Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Most Damning Evidence Against Oswald


Tim Gratz

Recommended Posts

It is probably worth noting here that on the evening of the so-called attempt on Walker's life, journalist Eddie Hughes had reported that the slug was in fact a 30.06.

Then we have the witness (a Walker aide) who claimed to have seen two men studying the backyard area from a rear alley, later departing in a dark colored 1963 Ford with no licence plates.

DPD later saying this spot is where the shot was fired, pointing out a fresh chip in the fence where the rifle was allegedly braced.

FWIW.

James

Edited by James Richards
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

James I believe the witness who saw two men leaving in a car was Walter Kirk Coleman, who was a fifteen year old neighbor of Walker.

According to "Breach of Trust" in 1979 when Walker saw Prof Blakey hold up CE573 which Blakey said was the bullet fired into Walker's home,Walker was shocked because it was NOT he said the piece of lead the police had discovered, which he had held in his hand. He started a decade long but unsuccessful effort to "withdraw the substituted bullet" from all records and files relating to the Kennedy assassination. Most interesting.

By the way, I think any student of the JFK case should read "Breach of Trust", it is an excellent book. My only criticism so far is it should have included a report on how the FBI and WC handled the Odio story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim,

Yes, Coleman also described a Chevrolet at the scene and a man throwing something inside before it departed just after the Ford. BTW, didn't Bowers describe a black Ford and a White Chevy cruising the parking lot just before the assassination?

Anyway, the first night reporting of the Walker incident also included this other man as a witness. He was described as and I quote, "a Walker aide and business associate". His name was never mentioned.

FWIW.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is an interesting and perhaps important thread.

In "Breach of Promise" McKnight reports that FBI agent Henry H. Heilberger concluded in a report on a spectographic study of the Walker bullet that it was a different lead alloy than the two large bullet fragments recovered from the presidential limousine. Heidelberger discussed that with WC asst counsel Eisenberg. Does it surprise anyone that Heidelberger was not called as a WC witness?

FBI ballistics expert Frazier did state that the slug was a 6.5 mm copper-jacket bullet, however.

I know that the NAA has now been debunked but wonder if there is any other reliable way to prove or disprove whether CE 573 came from the MC? (Of course we have the troubling report that Walker was adamant that CE 573 was not the bullet fragment he had been shown.)

My point is this: if it can be proved that LHO was not the Walker shooter that MUST mean that both Mrs Paine and Marina lied about it and the note was a forgery. If so, and if either would now state who put them up to it, we climb one more rung up the conspiracy ladder. Arguably, since there is no statute of limitations on murder, if in fact one or both lied they could still be subject to criminal prosecution as an accessory after the fact. But perhaps Marina could be encouraged to now tell the truth if for no other reason than for the sake of her children she might want to set the record straight on her slain husband.

But I must state I am yet an agnostic on this issue: maybe LHO did shoot at Walker and Marina is telling the truth. My query is whether there are any tests that can reliably tell whether the recovered bullet came from Oswald's rifle. If that could be accomplished, then we would know.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim,

Yes, Coleman also described a Chevrolet at the scene and a man throwing something inside before it departed just after the Ford. BTW, didn't Bowers describe a black Ford and a White Chevy cruising the parking lot just before the assassination?

Anyway, the first night reporting of the Walker incident also included this other man as a witness. He was described as and I quote, "a Walker aide and business associate". His name was never mentioned.

FWIW.

James

from 'Ford Hardtop' Topic:

"Robert Surrey, an aide to General Edwin Walker, reported that on Saturday, April 6, 1963, at about 9:00 p.m., "two white men in a 1963 Ford [four door Sedan], dark purple or dark brown, parked in the alley directly behind the complainant's [General Edwin Walker] house. These persons were witnessed getting out of the car and walking up to the property line and smoking the place over." They were dressed in suits. Robert Surrey followed them for thirty minutes as they left the alley and stated: "There was no license plate on this car, either front or rear."

