Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Paul Trejo]

yes, Aspergers types are often fascinated with process - and hence a little OCD - once they land on something they tend not to let go. Perseveration is very characteristic.

And yes, we came to this conclusion completely separately. One of the things that always really bothered me about characterizations of Oswald was the way in which the LN'ers tried to call him a loser and stupid - classic ways of insulting the learning disabled. There are some comments from his former fellow Marines that go this way, and I have seen such turncoats as Gus Russo call him a loser and worse. It always reminded me of the way these kids were treated when I was growing up - in those days, before anything was really diagnosed, people called them 'stupid' and 'crazy.' These disabilities make them into loners, isolate them and force them to do everything on their own.

To me the most interesting and charitable portrait of Oswald is in DeMohrenschildt's book, I Am A Patsy. Whatever DeMohrenschildt's role in all this (and I tend to think his was a very compartmentalized assignment and that there was a lot he did NOT know) he clearly understood what an intelligent and interesting guy Oswald was (he called Oswald, IIRC, 'the first hippy').

(btw, and off topic, I also tend to think that DeMorhenschildt was, like Oswald, somewhat to the Left politically, in spite of some of his history; I think it was Dick Russell who interviewed him when he was teaching at an all-black college).

Well, since the thread has evolved into this, Allen, I'll comment since it's interesting.

1. I agree with Jim Garrison who said it is impossible to call Oswald 'stupid' and have it stick, because Oswald learned Russian while still a teenager. Most people could not do that if they tried.

2. If Oswald had Asbergers, dyslexia, or some OCD, this might help explain his lack of advancement, but it can't explain the fact that the US Intelligence community took an interest in him from his early Marine days - when he was very young.

3. As for Oswald being a loner - Jim Garrison didn't find evidence for that. Oswald had friends and was surrounded by people wherever he went. We have plenty of photos to prove this.

4. However, Oswald's community - the Russian Exiles in Dallas - were somewhat predatory when it came to Marina and Lee. They backed Oswald into a corner, and for the first time he started beating Marina (according to her and some neighbors who heard the beatings and reported them to police).

5. Also, his final social group was underground and very secret -- so it probably *appeared* that Oswald was a loner, when actually he had lots of contacts; but they were underground.

6. As for DeMohrenschildt's booklet, "I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!", his guilty conscience shows through from beginning to end. DeMohrenschildt's role was predatory, as I read it. He was supposed to keep an eye on Oswald and report to the CIA, in exchange for help and information toward getting a lucrative oil contract in Haiti.

7. George DM's deal with the CIA would have worked, but George DM could not keep himself from meddling in Oswald's life. George DM and Volkmar Schmidt tried to influence Oswald to hate General Edwin Walker, and they succeeded all-too-well. As I read it, Oswald tried to kill Walker based on their goading. Here is where Oswald's OCD may come in. He got a fixed idea from them, and he could not let it go.

8. I agree that there was lot that George DeMohrenschildt did NOT know. But he what he DID know he refused to tell, because he was to blame for part of it - and his guilty conscience haunted him until the very end.

9. In my theory, what George DM knew was this:

9.1. George knew that Oswald was Walker's April shooter.

9.2. George knew that the CIA people he told about it told General Walker immediately.

9.3. George knew that Walker set up a paramilitary tribunal to get justice for the April Crime of Lee Harvey Oswald.

9.4. George knew that Walker (and his pals in NOLA, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Jack Martin) planned something elaborate.

9.5. George knew that Walker (with wide-ranging support) and the NOLA conspirators, and the JBS, and the dangerous Minutemen organization, perhaps also the KKK, got revenge against JFK, RFK and Oswald, all in the same moment.

9.6. George knew that he played an unwilling role in making Oswald a patsy; and it tortured him for the rest of his life.

10. Yet it would be a mistake to try to clear George DM. He was originally a Nazi spy. He later became a CIA spy. His walk to South America really ended in a location that let him support a Cuban Exile training camp preparing for the Bay of Pigs invasion. George DM acted for money. That was his main motivation.

