Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Getting this back on track -- whether you believe Walker was involved or not - this is an invaluable addition to any collection. As a general rule of thumb, you don't have to agree with an author's conclusions to appreciate the value of the research. The conclusions here are well supported, even if the evidence at times (and as is often the case in historical works) it is open to alternative explanations.

Highly recommended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, I thought the book was still several weeks out from publication...did you get an advance reading copy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, I thought the book was still several weeks out from publication...did you get an advance reading copy?

Larry,

I've been friends with Bill for a long time. We've swapped a lot of info over those years, so I have some insight into what it will contain. I have a slightly different take on things, but Bill and Jeff's work is always first class.

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg -- you are correct about some matters but wrong on others.
I was not giving you my "opinion".

Yes you were, Ernie. You said ""Nobody who actually knew Edwin Walker would conclude..." That is the phrasing of someone who is offering their own opinion on what others would conclude.

1. Does everyone know that Dr. Robert Stubblefield was always the first choice of Walker's lawyers as the psychiatrist THEY preferred?

You keep dropping hints that there is something untoward about Stubblefield and/or his report. Instead of these veiled smears, how about offering something solid?

Stubblefield obtained advice from Charles Weber, Professor of Law at MSU and Dr Titus Harris and Dr Andrew Watson as to what would constitute a reasonable, proper and thorough examination of Walker. Are they all suspicious characters as well?

2. Does everyone know that, originally, the intent was for 2 psychiatrists to examine Walker. The second (the government's choice) was Dr. Winfred Overholser but Walker's attorneys objected to him?

I have already stated that the government had the option of obtaining its own report, but decided against it after reading Stubblefield's. There was no shortage of government psychs to call on and no one could could possibly blame his team for objecting to the very creepy Overholser.

Greg -- in order to your comments:

1. I will let others decide if your interpretation is accurate.

2. Stubblefield and something "untoward" or a "smear" by me.

You are being argumentative as a debate tactic. I have repeatedly stated the obvious:

(1) He was just ONE person who conducted an examination and it is not known how long it was

(2) He conducted an examination but none of us (not you, not me, not anybody else) knows what he asked YOU have gone even further. YOU have stated that he conducted a battery of "standard tests". WHERE did you find that information? Specify what "tests".

(3) We do not know what answers Walker gave to the doctor's questions so we have no INDEPENDENT way to verify his conclusion

(4) We know that the government's preferred psychiatrist did not participate because Walker's attorneys objected

(5) The principle I am arguing for is PRUDENCE and DUE DILIGENCE, i.e. before accepting someone's conclusion about some matter as complex as mental competence, (a) there should be more than one source of information and (-b-) we should have access to questions and answers so we can make informed judgments about the adequacy of the examination.

3. Always good to seek advice but, again, we know nothing about what advice was given or whether or not Stubblefield accepted or rejected part or all of it and, more importantly, we do not know what questions were asked nor do we know what answers Walker gave. Ultimately THAT is the critical information which is currently absent from our discussion.

Lastly, I remind you that I have already stipulated that I do NOT believe that Walker was insane nor do I believe he was mentally incompetent nor do I believe that he should have been subjected to a psychiatric examination.

What is missing from your message is any clear explanation of why you regard Walker as evidencing "superior intelligence" OR if you do not believe that to be the case -- then why even dwell upon what Stubblefield thought?

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW -- in reviewing my notes, I was able to answer one of my own previously stated questions regarding Walker: When he graduated from West Point in June 1931, he was 229th out of 296 cadets.

Not exactly further evidence of his "superior intelligence".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure General Walker took appropriate solace in the fact that George Custer graduated even lower than 229th, and look how intelligent HE turned out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure General Walker took appropriate solace in the fact that George Custer graduated even lower than 229th, and look how intelligent HE turned out.

Funny you mentioned that because as I was typing my message, I was thinking of Custer. I think Custer also had the highest number of demerits for rules infractions of any cadet. In fact, he was facing a court-martial just prior to graduation. Winston Churchill failed the entrance exam twice at Royal Military College--Sandhurst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW -- in reviewing my notes, I was able to answer one of my own previously stated questions regarding Walker: When he graduated from West Point in June 1931, he was 229th out of 296 cadets.

Not exactly further evidence of his "superior intelligence".

A lot of books and magazines claim Einstein failed maths at school... but it is a myth.

Is this true of Walker? I have no idea, but even if it is, so what? Oswald failed a number of school exams. In no way did that reflect is 118 IQ score,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. Stubblefield and something "untoward" or a "smear" by me.

You are being argumentative as a debate tactic. I have repeatedly stated the obvious:

Really? Then what was your intent with this comment?

Does everyone know that Dr. Robert Stubblefield was always the first choice of Walker's lawyers as the psychiatrist THEY preferred?

