Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Jason Ward]

6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

I  agree with you that the question of further CIA involvement must remain open -- and that further information and FOIA releases on the topic must be analyzed carefully.

I have no firm conclusion yet -- only a theory; a CT.

However, we cannot discount the proximity of Morales and Hunt to the Radical Right wing of racists and those who accused Washington DC of outright Communism, and so sought the overthrow of the US Government.  Both CIA officers connect to Frank Sturgis.

Also, Larry Hancock connects David Morales to Johnny Martino.  Also, Hancock connects Johnny Martino to the John Birch Society -- the Communist Plot wackos of the 1960's. 

As for the Howard Hunt deathbed confession, I believe it is genuine -- it is not a written document (like Roscoe White's confession) -- but it is tape-recorded, and that is crucial, IMHO.  I admit that we must take Howard Hunt himself with a grain of salt, since he speaks cryptically at times -- but at other times he is explicit.  (Perhaps Hunt deserves his own thread, so that we don't get side-tracked from the theme of the Radical Right.)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Hi Paul,

The more I study the cable traffic of 1963, the more I find the idea of CIA-as-a-conspiratorial-force absurd.   The main hangup people have is, I think, that the CIA is secretive and part of the cover-up; but so is RFK.   In my view the CIA would never risk in a million years their own destruction by getting involved in assassinating a US president; furthermore, I see no CIA conspiratorial benefit from killing JFK.   The CIA is not nearly as all-powerful as imagined; they suffer all the same sloppiness, slow reaction, and decision-by-plodding-committee as every other government bureaucracy.

We'll have to agree to disagree about what St John Hunt recorded and his reliability as a messenger of the truth.

 

Jason

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jason

Walker maybe was or maybe wasn't the source of the info which appeared in the German newspaper on 29 Nov 1963. It may have been someone wanting to solidify Oswald as a man with a propensity to use a rifle to kill.

As I recall, Walker was upset that law enforcement played games with the bullet taken from the wall in Walker's house. He apparently wasn't sure who fired the bullet at him.

George,

The following is my opinion and my best recollection.

The Mary Ferrell website has a lot of documentation on this.  On November 29, 1963, the German FBI contacted the editor of that German newspaper and demanded the location of the reporter, "Hasso Thorsten."   The editor, Gerhard Frey, admitted that "Hasso Thorsten" was the pen-name of Helmut Hubert Muench.

The German FBI arrested Helmut Muench and put him under a spotlight.   Helmut Muench cracked.  He told the German FBI that the source of that article was General Edwin Walker.  Walker had initiated the interview through his good friend and former Nazi, Gerhard Frey.

-- As for the Walker bullet --

The only reason that Walker was extremely upset when HSCA head Robert Blakey showed the Walker bullet on TV in 1978, was because Blakey showed a pristine bullet as a stand-in for the original.  Walker called his lawyers and his Congressman, and he wanted to sue.  He wanted his true role in the Oswald-JFK saga to go down in US History.

It will be.

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited September 11, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[George Sawtelle]

The phone call from Walker to Germany is part of the documented evidence.   The words of course were not recorded, but testified to by the German side.  That's why the Warren Commission pursues this - it is certain the source is Walker.  The German newspaper article is only one example of many.  There are several examples where Walker leaks his desired narrative that Oswald shot at him before this was public dogma from the letter found at the Paine's from LHO.

Jason

Please provide the evidence of the following

1) that the Warren Commission is certain it is Walker

2) that Walker called the German newspaper 

[Jason Ward]

42 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

The phone call from Walker to Germany is part of the documented evidence.   The words of course were not recorded, but testified to by the German side.  That's why the Warren Commission pursues this - it is certain the source is Walker.  The German newspaper article is only one example of many.  There are several examples where Walker leaks his desired narrative that Oswald shot at him before this was public dogma from the letter found at the Paine's from LHO.

Jason

Please provide the evidence of the following

1) that the Warren Commission is certain it is Walker

2) that Walker called the German newspaper 

 

Ok, George:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

==the above 3 snippets can be found here:

 

 

...and just for good measure, here's a taste of the allegations the WC heard about Walker:

 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Jason Ward

[George Sawtelle]

Jason

Consider the source. The FBI helped the CIA cover-up the murder. You think they will tell us the truth? If we must rely on the FBI then we will never solve this murder.

A little chuckle when I read where Hoover says ... "this completes our inquiry".