11. George DM stood to make more than $500K from the Haiti oil deal he was working on for years. (That's about $5 million in 2011 dollars). But because of the JFK shooting and the Warren Commission subpoena, George lost his Haiti deal!

12. In no way was George DM to the left, politically, although he probably tried to put on an act about it, to keep suspicion away from himself and his actual contacts. If he was ashamed of his Nazi past, it is because he was not ideological, but an opportunist. Now he was in the USA which was anti-Nazi, so he tried to hide it from the general public, but he still used his right-wing (wealthy) connections for everything.

13. Also, his big money would be made in Haiti, which was almost entirely Negro in population, so he had to fake being a non-racist, e.g. when he taught at an all-black college.

14. The tragedy of George DeMohrenschildt was that he lost his Haiti contract, and then he lost his marriage with Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, and he went from being a dapper playboy to being just another old, poor guy, increasingly paranoid and very much alone. Even Volkmar Schmidt didn't want him around anymore.

15. Under these circumstances, I'm not surprised to read that George DM committed suicide.

16. Did George DM know enough so that the cover-up squads killed him? Some people think so. Perhaps that is true, but I don't see the need for it. George wasn't connected with the Mafia.

17. I think George was depressed because he blamed himself for the Oswald episode (and his booklet suggests this, in my reading). George tried to hide this for decades, and he was broke, and his wife left him. And now he was old. And now the HSCA wanted to question him again.

18. It seems, rather, that George thought that he might make some money by writing a book about Oswald. But after he wrote it, and read it, he realized it would never be a best-seller. Possibly his friends told him, too. He was all washed up at the end.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 25, 2011 by Paul Trejo

[Allen Lowe]

I agree to most of that - however -

1) "contacts" do not change the fact that Oswald was close to few people; sure he knew lots of people and had plenty of contacts (so does my son, not to make this too personal, but he's Aspergers); but he lets few into his inner life, and I believe the same of Oswald; this is one prime reason, post-assassination, we see so little detail about Oswald's actions, movements, true beliefs. It is as though there was a barrier between Oswald and everyone else; he would be happy to talk about the things that interested HIM (politics, etc) but made very little effort to connect with others, unless it was operational or related to a personal agenda (also classic Aspergers). This also, and not coincidentally, made him a perfect patsy.

2) DeMohrenschildt was a liberal; I have no doubt about that; but you're right, he was also an a-moral opportunist; the rest is speculation (it makes no sense that his teaching at a Southern black University was some kind of cover for his attempts to prove he was pro-Negro). I agree on the basic points you make about him, but the other 80 percent is speculation. And I still believe his decision to teach at an all-black University is significant; it shows a degree of personal politic which, progressive or not as Texas may have been, could not have been common among White Southerners in the 1960s. His Liberalism is further proved by his charity toward Oswald in I am a Patsy; and let's face it, Liberals led the cover up of the JFK assassination and felt no moral compunction about lying and burying the whole thing. This was the USA in the 1960s. Liberals supported the CIA; liberals supported the overthrow of Castro.

(also, if he lost all that money because of the assassination, then his true interests lay elsewhere; this would tend to indicate he did not know there was an assassination in the works). As for George KNOWING all of that - knowing all of the interests who conspired to kill JFK - there is just no proof. I tend to think if he had, that his wife, at the very least, would have said more than just that she believed it was a conspiracy. In that particular conversation she sounds like she believes this but that she really knows very little.

as for, again, his decision to teach at that University; I am reminded of the great wave of German immigrants who were the ones who provided musical educations for African Americans in the late 19th and early 20th century, accepting African American students at a time when domestic teachers would not. As a foreign national DeMohrenschildt likely was less encumbered by prevailing racial attitudes.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Allen Lowe

[Paul Trejo]

I agree to most of that - however -

1) "contacts" do not change the fact that Oswald was close to few people; sure he knew lots of people and had plenty of contacts (so does my son, not to make this too personal, but he's Aspergers); but he lets few into his inner life, and I believe the same of Oswald; this is one prime reason, post-assassination, we see so little detail about Oswald's actions, movements, true beliefs. It is as though there was a barrier between Oswald and everyone else; he would be happy to talk about the things that interested HIM (politics, etc) but made very little effort to connect with others, unless it was operational or related to a personal agenda (also classic Aspergers). This also, and not coincidentally, made him a perfect patsy.

