New Book!

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie, please read some of the scholastic works on the JFK conspiracy. In addition to this excellent new book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, I also recommend the works by Professor David Lifton and Professor Walt Brown -- both of whom are members of this FORUM.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, please read some of the scholastic works on the JFK conspiracy. In addition to this excellent new book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, I also recommend the works by Professor David Lifton and Professor Walt Brown -- both of whom are members of this FORUM.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Neither of those will change the comments which I have written to you -- anymore than you accept what Jim DiEugenio has written about your numerous falsehoods.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Ah, James Di Eugenio! That's who's behind your attacks here! Yes, I've dealt with him severely in FORUM threads defending Ruth Paine from those irrational attacks expressed by the CTKA and their obsolete journal, Probe Magazine. See, for example post #762 on this page: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22344&page=51

Remind me, Ernie, what your posts have to do with the theme of this thread -- the new book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, namely, Edwin Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015)

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 29, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ah, James Di Eugenio! That's who's behind your attacks here! Yes, I've dealt with him severely in FORUM threads defending Ruth Paine from those irrational attacks expressed by the CTKA and their obsolete journal, Probe Magazine..

Remind me, Ernie, what your posts have to do with the theme of this thread -- the new book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, namely, Edwin Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015)

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Why do you want to be reminded? Jim DiEugenio is not behind anything I write here. I don't even know him except for the couple of messages he posted here which mentioned something I wrote. But this is typical of your attempt to divert attention from what is really being discussed.

In case you have not noticed, this thread has discussed many Walker-related subject matters. From the very beginning, you have addressed those topics -- even when there was no particular relationship to Dr. Caufield's book.

Furthermore, Dr. Caufield's narrative covers a very lengthy period in our history and he brings into his discussion a considerable amount of background information -- whether or not Walker is directly connected to that background information.

In many respects (as I have previously pointed out), Dr. Caufield's book is a history of the radical right in the U.S.

No matter how many ways you try to divert our attention -- everybody here knows that you always demand that we accept your bizarre fact-challenged interpretations.

[Paul Trejo]

I'm glad, Ernie, that you're not here at the bequest of James Di Eugenio, who has totally rejected the theme and the content of Dr. Caufield's new book, Edwin Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

A focus on General Walker as a prime suspect of the JFK assassination should be based on historical evidence -- not political attacks or defensiveness.

In this spirit, I have recounted the sworn testimony of two psychiatrists, and also the memoirs of an Episcopalian bishop who was an eye-witness to the events of the Ole Miss riots of September 1962.

In this context, I will appreciate seeing your new FBI documents obtained on Walker through FOIA.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 29, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

I'm glad, Ernie, that you're not here at the bequest of James Di Eugenio, who has totally rejected the theme and the content of Dr. Caufield's new book, Edwin Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

A focus on General Walker as a prime suspect of the JFK assassination should be based on historical evidence -- not political attacks or defensiveness.

In this spirit, I have recounted the sworn testimony of two psychiatrists, and also the memoirs of an Episcopalian bishop who was an eye-witness to the events of the Ole Miss riots of September 1962.

In this context, I will appreciate seeing your new FBI documents obtained on Walker through FOIA.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

You keep ignoring the most important fact about those "two psychiatrists" -- i.e. neither one of them examined Walker!

Would YOU like to have YOUR "sanity" determined by two people whom you have never met, never spoken to, and never had any contact with (by phone, email, in person, or whatever)?? Get real Paul.

Are you aware that it is illegal (now) for a doctor to write a prescription for a patient he/she has not actually seen?

If you are aware of that -- then take that one step further. Why would any competent doctor make a diagnosis without examining the patient?

Don't you think that a doctor should, at a minimum, be required to speak with a patient and ask that person pertinent questions BEFORE making ANY diagnosis or prescribing ANY medication?

Edited August 29, 2016 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

It's largely irrelevant, Ernie, what you or I, who are not medically trained, believe that a professional medical practitioner should have done or should not have done in the performance of medical duties.