Robert Surrey: (Rockwell, ANP (in Oswalds address book))

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...156|1|1|1|4515|

___

EDIT: Possible items of interest: (in quotes posts by Bernice)

Harvey Henderson and Robert Lilley of the pres detail may have been feeding info to the MSC. Harvey Henderson was from Mississippi.

"In speaking to two other agents Maurice Martineau, (Mr.Bolden's superior in Chicago) and Robert Lilley, the name Harvey Henderson, struck a nerve..Martineau spoke nervously :" I knew him...not very well...I didn't have too much contact with him.".."

"Oliver Stone consultant Gus Russo told the author in 92..that Mr.Bolden told him that Agent Robert Lilley" was either privy to the assassination or had foreknowledge. " When asked Bolden if this was true, he nervously said :

"(pause)....I don't recall right at this moment......." "

There is a report of a HH providing detailed service records of a person of interest (to the MSC) from the SS office in the Jackson PO in 1970.

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...|70|1|1|1|5567|

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...56|1|1|1|18757|

___

"Mr.Bolden also had wished that his fellow agents had been at the trial or at least had read the transcript..

As it did turn out one agent WAS at Bolden's trial ....

Louis B. Sims who was later discovered as being one of the agents who were in charge of maintaining the elaborate eavesdropping operation for the Nixon, White House..and changing the tapes...( RIF #180-10093-10022:HSCA interview with Sims..5/22/78."

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel as though maybe I'm missing something here. People keep mentioning the note Oswald supposedly wrote after he shot Walker. A couple of things about this give me pause:

1--was it ever actually proven Oswald, to the exclusion of anyone else, wrote the note?

Courtney, hand-writing analysis showed it to be in his hand, but that's not a perfect science. The only other evidence was Marina's testimony. If I recall, it did not bear his prints.

2--Gen. Walker and his shooting aren't even mentioned in the note, right?

Correct.

So how can anyone be sure that the note was even written in reference to this act?

Though the note was undated, references in it help establish it was written somewhere around the time of the "attempt" on Walker. I think it may have a margin of error of one or two weeks. There was another incident around this time for which he may have feared arrest. A New Orleans FPCC style stunt.

If Oswald even a) wrote the note and b ) shot at Walker?

3--wasn't the note supposedly found in a cookbook given to Marina by Ruth Paine? (or was that the Mexico City bus ticket?) How coincidental! And why on earth, if Oswald really had shot at Walker, would he keep the note?

According to Marina, he told her to destroy a bunch of other stuff, but somehow neglected this. And yes, I think you're right in saying Ruth Paine was involved in very timely finding of some evidence.

Thought I had this issue cleared up for myself (am of the belief that Oswald didn't shoot at Walker) but if any of you can give me some references of where I might look to refresh my memory on this subject, I'd be much obliged. :)

Mary Ferrell Foundation website. Even if you are not a paid subscriber, search results at least will give you an idea of which books might be useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, for the benefit of lay readers, if LHO had gone to trial, and if Marina had wanted to testify against him, LHO could have blocked her testimony under the spousal immunity clause

I am afraid Tim is giving "lay readers" a picture of the American legal system that looks a lot like the system described in THE TRIAL by Franz Kafka. In that system, Joseph K's entire life was on trial (and his guilt was a foregone conclusion).

In the American system, a man is tried for one crime at a time. If Walker had also been among the wounded on November 22nd, then his wounding could be included in a trial on the JFK assasination. But the scenario Tim (and the Warren Commission) paints involves a man being tried in one proceeding, before the same jury, for two entirely different crimes committed in entirely different circumstances on entirely different occasions and involving entirely different witnesses.

Such a trial would be nothing more than a mind-f##k for the jury.

Such a trial would be a travesty and would be inconceivable under American law. No wonder Earl Warren refused to allow defense counsel to participate in his so-called "hearings," where no legal objections would be entertained.

Even John Kaplan of Stanford law school, one of Lee Oswald's most bitter acusers, admitted that evidence relating to the Walker shooting (of which there isn't much) would be inadmissable in a trial of Lee Oswald for the JFK murder.