2) DeMohrenschildt was a liberal; I have no doubt about that; but you're right, he was also an a-moral opportunist; the rest is speculation (it makes no sense that his teaching at a Southern black University was some kind of cover for his attempts to prove he was pro-Negro). I agree on the basic points you make about him, but the other 80 percent is speculation. And I still believe his decision to teach at an all-black University is significant; it shows a degree of personal politic which, progressive or not as Texas may have been, could not have been common among White Southerners in the 1960s. His Liberalism is further proved by his charity toward Oswald in I am a Patsy; and let's face it, Liberals led the cover up of the JFK assassination and felt no moral compunction about lying and burying the whole thing. This was the USA in the 1960s. Liberals supported the CIA; liberals supported the overthrow of Castro.

(also, if he lost all that money because of the assassination, then his true interests lay elsewhere; this would tend to indicate he did not know there was an assassination in the works). As for George KNOWING all of that - knowing all of the interests who conspired to kill JFK - there is just no proof. I tend to think if he had, that his wife, at the very least, would have said more than just that she believed it was a conspiracy. In that particular conversation she sounds like she believes this but that she really knows very little.

as for, again, his decision to teach at that University; I am reminded of the great wave of German immigrants who were the ones who provided musical educations for African Americans in the late 19th and early 20th century, accepting African American students at a time when domestic teachers would not. As a foreign national DeMohrenschildt likely was less encumbered by prevailing racial attitudes.

Allen, your points are intersting, so I'm now getting back to them.

1) Yes, Oswald had an inner life that he kept to himself - he was not ready to come out of his self-made closet. So, I think your psychological profile of Oswald is accurate.

2) We agree that DeMohrenschildt was an a-moral opportunist liberal. Although he taught at an all-black University, we don't find him with any black friendships. That's why I speculate that this was to prove that he could get along in Haiti for hundreds of thousands of dollars. As for his charity to Oswald in "I Am a Patsy," I've had a problem with this claim since his Warren Commission testimony. He tells about his first contact with the Oswalds; he and George Bouhe took it on themselves to visit Marina Oswald out of the blue, when Lee was at work. In my opinion that was a very arrogant thing to do. Marina invited them in although Lee wasn't home. George Bouhe fell in love with her. Later, as Jeanne DM testifies, George Bouhe gave her one hundred dresses. Later, as George DM testified to the WC, George Bouhe was terrified of Oswald. I don't sense charity here - I sense cat and mouse toying.

Also, in "I Am a Patsy", George DM lied and said the 'Dallas Russian community' gave her those dresses. And he also said that Oswald wanted to get away from the 'Dallas Russian community'. In both cases George DM probably meant George Bouhe, who was hitting on Oswald's wife. Why was this not pursued? (Another lie in "I Am a Patsy": he said he could not remember who told Oswald that General Walker was another Hitler. He could not remember "Messer" Schmidt? In another interview he remembered Volkmar Schmidt very fondly, and near the end of his life he begged Schmidt to take him in. But in "I Am a Patsy" George DM says, "I think he was Jewish." So he was trying to protect Volkmar Schmidt.

2.1) I agree fully that George DM did not know there was an assassination in the works - his attention was on a possible oil fortune in Haiti. I also believe that George did not expect that Oswald would actually shoot at General Walker; after the shooting, George and Jeanne worried for days that Lee might have been the shooter. If so, this might have jeopardized his relationship with the CIA which was helping him set up his relationships with the Haiti government.