The inquiry is far from complete. Who owns the newspaper? Who is the editor? Who sits on the board of directors? Who is Helmut Muench? Does the owner or anyone on the board of directors have any intelligence connections either in Europe or the US?

Hoover's memo should not be taken at face`value. It appears the FBI wants to neutralize Walker until he gets in line i.e., if he doesn't get in line he may find himself indicted for conspiracy to kill the president.

[Paul Brancato]

15 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Hi Paul,

1. First please understand that I'm not trying to sell you or anyone else on a Walker-did-it CT.  I am, however, very curious about this angle and am sharing a lot of what I can find so that others can shoot it down, agree, or comment.  I am playing devil's advocate - I am not 100% convinced of Walker's role.

2. Of course I know about Souetre!  That's why I posted that source - because it is fascinating, but also to show I'm interested in exploring everything, not convincing anyone of my personal opinion.   Assuming the source I quote above is correct, the Walker-Bringuier-Souetre-OAS connection is really intriguing!   My feeling is that Souetre is something of a gun-for-hire at this point, which is basically what I've read elsewhere.  Naturally, he interviews with General Walker for a job Walker wants done....

3. I do not require you to post the actual sources or page numbers, but perhaps you can detail what you mean by saying 'there are mountains of evidence showing such contacts between Oswald and others that were not part of this ultra right circle' ?   Like who?  As I say, just your own recollection is good.

4. What's your evidence that Oswald was sent to Russia as a false defector program run by the CIA or possibly the ONI?  I see nothing to support this, so again, just your own recollection of what you've seen is fine.

5. Yes, I continue to see no evidence of CIA involvement.   Evidence is a document or witness testimony.   Yes, as we said above, Howard Hunt and Morales may have had some assassination insight, but I see no role for them as acting on behalf of the CIA.  Again, if you want to throw out any evidence, great, please do.

6. No Oswald did not kill JFK, of that I am 99.99% sure.   I'm probably 95% sure that Oswald was up to something on 22 November --- I doubt he thought JFK's death was in the cards, but he may have been expecting some JFK-related event, shall we say.   It doesn't matter much who pulled the trigger - what matters is who bought the bullets.

7. How does the CIA benefit by killing Kennedy?   You believe it is worth risking prison, the electric chair, and the destruction of the CIA for whatever you're going to say the CIA's intended benefit is?   That's a huge huge risk with no payoff as far as I can see.

 

Thanks again for the polite conversation!

Jason

 

Jason - I can't answer all those questions without spending considerable time among my books. Certainly Otepka knew all about the false defector program. Another who did was Macomber, according to Mr. Scully, who used to post here. I can tell you that you will see that interesting tidbit in the threads on this forum on Thomas J. Devine.

what strikes me as really odd is the Liebeler questioning of Walker. You provided documentation that Walker had the conversations with the editor of the German ultra right mag that broke the story, but Walker himself denies being the source. So don't you think one has to consider the possibility that the info contained in that article has another source? Or that both Walker and the editor are prevaricating, that they both knew, and that they are attempting to protect a wider circle of European based fascists? I can't find it now, but someone on this thread or another current one said that Hunt and ____ went to Madrid in 1963. Do you recall that?

You have used the phrase 'I see no evidence' when making statements about the CIA or JCS, that they were involved. I think documents are good but don't necessarily rise to the level of evidence, since those that generate documents often have other agendas than the truth, such as deliberate misdirection. I prefer reading between the lines on all of this, and trust my instincts more. It's hard to engage with someone like you on these subjects because we have different ways of reading and assimilating. I think we may come to similar conclusions using very different methods. I'm not a researcher and don't dig through documents, but admire those that do. (By the way, what is MMF?) I am well read, and over the years have come to admire the work of certain good researchers in forming my opinions, such as Peter Dale Scott, Newman, Simpich, and also on the ground people like Fonzi. I think all of them see the CIA and military footprints, but none of them would say the CIA did it. I've read considerably on Dulles and Angleton, and have tried to do the same with Lemnitzer and Le May with much less success. Ve looked at the military presence in Dallas, and think mist definitely that Jack Crichton and Brandstetter, who founded the mysterious 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit are persons of interest. And while I find no proof of involvement amongst this cast of characters I do find plenty of motive means and opportunity. And there is no question in my mind that Walker and Banister are part of this milieu and had plenty of motive. I look at what happened in the years following the assassination and conclude that the motives of the perpetrators were much larger than Cuba. I'm cautious about the mountains of info and mystery around Oswald because I see no evidence he was the assassin. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Jason Ward]