The fact is that these were professional psychiatrists -- and our political opinions are secondary to the fact that they both agreed that Ex-General Edwin Walker should at the very least be subjected to a mental examination (presumably for 90 days) at the Springfield Mental Hospital in Missouri on the 1st of October 1962.

That is a medical fact of history. That has been my main point.

On the political side, my political opinion is that J. Edgar Hoover was a genius whose fabrication of the "Lone Nut" theory saved the USA from a world war, and one day soon this will become clear. Hoover's fabrication was offered in the cause of National Security, as he said, as Chief Justice Earl Warren said, as Allen Dulles said, and as LBJ said. National Security has justified the "Lone Nut" theory for the past half-century.

However, former US President GWH Bush signed the JFK Records Act in 1992, fixing the date of the release of the final 3,300 pages of USA withheld documents of the JFK assassination as Thursday 26 October 2017.

I fully expect Dr. Jeff Caufield's theory about the guilt of Ex-General Walker in the JFK assassination to be vindicated on that date. In the meantime, any FBI documents released as a result of FOIA requests should, IMHO, tend to confirm this CT. We will wait patiently for their emergence.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited August 30, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

It's largely irrelevant, Ernie, what you or I, who are not medically trained, believe that a professional medical practitioner should have done or should not have done in the performance of medical duties.

The fact is that these were professional psychiatrists -- and our political opinions are secondary to the fact that they both agreed that Ex-General Edwin Walker should at the very least be subjected to a mental examination (presumably for 90 days) at the Springfield Mental Hospital in Missouri on the 1st of October 1963.

That is a medical fact of history. That has been my main point.

On the political side, my political opinion is that J. Edgar Hoover was a genius whose fabrication of the "Lone Nut" theory saved the USA from a world war, and one day soon this will become clear. Hoover's fabrication was offered in the cause of National Security, as he said, as Chief Justice Earl Warren said, as Allen Dulles said, and as LBJ said. National Security has justified the "Lone Nut" theory for the past half-century.

However, former US President GWH Bush signed the JFK Records Act in 1992, fixing the date of the release of the final 3,300 pages of USA withheld documents of the JFK assassination as Thursday 26 October 2017.

I fully expect Dr. Jeff Caufield's theory about the guilt of Ex-General Walker in the JFK assassination to be vindicated on that date. In the meantime, any FBI documents released as a result of FOIA requests should, IMHO, tend to confirm this theory. We will wait patiently for their emergence.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

You STILL don't get it Paul.

Psychatric and medical examinations are not static events. Legitimate diagnosis of a suspected medical or mental problem requires not only answers to specific questions -- but, particularly in the case of psychiatric exams, interpretation of physical markers such as body language of the subject.

For example: does the subject seem uneasy, hostile or suspicious, or overly anxious or hyper-vigilant rather than fully engaged and candid in replies to questions?

Are there physical traits which are noteworthy -- such as sweating, lack of eye contact, facial markers, tapping of fingers or feet, an agitated presence such as inability to sit still, and so forth. I guess you have never played poker!

You cannot really determine those qualities by reading a newspaper article or by reviewing stale testimony before a committee 6 months earlier. What I am trying to get you to understand is that "medical fact" is not "fact" simply because YOU say it is.

What I have presented is not my personal opinion and you reveal your profound ignorance by dumbing-down the points I made by describing them as mere opinions. This is your typical tactic when you are ignorant of the matters under discussion.

If you consult the American Psychological Association Code of Conduct -- and, especially, their section on "Bases For Assessments" you will discover the following. In particular see section (-b-) below:

9.01 Bases for Assessments

(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.)

(-b-) Except as noted in 9.01c, psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions. When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations. (See also Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence, and 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results.)

ONE LAST POINT:

And this is also covered in the APA Code of Conduct:

LEGITIMATE psychological and psychiatric evaluations are ALWAYS based upon the results of standard tests given to the subject.