In the American system, Lee Oswald could have been tried (seperately) for the Walker shooting IF there was a prima facie case against him. Of course even legal scholars who support the Warren Commission admit that there is not, and never was, even a prima facie case against him, spousal immunity or no spousal immunity.

It is a legal and historical fact that the Warren Commission used the Walker shooting for the sole purpose of blackening Lee Oswald's reputation, the object being to prejudice the public mind against him and thereby distract attention from the flimsy case against him in the JFK assassination.

Now if Oswald did not in fact attempt to shoot Walker, the necessary implications are rather staggerong. It means the note must be forged and Ruth Paine was participating in the frame. And Marina as well.

Another red herring. Paine offered no testimony about the Walker shooting, and Marina said only that Lee told her he did it. Of course if I told MY wife that I did it, would that be enough to find me guilty?

If you read McMillan's book you will see that Lee was quite the jokester on occasion, e.g. suggesting that he and his heavily pregnant wife should hijack a plane to Cuba. He is not here now to explain his comments about the Walker shooting, but suppose he said he was just kidding Marina as part of a practical joke, then there wouldn't be much of a case left against him, now would there?

In any event, even IF HE HAD BEEN TRIED AND CONVICTED of the Walker shooting, that fact -- as Earl Warren must have known -- would be inadmissable as irrelevant character evidence if offered at Lee Oswald's trial in the JFK case.

And that is assuming that there is enough evidence to send him for trial in the JFK case, which is another day's work entirely.

As for the title of this thread, we havn't yet seen ANY damning evidence against him in this thread, apart from attempts to assassinate his character.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim

You stated: "Greg, not only were Oswald's prints not found on the note, neither were Marina's. The WC never bothered to mention that little fact."

Not only were latent prints not found on the note, the note was obviously never tested.

In 1954 the FBI began testing the use of Ninhydrin to lift latent prints on paper and it was in common use by 1957. The technique has proven successful for prints up to 30 years old. The process replaced the use of Silver nitrate which had replaced the use of Iodine Fuming (both of which were successful in lifting only recent prints from paper).

The problem with the use of Ninhydrin is that it will distroy or "run" any ink that is on the paper being tested. The evidence that the FBI did not test the note for fingerprints is that the note exists intact today without the ink being distroyed.

It seems that a conscious decission was made to keep the note intact (and note use Ninhydrin on it) since the FBI felt that the handwritting expert/s and Marina had both identified the note as having been written by Oswald.

But this creates an interesting problem for your logic:

If the FBI had "chosen" to destroy the note in order to lift prints I think we would be having a different discussion about the note and its authenticity today. It would seem that if consirators had a thought that the note could be proved not to be Oswald's (since in your theory they only needed it to prove Oswald's guilt) they would have had it destroyed using the ligitimate excuse of checking it for latent prints by a method that is/has been proven to be successful (but will distroy the document). Because the "conspirators" did not allow the use of the Ninhydrin method to examine the note (thus not distroying it) would seem to suggest that the "conspirators" believed that the note was in fact Oswald's and keeping it intact would continue to support the facts pointing to the quilt of Oswald.

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To William:

http://www.odessa.edu/dept/govt/dille/bria...306C/UNIT6A.doc

Until the 1970s the gubernatorial term was only two years so there was a gubernatorial election in 1964 as well as 1962.

Professor McKnight clearly states (on page 51) that Walker was a candidate in the 1964 election. His book seems so carefully researched that I suspect he is correct. So Walker could have run both in 1962 and again in 1964.

If he did run, I can't find any trace of it. In all my files and in several bio's on Walker, there is no mention of a 64' campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Raymond:

Now if Oswald did not in fact attempt to shoot Walker, the necessary implications are rather staggerong. It means the note must be forged and Ruth Paine was participating in the frame.

Imagine that!

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William, I think you are probaby correct.

I was sure I read in "Breach of Trust" that Walker was running for Gov when the allegation first arose that LHO had shot at him nd he thought he might benefit politically. I will have to recheck the reference.