Are you honestly trying to claim that the above is not a smear suggesting they wanted Stubblefield because they knew they could rely upon him to give a favorable (i.e. biased) report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. Stubblefield and something "untoward" or a "smear" by me.

You are being argumentative as a debate tactic. I have repeatedly stated the obvious:

Really? Then what was your intent with this comment?

Does everyone know that Dr. Robert Stubblefield was always the first choice of Walker's lawyers as the psychiatrist THEY preferred?

Are you honestly trying to claim that the above is not a smear suggesting they wanted Stubblefield because they knew they could rely upon him to give a favorable (i.e. biased) report?

Well, Greg, you raise one possibility. I have no specific knowledge regarding Stubblefield. The difference between you and I - is that I candidly admit when I do not know something whereas you pretend to have all the relevant answers.

Often, defense lawyers express a preference for certain witnesses or a preference for certain "expert testimony" because they know something in advance which is advantageous to their arguments. And the reverse is also true, i.e. they immediately reject certain "expert witnesses" because they believe such witnesses will not provide testimony which is advantageous to their defendant.

I'll give you one example from another context.

During the 1960's, Richard Combs was the Chief Counsel for the California Senate Factfinding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities and he wrote a major portion of the Subcommittee's Report on the Birch Society which was released in 1963. Many people were surprised that the Democrat-controlled Subcommittee produced the type of report they published.

From the JBS perspective, that Report falsified the most egregious misrepresentations of the JBS which existed when the Subcommittee conducted its investigation. Consequently, there was immense PR value in quoting those portions which rejected the idea that the JBS was "fascist" or "racist" etc while the JBS ignored all of the other unfavorable statements and conclusions.

However, there is a May 17, 1962 letter from JBS National Council member Paul Talbert to fellow Council member G. Cola Parker which should be considered. Please notice the date of that letter, i.e. many months before the final Report was written and published and released to the public.

Talbert wrote to Parker that the Report made conclusions that might be considered "too favorable to the JBS" and he attributed the positive report to the fact that the JBS was "too hot to handle for an election year and too devastating against Governor Brown and Attorney General Mosk."

Then Talbert dropped a bombshell.

Talbert told Parker that he had spoken with Combs, and Talbert reported: "Confidentially, I can state that he is 100% on our side."

That is a very significant bit of information -- don't you think? But nobody knew that at the time.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, Greg, you raise one possibility. I have no specific knowledge regarding Stubblefield. The difference between you and I - is that I candidly admit when I do not know something whereas you pretend to have all the relevant answers.

Quotes from this thread:

Greg: You are right. I don't know the entire contents of the report he made.

Greg: Is this true of Walker? I have no idea

--------------

So your claim that I pretend to have all the relevant answers is just another smear... I called it early, You model yourself on Hoover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, Greg, you raise one possibility. I have no specific knowledge regarding Stubblefield. The difference between you and I - is that I candidly admit when I do not know something whereas you pretend to have all the relevant answers.

Quotes from this thread:

Greg: You are right. I don't know the entire contents of the report he made.

Greg: Is this true of Walker? I have no idea

--------------

So your claim that I pretend to have all the relevant answers is just another smear... I called it early, You model yourself on Hoover.

No, Greg, your typical pattern is to make definitive statements for which you provide no evidence and then you ignore relevant questions. Examples:

1. You stated in message #106 that:

Ernie, Stubblefield gave him the usual battery of tests to come to his conclusions. Are you really expecting anyone to take your word as to what others MIGHT say over what a qualified psychiatrist concluded from valid testing?
What is your evidence for those statements? Nobody knows and you won't provide it.
* what are the "usual battery of tests"? name them
* what was Walker asked? specify the questions
* what did Walker reply? specify the answers
* how do we know that the tests were "valid" for the purpose of answering what started this dispute, i.e. Walker's level of intelligence?
* do you accept or reject the principle I am advocating, i.e. that relying upon ONE psychiatrist for ANY conclusion is NOT prudent??
2. In message 112 you declared that Stubblefield produced "a properly conducted psychiatric assessment."
How do you know that? You could be right but where is the evidence? Nobody knows and you won't provide it.
* we know that Stubblefield was, from the outset, the preferred psychiatrist by Walker's lawyers. Why did they want him?
* we don't know what Stubblefield asked Walker
* we don't know what answers Walker gave
---consequently there is no independent method to verify your contention.
* when I stated that friends and allies of Walker had acknowledged his deficiencies, you responded by describing them as "Opinions from disaffected ex-employees and ex-friends and political colleagues - none of whom have any psychiatric training."
WHOM were YOU referring to? Nobody knows. And is it your position that everyone requires "psychiatric training" to make a judgment regarding someone's mental state or level of intelligence?
If so, we can rule out everything YOU tell us! [incidentally, I worked as a volunteer for several years at a mental hospital. During that time I conversed with dozens of mental patients and I also worked with another volunteer who was working on her master's thesis in sociology with respect to what was then known as bibliotherapy -- i.e. the use of literature, poetry and writing in general to get mental patients to express their feelings and aid them in understanding and solving their emotional problems.]
3. In message #120 you presented this absurdity:
"You did not use the term 'mentally deficient'. You simply indicated he wasn't smart enough to organize a party in a brewery."
* this is your standard technique, i.e. grossly distort and misrepresent what someone writes and then present a straw-man argument. From the outset, I have stated that planning and executing a complex criminal conspiracy that involves multiple actors and numerous variables is not something that is easy to do. You trivialized my observation by making it seem like every criminal conspiracy is no more difficult than arranging a beer party.
* apparently, you can't intelligently respond to what actually is being written so you prefer to fabricate a false version.
* from the beginning I stated that I do NOT believe that Walker was insane or mentally deficient nor do I think he should have been required to undergo any sort of psychiatric testing. Doesn't that clearly indicate (even to you) that my point must be something much different from your caricature of my position?
In message #123 I summarized your position in one sentence:
Your position continues to be that one single "qualified" person who performs an "examination" of unknown content and unknown duration with unknown answers should be dispositive and it should shut down further discussion---correct?
Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is your evidence for those statements? Nobody knows and you won't provide it.

From Stubblefield's report:

"Mr Walker appears to be able to deal freely and accurately with his recollections of the incidents leading up to his arrest and present charges... it is our impression that the court in this case at this time is not concerned out Mr Walker's ability to understand fully the more complex and subtle aspects of his motivation in regard to the acts for which he is charged. If it were, and we were asked to evaluate those kinds of questions, it would be necessary to conduct a much more penetrating exploration of Mr. Walker's psychological operations."

In short, the examination was sufficient for stated purpose. As the the types of tests... courts routinely request psychiatric examinations to determine fitness to stand trial. When something is required often, it usually results in some type of standardization of processes and procedures. In this case, it would include a minimum set of particular tests. The courts for there part, being so used to reading such reports, would recognize one that has attempted to take short cuts, used non-standard tests, or indeed, has not given tests it usually sees in such cases. You seem to want to believe that Walker case somehow happened in a vacuum or in some alternate universe where standards don't have to apply.

More later. I have other fish frying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG!?

I could respond to some of this, blame me if you want, but I am presently busy with Biz and family stuff. Sorry.

Dr. Caufield never says or states that Walker was the sole mastermind behind the 11-22-63 hit , OK!?

It's more complex than that. If you read the original blurb I posted you will hopefully discern that.

There are reasons the Title is what it is. I cannot take days to explain that on a Forum!

Now; One thing I will address is Mr. Lazar's take on Paul Rothermel.

To dismiss Paul Rothermel as inconsequential in this case is a mistake at best.(That's my impression of Ernie's take)

Paul Rothermel was an insider to the world of H.L. Hunt, (The "Richest Man in the World”)

He was the ‘Chief of Security’ for H.L Hunt during this crucial period, and he had his finger on the pulse of Dallas and Texas State politics. It was his job to know the political landscape, and it often involved intelligence gathering as well. Rothermel had numerous connections inside and out of government. He also knew most of the key players in politics and industry in the region. As his own obit states;

"Rothermel was an active attorney in Texas for over 50 years. He was a former special agent of the FBI and of the Special Texas Rangers. He served as a Family Law Judge for Dallas County and as a Municipal Law Judge for the City of Richardson and was a former President of the Texas Academy of Family Law Specialists."

Funny how they omit his time with Hunt!

He was VERY conservative by his own admission.

He was a sitting judge at the time we interviewed him, at his Richardson Texas home in March of 2000.

(He died two years later)

What he was telling us regarding his talk / speech before the Dallas JBS at Austin’s BBQ, was that he was shocked at the increased level of radicalism within the JBS. (“I wasn’t right wing enough for them!”)

I recall he also said something to the effect that;

It seemed that the extremists were starting to take over….

I cannot quote this line verbatim since he would not allow me to take anymore notes at that point, but it was very close to my paraphrasing.

That interview was the most fascinating and yet disturbing interview I’ve ever been a part of. Very intense and nerve racking. The last entry in my notes are; “HE KNOWS, WE KNOW…that HE KNOWS!!

He also said some very cryptic things about the Z-film as well.

I would bet my life that he knew 'where the bodies were buried' so to speak, and reluctantly admitted as much to us.

It was an experience I won't forget!

Bill

Edited by William O'Neil

Share this post


Link to post
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...