I note, for the record, that neither doctor you cited conducted ANY test of Edwin Walker!!!!!!!! Why not? Because they never examined Walker!!!!

Edited August 29, 2016 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Let me answer the question I posed to Paul in my previous message:

"Would YOU like to have YOUR "sanity" determined by two people whom you have never met, never spoken to, and never had any contact with (by phone, email, in person, or whatever)??"

Paul's answer:

"YES, of course. I have no problem being committed to a mental institution based upon a long-distance assessment by someone I have never spoken to and someone who never asked me a single question -- because WHATEVER evaluation he/she makes, it MUST be, ipso facto, a "medical fact" "

[Paul Trejo]

What nonsense, Ernie.

Let's get back to the theme of this thread -- the new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy.

This new CT is especially interesting because of all the new FBI documents from FOIA releases -- it's very well researched. It's also unusual because it bypasses a half-century of failed CT's. Dr. Caufield deserves congratulations.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 30, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

What nonsense, Ernie.

Let's get back to the theme of this thread -- the new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy.

This new CT is especially interesting because of all the new FBI documents from FOIA releases -- it's very well researched. It's also unusual because it bypasses a half-century of failed CT's. Dr. Caufield deserves congratulations.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Well, we finally agree about something! Your position is nonsense!

[Paul Trejo]

Anyway, getting back to the theme of this thread -- the new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy --

This fresh, new approach to a JFK CT has no actual precedent in the CT literature of the past half-century. Most other CT books have tried to blame the CIA, the FBI, the Mafia and LBJ, with special attacks on J. Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles. Some dullards have even tried to blame the Quaker housewife, Ruth Paine.

Over the decades we have seen more intricate attacks on Howard Hunt and David Morales (both of whom did confess at an individual level) in a feeble attempt to condemn the entire CIA for the acts of these two rogues.

We have also seen plenty of attacks on CIA agent David Atlee Phillips (aka. Maurice Bishop) because he was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald in the summer of 1963 by one of the leaders of Alpha 66, a violent Anti-Castro group funded by the CIA.

Yet we should recall, also, that David Atlee Phillips explained this connection in his 1988 manuscript, THE AMLASH LEGACY, in which he said he was grooming Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate Fidel Castro -- and this was the reason for Oswald's attempt to enter Cuba through Mexico City.

Given this confession by David Atlee Phillips, we can better understand the mistakes made by Jim Garrison, when he thought that Lee Harvey Oswald was preparing for the assassination of JFK while he was pretending to be an FPCC Officer in New Orleans during the summer of 1963.

Jim Garrison was mistaken. Those mercenaries that Garrison saw in the company of Guy Banister (including Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Eladio Del Valle, David Ferrie, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin and Tom Beckham) weren't really CIA agents -- they were Radical Right mercenaries, doing their poorly paid quasi-patriotic duty of attacking Communist Cuba.

As David Atlee Phillips explained, Lee Harvey Oswald was hijacked from that anti-Castro group and exploited in the plot to assassinate JFK. That's what happened.

This new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, (2015) makes this clear for the first time in fifty years, by using rarely seen FBI documents. Congratulations are in order for Jeff Caufield.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 30, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

WHAT FBI FILES ABOUT EDWIN WALKER REVEAL

One of the more interesting aspects about doing research into FBI files concerns all the subtle clues and related files which are revealed. This is particularly true with respect to Edwin Walker's files.

PREFACE:

1. During my ongoing debate with Paul Trejo, I have pointed out that many FBI files contain "search slips" (aka Indices Search Slip) which are standard forms which were used by FBI employees at both HQ and in field offices.

At HQ, when somebody wanted to know what was in Bureau files about some person or organization or publication or event, the interested employee would ask the "Name Search Unit" to perform a search of all pertinent Bureau indices. At field offices, employees would submit their search request to the "Chief Clerk" of their office.