Thanks!

Tim

About a year ago I had the opportunity to correspond with Gerald McKnight about exactly the topic of the Walker incident. He himself said, "I don't believe that Oswald ever took a shot at Walker." although he has the accademic honesty to realize that the note written by Oswald, if written by Oswald, is damning!

McKnight was also clear that he is swayed by the Cuban angle in the assassination but was intrigued and helpful at directing me towards some additional researchers that would support my "nuclear" angle. "It certanly was true that the single most important geostrategic card in the government's hand in dealing with the international communist threat (USSR and China) was he overwhelming asymmetric advantage the US held in terms of its nuclear arsenal." Mcknight said. He then pointed me to some information that as he said, "You'll immediately see how it reinforce your Taylor/McCloy thesis."

Jim, Ike was playing high stakes Nash's Equilibrium moving toward the policy of MAD. And therein was the purpose of Oswald's trip to USSR.

His last quote continues to haunt me, "My deepest view of this whole thing is that if we ever get near the truth surrounding the assassination it will exceed any fictional rendering."

Overall I feel that Gerald McKnight was a wonderful and honest resource that took the time to read and critique some of my work. He is particularly interested in the Walker event and believe, as I do, that this event could be a major key in the whole assassination play.

By the way he was also intrigued with the Oswald - Walker travel times in Paris and felt that this was an interesting avenue of research that had been grossly overlooked, "I have gone over your piece on Oswald/Walker. You have some detail stuff here that is most intersting."

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J. R. C. wrote:

In the American system, a man is tried for one crime at a time. If Walker had also been among the wounded on November 22nd, then his wounding could be included in a trial on the JFK assasination. But the scenario Tim (and the Warren Commission) paints involves a man being tried in one proceeding, before the same jury, for two entirely different crimes committed in entirely different circumstances on entirely different occasions and involving entirely different witnesses.

Raymond, with due respect, evidence of past crimes is often admitted in criminal cases and usually such admission is upheld on appeal.

Below is just once case I found on the first page of a Google search:

United States v Hill (an Eighth Circuit case):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/001699p.pdf

Logic compels that if Oswald tried to kill Walker such an act suggests he may have been Kennedy's assassin. Prof McKnight certainly thinks so.

********************************************************************************

*******************************************

He also wrote:

Of course if I told MY wife that I did it, would that be enough to find me guilty?

Well, no, because you could prevent her from testifying against you. But let's assume you told your brother you murdered someone. Would your admission be sufficient t convict you if that was the ONLY evidence linking you to the crime? Well, I certainly think so. Why wouldn't a confession be sufficient to prove guilt?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J. R. C. wrote:

In the American system, a man is tried for one crime at a time. If Walker had also been among the wounded on November 22nd, then his wounding could be included in a trial on the JFK assasination. But the scenario Tim (and the Warren Commission) paints involves a man being tried in one proceeding, before the same jury, for two entirely different crimes committed in entirely different circumstances on entirely different occasions and involving entirely different witnesses.

Raymond, with due respect, evidence of past crimes is often admitted in criminal cases and usually such admission is upheld on appeal.

Below is just once case I found on the first page of a Google search:

United States v Hill (an Eighth Circuit case):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/001699p.pdf

Logic compels that if Oswald tried to kill Walker such an act suggests he may have been Kennedy's assassin. Prof McKnight certainly thinks so.

********************************************************************************

*******************************************

He also wrote:

Of course if I told MY wife that I did it, would that be enough to find me guilty?

Well, no, because you could prevent her from testifying against you. But let's assume you told your brother you murdered someone. Would your admission be sufficient t convict you if that was the ONLY evidence linking you to the crime? Well, I certainly think so. Why wouldn't a confession be sufficient to prove guilt?

"...tried to kill Walker..."???

- apparently a shot was fired at night into a lit window framing at a sittting Walker at close quarters by an expert marxman.

Did ANYONE? ... 'TRY to KILL Walker'? - perhaps.

There are indications that an attempt to make it look that way occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...