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jason - I can't answer all those questions without spending considerable time among my books. Certainly Otepka knew all about the false defector program. Another who did was Macomber, according to Mr. Scully, who used to post here. I can tell you that you will see that interesting tidbit in the threads on this forum on Thomas J. Devine.

what strikes me as really odd is the Liebeler questioning of Walker. You provided documentation that Walker had the conversations with the editor of the German ultra right mag that broke the story, but Walker himself denies being the source. So don't you think one has to consider the possibility that the info contained in that article has another source? Or that both Walker and the editor are prevaricating, that they both knew, and that they are attempting to protect a wider circle of European based fascists? I can't find it now, but someone on this thread or another current one said that Hunt and ____ went to Madrid in 1963. Do you recall that?

You have used the phrase 'I see no evidence' when making statements about the CIA or JCS, that they were involved. I think documents are good but don't necessarily rise to the level of evidence, since those that generate documents often have other agendas than the truth, such as deliberate misdirection. I prefer reading between the lines on all of this, and trust my instincts more. It's hard to engage with someone like you on these subjects because we have different ways of reading and assimilating. I think we may come to similar conclusions using very different methods. I'm not a researcher and don't dig through documents, but admire those that do. (By the way, what is MMF?) I am well read, and over the years have come to admire the work of certain good researchers in forming my opinions, such as Peter Dale Scott, Newman, Simpich, and also on the ground people like Fonzi. I think all of them see the CIA and military footprints, but none of them would say the CIA did it. I've read considerably on Dulles and Angleton, and have tried to do the same with Lemnitzer and Le May with much less success. Ve looked at the military presence in Dallas, and think mist definitely that Jack Crichton and Brandstetter, who founded the mysterious 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit are persons of interest. And while I find no proof of involvement amongst this cast of characters I do find plenty of motive means and opportunity. And there is no question in my mind that Walker and Banister are part of this milieu and had plenty of motive. I look at what happened in the years following the assassination and conclude that the motives of the perpetrators were much larger than Cuba. I'm cautious about the mountains of info and mystery around Oswald because I see no evidence he was the assassin. 

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your view on Oswald and the defector program.  I looked into it some time ago but I will look again.

1. As for Liebeler coming just short of calling Walker a perjurer, I am guided by Occam's Razor.  The complicated explanation is the least likely explanation.  Since I discount any claim that the German BND, the FBI, and the phone company conspired to manufacture evidence against Walker, I agree with Liebeler that the evidence shows Walker himself is the only plausible source of the multiple leaks claiming Oswald shot Walker.

2. In response to your point about evidence... in my use of the word it simply means that which is presented as factual and which address whether a claim is true or not.  These ideally come from witnesses or disinterested data repositories like AT&T and other corporate service providers.   Whether that which is presented as factual, such as witness testimony, is indeed trustworthy is a matter of judgment we all can make -but - witness testimony and documented sources are The Best Evidence in my book.  (see what I did there with the word book and ref to Best Evidence...)

3. You make a good point about the different ways we approach this.   We need some who are big on reading between the lines and conjecture.   I despise the way so many of us believe that if Oswald is ever in the same room as a mafia-CIA-FBI-KGB-antiCastro guy, then this proves he is in the Mafia, a FBI employee, a CIA agent or whatever.   So I am a hardass about acceptable evidence, but guys like me who go through govt cables and memos sometimes need guys like you to point us in the right direction.

I appreciate the interaction.  There are several examples of people who MAY have solved the essential details as early as 64 based on lots of intuition and very little hard evidence.  So I value your approach as long as sooner or later it is either documented or acknowledged as conjecture only.

 

Jason

[Roger DeLaria]

 

[Paul Trejo]

21 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Jason

Consider the source. The FBI helped the CIA cover-up the murder. You think they will tell us the truth? If we must rely on the FBI then we will never solve this murder.

A little chuckle when I read where Hoover says ... "this completes our inquiry".

The inquiry is far from complete. Who owns the newspaper? Who is the editor? Who sits on the board of directors? Who is Helmut Muench? Does the owner or anyone on the board of directors have any intelligence connections either in Europe or the US?

Hoover's memo should not be taken at face`value. It appears the FBI wants to neutralize Walker until he gets in line i.e., if he doesn't get in line he may find himself indicted for conspiracy to kill the president.