The person initiating the search request specified the parameters for the desired search -- such as "all references" or only "subversive references" or perhaps only "criminal references" AND he could also specify a limited time period for the search if that was wanted..

2. A "search slip" is, therefore, an extremely valuable historical research tool for researchers because the slips reveal everything contained within Bureau files that matches the search term(s) -- and then identifies the file number(s) and serial number(s) with that matching information. BUT--keep in mind that searches were literal. In other words, the resulting list of files and serials merely listed everything that matched the search terms without necessarily being identical with the person or subject that the searcher was interested in.

Example: as I have pointed out before, when the Chief Clerk of the Los Angeles field office was asked to search Los Angeles indices for every reference which matched the name "Harry Dean" or "Harry J. Dean" or any alias he used -- most of the resulting listed references were NOT about the same person as the Harry Dean whom we know.

3. Another extremely valuable resource is a "correlation summary". This is something akin to a search slip on steroids because not only is every file and serial number listed but a brief synopsis of each serial is included.

In my experience, a correlation summary was only done on persons who had one or more of these attributes:

3.1 = A person with a large file which the Bureau wanted put into a quick-reference form so that it would not be necessary to review hundreds or thousands of pages to find pertinent information

3.2 = A person with suspected or definite criminal or subversive associations

3.3 = Related to 3.2 - a person whom the Bureau anticipated might be indicted by the Department of Justice after the FBI finished its investigation

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM EDWIN WALKER'S FBI FILES?

WALKER'S HQ FILE

1. The first thing we can learn is the difference between the HQ and field office focus -- or interest in Walker.

The HQ file begins in 1950. The file classification code (116) refers to Atomic Energy Applicants. Apparently, Walker was being vetted because he was being considered for assignment in some security capacity at the top secret Sandia Base in Albuquerque NM where our most sensitive atomic weapons research was done. His application states that his potential security functions required access to restricted information and access to "an exclusion area". However, his Army biography reveals that he was never assigned to work at Sandia. Instead, he went to Fort Sam Houston In Texas and, later, he became Assistant Commandant of the Ranger Training Center at Fort Benning GA.

2. That ended the FBI's interest in Walker until August 1961 when the Bureau reviewed Walker's testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Preparedness about his removal from command of the 24th Infantry Division in Germany.

3. The next FBI interest in Walker occurred in late September 1961 because of a comment made by Walker. He was reported to have told a Washington Post reporter that "I have reported people to the FBI and I have asked for FBI opinion on an organization" and when J. Edgar Hoover saw that comment, he asked his subordinates to determine whether there was any record of such contacts by Walker. Their reply was:

"Bufiles failed to disclose any contacts with General Walker in which he either reported people to us or asked for our opinion of an organization."

4. This is significant because Walker (like many other right-wing extremists) frequently sought to inflate their credentials so that gullible people would believe that they had special "inside knowledge" and, supposedly, their observations were based upon their access to "classified information".

This same situation occurred with former FBI Special Agent W. Cleon Skousen, former FBI informant Karl Prussion, and the leader of Church League of America (Edgar Bundy--who claimed he served in "Air Force Intelligence") and the publisher of Williams Intelligence Summary(Maj. Robert H. Williams) and many others.

5. During 1963, the FBI's interest in Walker was primarily with respect to his speaking engagements -- including, of course, his association with Billy James Hargis.

6. Significantly, there are no references in Walker's HQ file to any involvement by Walker in any sort of criminal enterprise during 1963.

WALKER'S DALLAS FIELD FILE:

1. Walker's Dallas field file has more than twice the number of pages as his FBI HQ file.

2. This is very significant because if somebody was engaged in, or suspected of being involved with, any sort of criminal activity (such as a murder plot), the FBI would devote extensive resources to investigation of that person. In addition, there would be mandatory reports required by each field office which had any sort of responsibility for the investigation.