2.2) I don't believe that George knew all of the interests who conspired to kill JFK, but there is a trail. The night George DM had solid evidence that Oswald was Walker's shooter, he told Igor Voshinin, who he knew was connected to the FBI. Voshinin's wife told the FBI that very night (says Dick Russell). The FBI, out of normal protocol, would have told Walker the next day. I think we have reason to believe that George DM could figure that much out.

George DM knew that Walker was closely associated with HL Hunt, the John Birch Society and a number of paramilitary organizations. George DM knew the people in Dallas quite well. George actually lived down the street from where Walker lived. So, although George DM didn't know the details, he knew the background very well. This is why George DM insisted in the Warren Commission and in his article, "I Am a Patsy", that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy. That much he could figure out. But as for the hard facts - I agree with you - George DM had very few.

2.3) I believe George DM's greatest guilt was that he had an indirect responsibility for Oswald's shooting at Walker. Volkmar Schmidt speaks about this topic on video at least two different times - one time feeling guilty about it, and the other time rejecting any guilt about it. But this single conversation was not the extent of it. In "I Am a Patsy", George DM admits that he and Lee used to call General Walker, "General Fokker", and this suggests a lot more than just one conversation with Volkmar Schmidt.

I believe that George DM felt guilty all of his life for the shooting at General Walker - I believe he felt an indirect role in it - as an indirect accessory - making it a possible felony. If that came out, all of his dreams would be dashed, so he had to keep it a deep dark secret. The problem I have with George DM's "I Am A Patsy" (which he wrote in lieu of testifying for the HSCA) is that it still keeps many secrets, hides relationships, and refuses to come clean. Because if Oswald really was made a patsy as punishment for shooting at Walker, then George DM was the first one to ruin Oswald.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 21, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Guest Robert Morrow]

The "Oswald shooting at Edwin Walker" is a canard of the JFK assassination. It is a lie that was posthumously created by the murderers of JFK (or their lackeys, rather) to frame Oswald for the death of John Kennedy. I give it zero percent credence.

It did not happen.

[Paul Trejo]

The "Oswald shooting at Edwin Walker" is a canard of the JFK assassination. It is a lie that was posthumously created by the murderers of JFK (or their lackeys, rather) to frame Oswald for the death of John Kennedy. I give it zero percent credence.

It did not happen.

Robert, zero percent denotes a rather high level of certainty. One would have to possess proof that Marina Oswald lied - and not only that, but that she played along with a conspiracy fomented through the FBI in which Oswald wrote a letter to her the night before, in Russian, in his own handwriting, of what she must do in case he was arrested.

One would also have to possess proof that the conspirators worked with the FBI to (1) forge this letter; (2) convince Marina to lie, saying she found this letter; (3) forge photographs of Oswald holding a rifle, pistol and militant newspapers; (4) convince Marina to lie again, saying she took at least one of these photographs (the others of which were altered into variations); (5) forge Oswald's signature on the back of one of these photos; (6) get Marina to write "Hunter of Fascists, ha, ha" on that same photograph; (7) place this photograph among George DeMohrenschildt's possessions; (8) take pictures of General Walker's house, backyard and surrounding area; (9) distrubute these photographs among Oswald possessions in Ruth Paine's garage and in his Dallas rooming house; and (10) convince George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt to also lie to the Warren Commission about their certainties that Oswald shot at General Walker.

That's a very elaborate scheme, obviously. General Walker himself had a different scheme. To the end of his days (as I shared with David Lifton) he claimed that Oswald was arrested on April 10th, 1963 on suspicion of this shooting, but was released on the orders of RFK and the Secret Service. Walker was also convinced that Oswald had a second shooter with him, and demanded to know - to the end of his days - the identity of that second shooter; whether he was connected with the CIA.