George,

Let's focus for a minute on your question -- who was Helmut Muench?    The BND, the FBI and the WC all identify him as the writer of the article in the German newspaper.   Now, let's look at Walker's WC testimony -- and see what Walker says about Helmut Muench:

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Helmut Hubert Muench? 
General WALKER. That name is not familiar to me. Can you give me anything to refresh me? 
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. He is a West German journalist who wrote an article that appeared in the Deutsche Nationalzeitung und Soldatenzeitung, a Munich, Germany, newspaper. 
General WALKER. No; I don't know him. 
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to him? 
General WALKER. Not that I know of. 
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you talk to him on a transatlantic telephone call in which you told him about the fact or the alleged fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person who made an attempt on your life? 
General WALKER. I don't recall that name. Did he speak English? I don't speak German. 
Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever seen a copy of that newspaper? 
General WALKER. Yes; I have. 
Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, I suggest that you have seen the November 29, 1963, copy of that newspaper which had on its front page a story entitled in German "The Strange Case of Oswald", that told about how Oswald had allegedly attacked you. 
General WALKER. November 29, that is correct. 
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, where did that newspaper get that information, do you know? 
General WALKER. I do not. There was an article in the paper that he probably got from me. 
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, in fact, the issue of that newspaper has right on the front page what purports to be a transcript of a telephone conversation between you and some other person. 
General WALKER. Thorsten? 
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. Hasso Thorsten, is that the man? 
General WALKER. He called me in Shreveport. 
Mr. LIEBELER. When were you in Shreveport? 
General WALKER. He called me the morning of November 23, 1963, about 7 a.m. 
Mr. LIEBELER. That is when you gave him this information about Oswald having attacked you? 
General WALKER. I didn't give him all the information -- I think the portion you are referring to, I didn't give him, because I had no way of knowing that Oswald attacked me. I still don't. And I am not very prone to say in fact he did. In fact, I have always claimed he did not, until we can get into the case or somebody tells us differently that he did.  

In my reading, Ex-General Walker was anything but crazy -- he was extremely shrewd, and he was playing cat and mouse with WC attorney Liebeler.   In my reading, Walker knew very well that his friend, Gerhard Frey, the editor of the German newspaper, was an editor for the Nazi Party during World War 2, as well as the specific status of this German newspaper in 1963.  

In my reading, Gerhard Frey knew that Hasso Thorsten was the pen-name of Helmut Muench, and so did General Walker.  Yet Walker shrewdly denied knowing Helmut Muench but admitted knowing "Hasso Thorsten."    Also, General Walker claimed with regard to Oswald attacking him,  "I have always claimed that he did not."  Yet he contradicted his own testimony in his 1975 letter to Frank Church.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited September 12, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Jason Ward]

2 hours ago, Roger DeLaria said:

 

Great YouTube evidence, thanks.   I just got the book Dallas 1963 on this topic.

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

 

Paul, earlier you mentioned the CIA mole hunt in Mexico City as discussed by Simpich --- why don't we use the same approach?  I think the basic idea here is relevant to assassination research.

If we notice the places, dates, and people who reveal well-hidden information, it can give us a great clue, IMO.   Are they revealing information inconsistent with their stated alibi, activities, and history?   Are they revealing something today so commonly known that we overlook it - but which at the time was virtually unknown?  Are they showing us they have knowledge which is incompatible with innocence?  I'm borrowing the Mole Hunt technique.

It's obvious Walker is the very first person to say Oswald took a shot at him in April (except perhaps Oswald himself).   How does Walker know this before the DPD?  Before the FBI?  Before Oswald's letter at the Paine house is publicized?

...

Here's something I'd like everyone to consider: Michael Paine takes Oswald to an ACLU meeting shortly before the assassination.   During the meeting, according to some reports, when the hostile and violent Dallas reception for Adlai Stevenson is in discussion, Lee Harvey Oswald gets up and makes a nuisance of himself by loudly claiming General Walker was behind the event - which we now know is true. 

Yes, Walker had his own rally prior to Stevenson's arrival which Oswald inexplicably attends....is this enough to make it certain Walker is behind the Adlai Stevenson violence?

....is the official narrative enough to explain why Oswald says this with such passion and certainty at the time?    Walker was not considered the proven instigator of Stevenson's debacle, AFAIK, until years later.   Are we seeing yet another example of the familiarity between Oswald and Walker that implies their certain knowledge of one another which others (or at least the public and investigative agencies) lack?   Walker seems preoccupied with dressing up Oswald as a Left Wing Nut and Oswald seems preoccupied with dressing up Walker as a Right Wing Nut.   Yet, they both know each other's secrets.....hmmm. Or am I way off here?

...and what about Michael Paine?  He seems a ready facilitator to Oswald's political life in Dallas - why?

 

Jason

Edited September 12, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Roger DeLaria]

21 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Great YouTube evidence, thanks.   I just got the book Dallas 1963 on this topic.

You're welcome. I have the Dallas 1963 book as well. 

Edited September 12, 2017 by Roger DeLaria

[Roger DeLaria]

 

 

 

[Paul Trejo]

18 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Paul, earlier you mentioned the CIA mole hunt in Mexico City as discussed by Simpich --- why don't we use the same approach?  I think the basic idea here is relevant to assassination research.

If we notice the places, dates, and people who reveal well-hidden information, it can give us a great clue, IMO.   Are they revealing information inconsistent with their stated alibi, activities, and history?   Are they revealing something today so commonly known that we overlook it - but which at the time was virtually unknown?  Are they showing us they have knowledge which is incompatible with innocence?  I'm borrowing the Mole Hunt technique.

It's obvious Walker is the very first person to say Oswald took a shot at him in April (except perhaps Oswald himself).   How does Walker know this before the DPD?  Before the FBI?  Before Oswald's letter at the Paine house is publicized?

...

Here's something I'd like everyone to consider: Michael Paine takes Oswald to an ACLU meeting shortly before the assassination.   During the meeting, according to some reports, when the hostile and violent Dallas reception for Adlai Stevenson is in discussion, Lee Harvey Oswald gets up and makes a nuisance of himself by loudly claiming General Walker was behind the event - which we now know is true. 

Yes, Walker had his own rally prior to Stevenson's arrival which Oswald inexplicably attends....is this enough to make it certain Walker is behind the Adlai Stevenson violence?

....is the official narrative enough to explain why Oswald says this with such passion and certainty at the time?    Walker was not considered the proven instigator of Stevenson's debacle, AFAIK, until years later.   Are we seeing yet another example of the familiarity between Oswald and Walker that implies their certain knowledge of one another which others (or at least the public and investigative agencies) lack?   Walker seems preoccupied with dressing up Oswald as a Left Wing Nut and Oswald seems preoccupied with dressing up Walker as a Right Wing Nut.   Yet, they both know each other's secrets.....hmmm. Or am I way off here?

...and what about Michael Paine?  He seems a ready facilitator to Oswald's political life in Dallas - why?

Jason

Jason,

By the numbers:

(1.0) Bill SImpich and Larry Hancock spent some years analyzing FOIA releases of CIA data to uncover the top-secret Mole Hunt for the October 1963 impersonator of Lee Harvey Oswald.  It was a labor of genius -- but also a mammoth amount of dedicated labor.   Since I hold down a full time job, I just don't have that sort of labor time to donate.  It is all I can do to keep up with these Forum threads.

(1.1.)  I agree that the approach by Bill Simpich is the ideal, however.  The people who reveal well-hidden information, namely, information not reviewed for over 50 years, are indeed the key to finally solving the JFK assassination.  We must strive to look at the RIGHT PEOPLE.   The CIA-did-it CTers keep wasting everybody's time by looking at the wrong people -- decade after decade.

(2.0)  I agree with you, Jason, that Ex-General Walker was the very first person to say PUBLICLY that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) took a shot at him in April 1963.  

(2.1)  The only way that Walker could know this before the DPD, the FBI or the Secret Service was that he knew about it BEFORE the JFK assassination.  That's my opinion.

(3.0) Michael Paine drove LHO to the General Walker "US Day" rally at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium on October 23, 1963, as Michael attended a John Birch Society introductory meeting, to find out what it was all about.  At Walker's rally, says Larrie Schmidt, the Auditorium was deliberately booby-trapped in advance, and instructions were given regarding how to disrupt all "Communist" speeches -- including the one by Adlai Stevenson.

(3.1)  UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson was humiliated in Dallas on "UN Day" rally at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium on October 24, 1963. 

(3.2)  Michael Paine drove LHO to an ACLU meeting on October 25, 1963.   During that meeting, people talked about the Dallas humiliation of Adlai Stevenson the previous night.   WC witnesses say that LHO spoke up at that meeting, and spoke of General Walker in critical tones.    

(3.3)  Scholar Chris Cravens wrote a thesis in 1991 entitled, General Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas 1960-1966.  In this thesis, Cravens offers strong evidence that Walker had pointedly instructed his people to humiliate Adlai Stevenson.   It was in response to JBS rules to always prevent any Communist from completing his speech in your local town.

(3.4) The only way I know to see a copy of this thesis is to borrow it through a University library system.  Chris Craven's thesis is authoritative and scholarly.

(3.5) According to WC testimony, however, LHO did not link Walker with the Adlai mess directly.  LHO told the group that Walker had insulted Catholics.  That became the main issue.

(3.6)  Walker was known as the proven instigator of Stevenson's debacle ON THE VERY NIGHT IT HAPPENED.  It was published in local newspapers, with Walker's name front and center.  Walker's name was not published, however, in national papers.  That is amazing to me, but it is apparently true, based on the evidence presented by Cravens (1991).  

(3.7)  Thus, I see no competition or peer relationship between Walker and LHO.  LHO evidently failed to grasp what was going on in that group of JBS, Citizens Council, YAF, NIC, Minutemen and so on.  I think LHO was there to remember the good old days of April, 1963.

(4.0)  Regarding Michael Paine -- LHO bored him, but Ruth Paine was crazy about Marina Oswald, so Michael Paine humored LHO.  The only thing Michael and LHO could agree on -- as far as Michael Paine could see -- was that General Walker was a right-wing menace. 

(4.1)  However, Michael Paine could see right through the Left-wing fakery of LHO.  The only positive thing to do, he thought, would be to get LHO to finally join an organization with some brains -- like the ACLU.   But it would take some finesse.  So, he offered to drive LHO to various political meetings in Dallas, to give him some confidence.

(4.2) It's important to recognize how bored Michael Paine was with LHO.   Michael's father was a real live Trotskyist.  That is, his father was upper-middle-class in California, divorced from Michael's mother, and held Left-wing symposiums in his house on a continual basis.  Michael saw first hand there how real Communists operated -- and how many different Parties there were -- and what their issues were.  Michael knew Marxism many times better than LHO would ever know it.  So, Michael knew that LHO was a Fake.

(4.3) Michael Paine's motives were 90% for Ruth Paine.  Another 10% was to show off to young college students that he knew a real Soviet defector who returned to the USA with a Russian wife!   We have an FBI witness who heard Michael boasting this at a Luby's restaurant in Dallas.  Maybe Michael was trolling -- it seems so.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited September 12, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - regarding point 2.1, Walker's statement that Oswald shot at him was indeed the first public pronouncement of that supposition, but it doesn't follow that therefore he knew about it for months. Since you like to use sworn testimony by Marina to distinguish when she was being truthful and when not, why do you turn around and claim that Walker was not being truthful when he told Liebeler that he did not know until after that phone call early on Nov 23rd? You may be right, but there may be another explanation, and that is that he found out about Oswald on that phone call. He apparently interesected with Oswald previously, though we don't know how closely. But he may have known little. So we have to keep in mind the possibility that he was let in on the patsification of Oswald after the assassination, a part of which was the incriminating story that Oswald had been the Walker shooter. 

To me, the one fact that does indeed stand out in this phone call, which was initiated from Germany, is that Walker was close to Nazis across the pond in addition to those close to home, such as his American Nazi roommate. Were it to be discovered that the key link to the assassination team was a European Nazi fixer (QJWIN?) it would all make sense. If the plot was hatched in the US, as I'm sure most of us assume, the deed would have by necessity have been outsourced. Many in the US may have known it was coming, such as the various Cubans and anti-Castroites. I'm struck by the visit in the spring of 1963 by Hunt and ? - to Madrid, Spain. If you recall who was with him please add that to your response. Indeed, the presence of Lemnitzer as head of NATO forces in Europe brings him into Operation Gladio, which had become for all intents and purposes a fascist operation. Lemnitzer himself testified to Congress during the Walker pro-blue flap, so clearly they were well acquainted. 

I think we should weigh the beliefs and fears of two heads of state, one killed, the other nearly so, when looking for suspects at the top of the cabal. JFK feared his generals, DeGaulle barely escaped an attempt on his life by his own ultra right generals, and believed that these forces were successful with JFK.