3. The Dallas field file on Walker begins in February 1963 and merely reports Walker's involvement with Billy James Hargis with respect to their "Midnight Ride" speech tour. However, Walker's connection to the hate group, National States Rights Party, (and specifically Oren Potito, NSRP's National Organizer) was noted.

4. Significantly, the Dallas field file is a 157-classification.

The 157-classification began in 1959 and, at that time, it referred to "Racial Matters/Bombing Matters" -- particularly with respect to Klan activity. During the early 1960's, the 157-classification was expanded to include investigations of hate groups including American Nazi Party and other anti-semitic organizations. Later, investigations of the Black Panthers and Weathermen were opened under this classification. By 1971, the classification name was changed to "Extremist Matters/Civil Unrest".

5. As was the case with the HQ file, there is no reference in the Dallas field file to any ongoing investigation of Walker because of any suspected involvement in any sort of murder plot.

6. In addition, the Correlation Summary for Walker does not refer to any file/serial that mentions Walker's involvement with any murder plot. It does, however, discuss at length, the rumors within KKK circles about a "KKK insurrection" movement if Goldwater lost the 1964 election and that insurrection would allegedly be led by Walker. However, when the FBI tracked down all the leads - it could not find any substantiation for these rumors and they concluded it was just meaningless gossip within Klan circles.

BOTTOM-LINE

IF a researcher wanted to entertain the idea that Edwin Walker was a central figure (if not THE central figure) in a plot to murder JFK, then there are inescapable results which would logically occur from that premise.

First of all, if there was any serious evidence of such a plot and Walker's alleged involvement then Walker's HQ file would be exponentially larger than it currently is because HQ would have instructed every affected field office to pursue leads to ascertain whether or not such a plot actually existed, and if so, who was involved and what was planned.

At a minimum (because of the different locations mentioned in Dr. Caufield's book where the alleged "plotters" lived or where they met to discuss their plot), the following FBI field offices would have opened a 100-classification file on Walker (Domestic Security) or a 157-classification file (Racial Matters) = Atlanta, Baltimore, indianapolis, Jackson, Los Angeles, Miami, and New Orleans.

The periodic reports from these field offices would be archived within the HQ file (if they existed) --- but they do not exist and there are no references to such reports on Walker's correlation summary or on any Walker search slip.

Consequently, this is just more evidence that leads to a conclusion that the FBI had no knowledge about any sort of murder plot involving Edwin Walker. And since we now know the identity of the documents being released next October by NARA, we also know that none are from FBI-Walker files.

Even more importantly, we also know from NARA's listing of FBI documents remaining to be released that there are no 157-classification file documents and the very few 100-classification docs being released in October 2017 have something to do with the American Embassy in Haiti and one document pertains to Germany.

[Paul Trejo]

WHAT FBI FILES ABOUT EDWIN WALKER REVEAL

...

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM EDWIN WALKER'S FBI FILES?

...

WALKER'S DALLAS FIELD FILE:

...

BOTTOM-LINE

...

This is a capable and scholarly preliminary report on recent FOIA releases of FBI Field Files on General Walker. It makes only one obvious error, namely, that the Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness did not occur in August, 1961, as stated, but occurred in April, 1962.

Secondly, there appears to be a major omission -- as Jeff Caufield implies in his new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) -- that the Dallas FBI withheld information from FBI HQ.

This fact is underscored in the Warren Commission testimony of many officials in both the FBI and the Secret Service, regarding the Secret Service PRS (Protective Research Section).

Whenever any trip of any President is scheduled, the PRS contacts the local FBI in that area, to obtain the names of people known to be openly hostile to the President so that the Secret Service can pay them special attention before and during the Presidential visit.

In the case of the visit to Dallas, the local Dallas FBI explicitly told the PRS that "there were no suspicious people in Dallas at all."

History (via Penn Jones) shows that Dallas FBI agent James Hosty was for years the bridge partner of Robert Allen Surrey, who was a publisher for the American Nazi Party. Furthermore, Surrey was in daily contact with Ex-General Edwin Walker, who had likely sworn revenge on JFK for sending Walker to an insane asylum in late 1962.