Dick Russell suggests that the second shooter was Larrie Schmidt, who owned a tan Ford Sedan. Russell says Schmidt's brother confessed to joining Oswald on this shooting. The eye-witness to the April Crime saw two men running from the scene, one to a tan Ford Sedan, and the other to a Chevy at the local Church parking lot. So it seems one would also need proof that Dick Russell's source was lying.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 23, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Guest Robert Morrow]

The "Oswald shooting at Edwin Walker" is a canard of the JFK assassination. It is a lie that was posthumously created by the murderers of JFK (or their lackeys, rather) to frame Oswald for the death of John Kennedy. I give it zero percent credence.

It did not happen.

Robert, zero percent denotes a rather high level of certainty. One would have to possess proof that Marina Oswald lied - and not only that, but that she played along with a conspiracy fomented through the FBI in which Oswald wrote a letter to her the night before, in Russian, in his own handwriting, of what she must do in case he was arrested.

One would also have to possess proof that the conspirators worked with the FBI to (1) forge this letter; (2) convince Marina to lie, saying she found this letter; (3) forge photographs of Oswald holding a rifle, pistol and militant newspapers; (4) convince Marina to lie again, saying she took at least one of these photographs (the others of which were altered into variations); (5) forge Oswald's signature on the back of one of these photos; (6) get Marina to write "Hunter of Fascists, ha, ha" on that same photograph; (7) place this photograph among George DeMohrenschildt's possessions; (8) take pictures of General Walker's house, backyard and surrounding area; (9) distrubute these photographs among Oswald possessions in Ruth Paine's garage and in his Dallas rooming house; and (10) convince George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt to also lie to the Warren Commission about their certainties that Oswald shot at General Walker.

That's a very elaborate scheme, obviously. General Walker himself had a different scheme. To the end of his days (as I shared with David Lifton) he claimed that Oswald was arrested on April 10th, 1963 on suspicion of this shooting, but was released on the orders of RFK and the Secret Service. Walker was also convinced that Oswald had a second shooter with him, and demanded to know - to the end of his days - the identity of that second shooter; whether he was connected with the CIA.

Dick Russell suggests that the second shooter was Larrie Schmidt, who owned a tan Ford Sedan. Russell says Schmidt's brother confessed to joining Oswald on this shooting. The eye-witness to the April Crime saw two men running from the scene, one to a tan Ford Sedan, and the other to a Chevy at the local Church parking lot. So it seems one would also need proof that Dick Russell's source was lying.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Good point. I will assess the odds of Oswald taking a pot shot at Walker at under 1% but not at zero percent.

If one looks at the JFK assassination broadly, one sees the FBI, all branches of government, the Dallas police, LBJ, the Warren Commission perpetuating a gargantuan cover up of the JFK assassination.

You literally can't trust ANYTHING those folks said, or submitted as "evidence." They were destroying real evidence and fabricating false evidence at will.

A terrified Marina Oswald was willingly telling lie after lie in the aftermath of the JFK assassiation. She was literally a marionette doll for the murderers of JFK. She is on the record for several decades now saying that Oswald was innocent of killing JFK and I think if you asked her today she would say Oswald did NOT shoot at Walker in her opinion.

Interesting, she told Jesse Ventura last year (or 2010) that she took the backyard photos. I believe her. I think it was part of Oswald's sheep dipping operations (or set up the patsy!)

Likewise, CIA asset George DeMohrenschildt later pretty forcefully stated that Oswald was a patsy for the JFK assasssination and he seemed guilty as to his whole role in "guiding" Oswald. I don't trust a word of what DeMohrenschildt was saying in the immediate aftermath of the JFK assassination, especially if it was critical of Oswald.

The bias was for the government to force everyone into say negative stuff about Oswald.

Marina Oswald could easily have written "hunter of fascists" on that photo ... POST JFK Assassination, couldn't she? Remember, she told Jesse Ventura that her protecting her children were more important than the truth.

