Walker story is "fake," however those arguments don't convince me.

Those arguments require that (1) Marina Oswald; (2) George De Mohrenschildt; (3) Jeane De Mohrenshildt; (4) Igor Voshinin; (5) Mrs. Igor Voshinin; (6) Volkmar Schmidt; (7) Ruth Paine; and (8) the FBI agents watching Marina, were all somehow plotting along with General Walker to push his fiction of Oswald's shooting at him on 10 April 1963.

However, since all of those people were politically opposed to the segregationist politics of General Walker (i.e. his violent opposition to the application of James Meredith to Ole Miss on 30 September 1962), such a plot is more of a fiction than the fiction it presumes.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited August 12, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Gorton]

Since the time I started this thread, my thinking about Ed Epstein has evolved. I am now of the opinion that Ed Epstein is a knowing agent of disinformation. When I first met Ed, I knew very little about him or his background. At that time, I knew that he had written on the topic of the JFK assassination, but that was about all I knew. When we had dinner, I was somewhat puzzled by Ed's seeming lack of interest in the JFK assassination. He came across as someone who had not paid much attention to the assassination in the past 20 or 30 years. Although he said that he thought the CIA was behind the assassination, he seemed unable to elaborate on why he thought that or who at the CIA was involved. At the time, I wrote off his lack of interest and clear thinking as a product of someone who was not familiar with some of the information which came out in the last few decades, and I also assumed that his high degree of contact with James Angleton had confused him.

I have another friend to whom I have explained my views about the Coup of ’63. As a weird coincidence, she also knows Ed Epstein. She sees him a bit socially, and she told me that Ed was writing a book about the Cuban angle for the assassination. Based on my conversations with this friend, she kind of knows that LBJ was behind the assassination, so she asked Ed if he thought that LBJ was behind the assassination, and Ed said, “yes”.

I then later found out that Ed had been speaking publicly about the JFK assassination being a pro-Castro operation: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/at-the-newseum-epsteins-unconvincing-indictment-of-the-pro-castro-assassin/#comments His comments about Oswald being in league with Castro were completely contradictory with what he told me and also my other friend. In addition, the fact that he is actively talking and thinking about the JFK assassination discredits my previous benign assumption about him being uninterested and out of date with the JFK assassination, so the only explanation that properly accounts for all of these facts is that Ed is a knowing agent of disinformation.

Ed being a knowing agent of disinformation would also be consistent with his false attacks on Terry Reed when Compromised was released. (See Defrauding America p 431-432 for this tidibit.) And some of the other posts on this thread also point out a series of other actions taken by Ed over the years that have served the purpose of spreading misinformation.

[Paul Trejo]

Since the time I started this thread, my thinking about Ed Epstein has evolved. I am now of the opinion that Ed Epstein is a knowing agent of disinformation. When I first met Ed, I knew very little about him or his background. At that time, I knew that he had written on the topic of the JFK assassination, but that was about all I knew. When we had dinner, I was somewhat puzzled by Ed's seeming lack of interest in the JFK assassination. He came across as someone who had not paid much attention to the assassination in the past 20 or 30 years. Although he said that he thought the CIA was behind the assassination, he seemed unable to elaborate on why he thought that or who at the CIA was involved. At the time, I wrote off his lack of interest and clear thinking as a product of someone who was not familiar with some of the information which came out in the last few decades, and I also assumed that his high degree of contact with James Angleton had confused him.

I have another friend to whom I have explained my views about the Coup of ’63. As a weird coincidence, she also knows Ed Epstein. She sees him a bit socially, and she told me that Ed was writing a book about the Cuban angle for the assassination. Based on my conversations with this friend, she kind of knows that LBJ was behind the assassination, so she asked Ed if he thought that LBJ was behind the assassination, and Ed said, “yes”.

I then later found out that Ed had been speaking publicly about the JFK assassination being a pro-Castro operation: http://jfkfacts.org/...assin/#comments His comments about Oswald being in league with Castro were completely contradictory with what he told me and also my other friend. In addition, the fact that he is actively talking and thinking about the JFK assassination discredits my previous benign assumption about him being uninterested and out of date with the JFK assassination, so the only explanation that properly accounts for all of these facts is that Ed is a knowing agent of disinformation.

Ed being a knowing agent of disinformation would also be consistent with his false attacks on Terry Reed when Compromised was released. (See Defrauding America p 431-432 for this tidibit.) And some of the other posts on this thread also point out a series of other actions taken by Ed over the years that have served the purpose of spreading misinformation.

Mark, what is the bottom line theory that Ed Epstein wishes to promote? If, as you say, he is an agent of disinformation, what false theory does he strive to vindicate?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Mark Gorton]

Paul,

It looks like he is trying to pin it on Castro: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/at-the-newseum-epsteins-unconvincing-indictment-of-the-pro-castro-assassin/

Best,

Mark

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Excellent posts by Mark Gorton and it really does call into question Edward Jay Epstein's integrity: telling Mark the CIA did it, someone else LBJ did it and then very recently implying Castro may have coordinated with Oswald in the JFK assassination.

In addition to that, Epstein has in the past made some pretty savage attacks on Terry Reed’s seminal book: “Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA” (1994) which blew the lid off of CIA drug smuggling as it implicated the highest levels of the Republican & Democratic parties. Epstein’s attacks came in the form of a WSJ column on 4/20/1994 attacking Terry Reed.

Much of what Reed was saying has been confirmed later. As Bill Clinton told an incensed L.D. Brown about the drug dealing “That’s Lasater’s deal! That’s Lasater’s deal! And your buddy [GHW[ Bush knows about it!”

For Epstein's attack on Terry Reed, go to p. 474 of "Defrauding America" by Rodney Stich: http://books.google....ry reed&f=false

Edited April 13, 2013 by Robert Morrow