Finally, Surrey was the creator of the "WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK" handbill that circulated in Dallas not only on 11/22/1963, but also on 10/23/1963, the night before the humiliation of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas. James Hosty specifically told the PRS and the Secret Service that he had no idea at all who created that handbill.

This was the very breakdown in US Government communication that led directly to the assassination of JFK.

In other words -- given the murder plot against JFK that was clearly brewing in Dallas -- James Hosty should have been, and probably was, fully aware of it -- and yet he deliberately chose to withhold these facts from the Secret Service (as well as from FBI HQ).

Given this, the full extent of FBI Agent James Hosty's knowledge is not going to be present in the FBI Field File -- so we must seek confirmation in further clues by a more careful reading of the details.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited August 31, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

WHAT FBI FILES ABOUT EDWIN WALKER REVEAL

...

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM EDWIN WALKER'S FBI FILES?

...

WALKER'S DALLAS FIELD FILE:

...

BOTTOM-LINE

...

This is a capable and scholarly preliminary report on recent FOIA releases of FBI Field Files on General Walker. It makes only two errors.

First, the Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness did not occur in August, 1961, as stated, but occurred in April, 1962.

Secondly, as Jeff Caufield implies in his new book, , General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015), the Dallas FBI withheld information from FBI HQ.

This fact is underscored in the Warren Commission testimony of many officials in both the FBI and the Secret Service, regarding the Secret Service PRS (Protective Research Section).

Whenever any trip of any President is scheduled, the PRS contacts the local FBI in that area, to obtain the names of people known to be openly hostile to the President so that the Secret Service can pay them special attention before and during the Presidential visit.

In the case of the visit to Dallas, the local FBI explicitly told the PRS that "there were no suspicious people in Dallas at all."

History (via Penn Jones) shows that Dallas FBI agent James Hosty was for years the bridge partner of Robert Allen Surrey, who was a publisher for the American Nazi Party. Furthermore, Surrey was in daily contact with Ex-General Edwin Walker, who had likely sworn revenge on JFK for sending Walker to an insane asylum in late 1962.

Finally, Surrey was the creator of the "WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK" handbill that circulated in Dallas not only on 11/22/1963, but also on 10/23/1963, the night before the humiliation of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas. James Hosty specifically told the PRS and the Secret Service that he had no idea at all who created that handbill.

This was the very breakdown in US Government communication that led directly to the assassination of JFK.

In other words -- given the murder plot against JFK that was clearly brewing in Dallas -- James Hosty should have been, and probably was, fully aware of it -- and yet he deliberately chose to withhold these facts from the Secret Service (as well as from FBI HQ).

Given this, the full extent of FBI Agent James Hosty's knowledge is not going to be present in the FBI Field File -- so we must seek confirmation in further clues by a more careful reading of the details.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Yes-- I should have written Walker's August 1961 testimony was before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (in Executive Session) -- not the Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness.

With respect to Surrey and Walker:

It is not clear that the Dallas FBI field office had sufficient knowledge about Robert Surrey in the period prior to JFK's murder to assume anything about him having hostile intentions. We do know, however, that there is not much contemporaneous factual evidence at that time to support the conclusion that Walker was a direct physical threat to JFK. The applicable standards for notification to the Secret Service were developed by the Secret Service--not the FBI.

I do not know what you mean by Walker having "sworn revenge" against JFK. And, incidentally, JFK did not "send" anybody to an "insane asylum". Can you QUOTE something Walker wrote or said about his "revenge" plans?

If we used today's standards (after multiple assassinations and attempted assassinations during the 1960's and 1970's) -- then, maybe Walker could have been listed as worthy of a visit by the FBI or Secret Service.

I don't think anybody has ever developed verifiable factual data to support your claim that Hosty "probably was fully aware" of the murder plot against JFK.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Ernie Lazar