As for Edwin Walker, well perhaps he believed that ... but it does not mean he was right.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Robert Morrow

[Paul Trejo]

The "Oswald shooting at Edwin Walker" is a canard of the JFK assassination. It is a lie that was posthumously created by the murderers of JFK (or their lackeys, rather) to frame Oswald for the death of John Kennedy. I give it zero percent credence.

It did not happen.

...General Walker himself had a different scheme. To the end of his days (as I shared with David Lifton) he claimed that Oswald was arrested on April 10th, 1963 on suspicion of this shooting, but was released on the orders of RFK and the Secret Service. Walker was also convinced that Oswald had a second shooter with him, and demanded to know - to the end of his days - the identity of that second shooter; whether he was connected with the CIA...

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

...As for Edwin Walker, well perhaps he believed that ... but it does not mean he was right.

Robert, thanks for your open mind regarding my suspicions about General Edwin Walker. I also appreciate that you recommended me to the Education Forum knowing that we disagree on this critical issue.

To help explain my position about General Walker, I offer in evidence seven (7) documents that come from Edwin's Walker's personal files, as copied from the Briscoe Center for American History archives. (I tried to attach these PDF documents to this reply, but they comprise around 180MB, nearly twice our alloted limit. I'm not sure how to share large files with the Forum.) The seven documents can be described as follows:

(i) EW_1963_11_29: This is an excerpt from the November 29th, 1963 edition of the Deutsche NationalZeitung. It makes the claim that Oswald was arrested on 4/10/1963, but was released on the orders of RFK. The article goes on to claim that these ideas come from Edwin Walker, who graced this grateful newspaper with an interview on 7am of 11/23/1963, only 19 hours after JFK was assassinated. The full transcript (translated into English) is available on the Mary Ferrell web site (http://www.maryferrell.org/) using this search tag: ADMIN FOLDER-E11: HSCA ADMINISTRATIVE FOLDER, OUTGOING TO COMMISSION VOL IX. Once you find the document, read pages 330-340. Pay special attention to page 330, Rankin's evidence that Walker spoke to Muench. Yet Walker told the Warren Commission he never heard of Muench. (But why should Walker tell the Warren Commission the truth, because Walker's slogan since 1959 had been, 'Impeach Earl Warren"!)

(ii) EW_1967_04_04: This is Walker's article, OSWALD - A KNOWN CRIMINAL. It is notable because of its ending paragraph that repeats the story he allegedly told the Deutsche NationalZeitung on 11/23/1963.

(iii) EW_1968_06_12: This is Walker's article, THE US SENATE AND ITS SENATOR KENNEDY, written seven days after the assassination of RFK. It is notable because of its ending paragraphs that also repeat the story he allegedly told the Deutsche NationalZeitung on 11/23/1963.

(iv) EW_1969_12_12: This is Walker's article, CHIEF CURRY'S BOO-BOO. It is notable because its ending paragraphs suggest again that Oswald received "protection" from RFK, although he uses the term, "two Chiefs of State," because as he argues in other writings, Walker believed that the White House and the Kremlin both protected Oswald.

(v) EW_1975_06_23: This is a letter from Walker to Senator Frank Church, in which he repeats the story he allegedly told the Deutsche NationalZeitung on 11/23/1963.

(vi) EW_1990_09_12: This is a letter from Walker to Congressman Lamar Smith, Bob Dole and others, requesting the release of all JFK assassination files.

(vii) EW_1991_11_11: This is Walker's article, JFK DIDN'T KNOW HE KNEW HIS ASSASSIN. It was published by the Kerrville Daily Times on 1992_01_19. It is notable because he repeats the story he allegedly told the Deutsche NationalZeitung on 11/23/1963.

As I explained to David Lifton -- I don't believe Walker's story, nor do I believe that Walker himself believes his own story. Yet to the end of his life Walker kept repeating this story. Why? Perhaps because it sets up a smokescreen for his actual participation in these events.

I'd ilke to post these PDF files somehow, Robert. I'd really like to hear your opinion about them.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA