Edwin Walker

[William Kelly]

A few points of fact should be established - for one Walker's home at Turtle Creek was not in "the quiet neighborhood of Oak Cliff" but is in North Dallas, not far from the Egyptian Lounge, a few miles north of Dealey Plaza, while Oak Cliff is just south of downtown Dallas.

I also believe that Oswald was working full time - 6 days a week at Jagger/Chiles/Stoval graphics firm in Dallas at the time he ordered the weapons and at the time of the Walker shooting, so his whereabouts during the working hours are detailed to the minute - that's why the CIA's chronology of Oswald's activities at this time indicate he took the photos of Walker's home and shot at Walker on a Sunday, when he was off from work at JCS.

And also, despite the testimony of many people that they never saw Oswald drink, he did in fact drink in the USMC, at least on occasion, and got into trouble on some such times, and was drinking a beer with former USMC mate Thornley in New Orleans French Quarter bar when people came across them, and there are a few times when Oswald was known to have a beer. I also think he drank once in awhile in USSR. So there are known times when he fell off the wagon.

I'd like to know more about the film Prince Jack.

Is it available for viewing over the internet?

BK

JFKcountercoup

JFKCountercoup2

[Paul Trejo]

I have never seen anything to suggest Ruby knew Walker. I posed the question because I wondered what your take was on Ruby's motives in killing Oswald. I have always assumed he acted on orders from someone, but who? If Walker was behind the JFK hit and Ruby knew it, why would he kill Oswald? Did Ruby have any reason to protect Walker? Or did he kill Oswald because Oswald could have implicated Ruby in the assassination? It was Ruby's act that forever caused me to doubt Oswald's guilt.

If one follows your theory, Walker knew right after the attempt on his life that Oswald was the shooter and was protected and possibly even hired by RFK. Of course there is no concrete evidence of RFK's protection of Oswald, but Walker's belief in this regard is proven. Oswald's sojourn in New Orleans shortly after this event makes me wonder if Oswald was investigating something. Perhaps Oswald's street theater there was a misdirection of his own making to disguise his true motive, an investigation of the minutemen. I know this is stretching. Surely there is much evidence that he was up to something with the Cuban exile community there. But Miami would have been a better choice for this. Most investigators think Oswald was being played by someone, creating bonafides for his pro-castro stance. Even if that is true, it leaves me wondering who Oswald thought he was playing. Perhaps Banister, a minuteman and racist. Whatever Oswald was and whatever he believed, whatever kind of double or triple agent game he was playing, he certainly wasn't a racist.

Well, Paul B., I like your line of questioning. I also think that old story about Ruby's maudlin 'emotional' motive in killing Oswald was paper thin.

Also, Ruby had a surprising number of bizarre connections. Because of Jack Ruby the HSCA spent millions investigating major Mafia figures like Johny Rosselli, Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante. But those Mafia connections were more melodramatic than plausible.

The connections that interest me most about Ruby's life are those that circled around ex-General Edwin Walker.

Now, I find insufficient evidence to conclude that Ruby ever met Walker. But I like your question: if Jack Ruby killed Oswald on orders from somebody, then who issued those orders? Because, as I believe that ex-General Edwin Walker was the coordinator of the Dallas ground-crew of the JFK assassination, then wouldn't that necessarily involve Jack Ruby receiving a direct order from Walker?

It's an intriguing question - here's what I came up with: I currently believe that Walker knew of Jack Ruby's involvement, but Jack Ruby never met Walker. In other words, they never met, although Jack Ruby was a lower-level member of the ground crew, and reported up through a mutual associate.

Who else was part of the ground crew? I believe that Gerry Patrick Hemming was a member of the ground-crew, and I base this on his own confession that he offered Lee Harvey Oswald a double price for his Manlicher-Carcano rifle if Oswald would bring it to the TSBD building on the morning of 22 November 1963. Even if Hemming played no other role in the JFK assassination, this simple act made him an accomplice.

Who else worked with Hemming? Well, Loran Hall and Larry Howard were comrades in arms with Gerry Patrick Hemming, and all these men had visited the house of ex-General Edwin Walker at 4011 Turtle Creek Blvd. in Dallas during one or more days of 1963.

According to Harry Dean, General Walker himself gave instructions to Guy Gabaldon, Loran Hall and Larry Howard in California to ensnare Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy for the JFK assassination.

The connection with Ruby should become clear -- Hemming, Hall and Howard were (among other things) mercenary gun-runners between Florida and Dallas. Well, so was Jack Ruby. We also have an eye-witness account of Jack Ruby dropping off armed men at the grassy knoll on the early morning of 22 November 1963. If this is true, then this is solid evidence that Jack Ruby was a part of the ground crew as well.

There's my scenario -- Walker knew that Ruby was involved, but Ruby never met Walker. No doubt, however, that Ruby heard about Walker, and that is why Ruby told Earl Warren that Edwin Walker was involved in the JFK assassination. (But Chief Justice Warren simply ignored that claim.)

That is, we know that Jack Ruby suspected Walker of being a plotter against JFK, because that is exactly what he told Earl Warren. Your question then, is fitting -- why would Ruby kill Oswald knowing that Walker was behind the plot?

We are also aware from Harry Dean that Walker intended above all that Lee Harvey Oswald would take the full blame for the killing of JFK. Knowing that Walker was behind the plot, Jack Ruby went straight ahead and killed Lee Harvey Oswald. This suggests that either Jack Ruby was paid to do this hit, or that he knew General Walker very well.

Yet we have no external evidence to connect Walker and Ruby directly or personally -- therefore my theory will hold that Walker knew much about Ruby, because his ground-crew, starting with Hemming, Hall and Howard, were in close control of Jack Ruby who was working for money and also because of his respect for Hemming, Hall and Howard and any comrades in arms who had personally been to Cuba and personally fought against Castro. For this, Jack Ruby never needed to actually meet General Walker.

That's my theory until I get more evidence.

You also asked if Ruby have any reason to protect Walker. I doubt it, otherwise why would Ruby tell Earl Warren that Walker was the ringleader of the JFK assassination? That is, Ruby was intent on protecting his friends, his anti-Castro comrades in arms. But it is precisely because Ruby never met Walker that Ruby felt no compulsion to protect Walker -- Walker was a name on paper, or a public speaker on a stage, and not a personal friend. This means that Ruby killed Oswald on orders from a middle-man; somebody he had already known, and somebody he respected. About those orders that Oswald had to be killed -- Ruby probably received those orders a few weeks before the JFK assassination -- and probably the whole ground-crew got those same orders.

You also asked if Ruby killed Oswald because Oswald could have implicated Ruby in the assassination. I doubt that -- with Harry Dean's statement we surmise that Oswald was a marked man as early as mid-September 1963, and very likely many weeks earlier than that. Lee Harvey Oswald may have been a marked man as early as 14 April 1963 (but no earlier than that, according to my theory).

It is indeed proven -- several times -- that Walker believed that Oswald was his shooter on 10 April 1963, and Walker also believed that RFK was behind Oswald 100%.

Now, you wonder if Oswald's sojourn into New Orleans shortly after that shooting proves that Oswald was investigating something. I doubt that strongly. By allowing himself to be hypnotized (so to speak) to shoot at ex-General Edwin Walker, our Lee Harvey Oswald proved himself to be a man of ordinary intellect and character. He had high ambitions but little talent. He was a mercenary. He may have done odd jobs spying for the FBI (as he had a Minolta camera in his possessions) but he was never a full-time employee -- he probably did dirtly work on a contract basis, for very little money. (Yet he probably claimed it on his tax returns, so the Warren Commission has sealed Oswald's tax returns for 1962.)

His decision to travel to New Orleans was not his own, IMHO -- he was drafted by the forces of the Cuban Exile training camp at Lake Pontcharttrain. Gerry Patrick Hemming claims to have seen Oswald there. In the summer of 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald worked very hard to get himself into the newspapers as an FPCC officer -- and he succeeded in getting in the newspapers, and also the radio and also on television on multiple occasions in New Orleans -- as an FPCC officer. Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler -- two experts in war propaganda, were beside Oswald all the time in this sheep dipping scenario (as Jim Garrison put it). Then, Oswald took all these newspaper clippings with him to Mexico City, to convince the consulates there that he was an FPCC officer, and this he expected would win him quick and simple entrance into Cuba. He was a dismal failure in Mexico.

Why was the CIA so keen to keep Oswald's Mexico period a secret? Simply because Oswald was part of Operation Mongoose -- one of many plots to kill Fidel Castro. In any case, Oswald was a dismal failure in Mexico, and he was then deemed useless in the effort to kill Castro (which would have won him a pardon from Walker and his Minutemen forces). Now he became the property of Loran Hall and Larry Howard, whose only job now was to manipulate Oswald into moving back to Dallas and awaiting further instructions.

As for your speculation about Oswald's street theater as his own misdirection to investigate the Minutemen, I doubt that, too. Oswald did not organize the cameras that took his picture on Canal Street in August, 1963. Ed Butler organized those cameras. Ed Butler organized the arrest and publicity after the arrest. Ed Butler organized the police report, and the newspaper coverage, and the radio program afterwards. Carlos Bringuier not only fought with Oswald on Canal Street, but he joined Oswald on TV -- both wearing suits -- to pose for the cameras and claim that Oswald was a member of the FPCC. Ed Butler was also involved in the broadcasted debates. They were not fooled by Oswald -- they were callilng the shots.

It is not that Oswald was up to something with the Cuban Exile community in New Orleans, rather, the Cuban Exile community was up to something with Oswald. I am one of those theorists who thinks that "Oswald was being played by someone, creating bonafides" for his phony pro-Castro street creds.

You would then ask "who Oswald thought he was playing." In my opinion (and I am partly relying on Ron Lewis and his 1993 book, Flashback: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald), Oswald was told point blank that since he tried to kill ex-General Walker, that he was under paramilitary arrest, and he would have to obey orders to the letter to save his life. His first task was to kill Castro by faking credentials as an FPCC officer to get into Cuba easily. If he was successful, he would be a national hero and could one day become "Prime Minister of the USA" as he told Marina.

But if he was unsuccessful, then he would be drafted into a ground-crew to kill JFK. So Oswald was not an innocent lamb. He knew exactly who he was dealing with, and he knew the risks he was taking -- but he was under paramilitary arrest, and that was a life-sentence.

Anyway, I agree with you, Paul B., in that Oswald was no racist. That was not his motivation. His motivation nevertheless was not lofty. He was in it to save his skin. He had no idea that he was the patsy. If he ever had that inkling, he would have sung like a bird to the DPD. The DPD would have been Oswald's best friends at the time. But he didn't trust the Establishment, Oswald trusted the paramilitary group he ran with -- and he knew their guilt, and he knew part of his role in their plan, and he kept silence in order to protect them. Therefore, Oswald, even as a patsy, was also a knowing and willing part of the ground-crew that killed JFK. He was an accomplice.

Anyway, that's my theory. There are lots of official documents that support my theory. I'm always open to additional evidence.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited December 13, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

If Walker was behind the JFK assassination, why did Ruby kill Oswald?

[Paul Trejo]

A few points of fact should be established - for one Walker's home at Turtle Creek was not in "the quiet neighborhood of Oak Cliff" but is in North Dallas, not far from the Egyptian Lounge, a few miles north of Dealey Plaza, while Oak Cliff is just south of downtown Dallas.

I also believe that Oswald was working full time - 6 days a week at Jagger/Chiles/Stoval graphics firm in Dallas at the time he ordered the weapons and at the time of the Walker shooting, so his whereabouts during the working hours are detailed to the minute - that's why the CIA's chronology of Oswald's activities at this time indicate he took the photos of Walker's home and shot at Walker on a Sunday, when he was off from work at JCS.

And also, despite the testimony of many people that they never saw Oswald drink, he did in fact drink in the USMC, at least on occasion, and got into trouble on some such times, and was drinking a beer with former USMC mate Thornley in New Orleans French Quarter bar when people came across them, and there are a few times when Oswald was known to have a beer. I also think he drank once in awhile in USSR. So there are known times when he fell off the wagon.

I'd like to know more about the film Prince Jack.

Is it available for viewing over the internet?

BK

JFKcountercoup

JFKCountercoup2

Bill -- you're correct, Walker's home at 4011 Turtle Creek Blvd is not in "Oak Cliff" but in the "Oak Lawn" zone of Dallas (or between Oak Lawn and Highland Park). It was 'uptown' and not 'downtown'.

However, my timeline shows that Oswald got his notice on 1 April 1963, and his last day at Jagger/Chiles/Stovall was 6 April 1963, which was four days before the Walker shooting (10 April 1963).

Oswald started working at Jagger/Chiles/Stovall on 12 October 1962. Oswald his received his mail-order weapons on 25 March 1963. He had Marina take one single picture (as she firmly recalled) on 31 March 1963 and he probably used Jagger/Chiles/Stoval graphics to make 'Fotoshop' variations on his single picture - for the fun of it. Oswald was fired the very next day. It is possible that Oswald was fired precisely because he was abusing company photographic equipment as his own personal 'Fotoshop.'

I don't think Oswald's working hours are detailed to the minute (although Priscilla McMillan thought so). Rather, Marina admitted that Oswald frequently came and went at his own pleasure. He did take evening classes at a local community college - but his attendance records are unavailable, to the best of my knowledge.

As for Oswald' taking pictures of Walker's home, I date those photographs as follows: (i) In late January, 1963, Volkmar Schmidt uses advanced psychology on Oswald to transfer his anger over JFK and the Bay of Pigs from JFK to ex-General Edwin Walker and the riots of Ole Miss in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed -- only four months earlier. George De Mohrenshildt and Michael Paine looked on with approval that night; (ii) In February, 1963, Oswald purchased a rifle and a pistol through the mail; (iii) therefore Oswald could have been taking photographs of Walker's house as early as February, 1963.

Yes - that would have been the same time that he held his job at Jagger/Chiles/Stovall, and fellow workers at that shop admitted that Oswald asked if employees ever used the company equipment for personal purposes. He was told they sometimes did, but never abused the privilege. Oswald took this as a green light, evidently, and he eventually came to abuse the privilege. So it remains possible that some of the Walker house photos were developed at Jagger/Chiles/Stovall.

I personally don't care one way or the other if Oswald ever drank alcohol or not -- Marina says he didn't, but Oswald lied to Marina ten times a day. It makes little difference to my theory.

As for the film, PRINCE JACK (1985), it appears that Netflix does not have it, and neither does Youtube. I cannot find it anywhere except for a blurb on IMDB, and a used VHS version for sale on amazon.com. It was definitely a low-budget "B" movie. Some of the actors are familiar: Lloyd Nolan plays Joseph Kennedy. Jim Backus plays Ted Dealey. Dana Andrews plays the Catholic Cardinal. Robert Guillarme plays MLK. Cameron Mitchell plays ex-General Edwin Walker. These are all supporting roles. The starring roles for JFK and RFK are played by two actors I never saw before 1985 or afterwards.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited December 12, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

If Walker was behind the JFK assassination, why did Ruby kill Oswald?

Paul B., I accept Harry Dean's claim that in mid-September 1963, ex-General Edwin Walker told a Southern California gathering of radical John BIrch Society oriented Minutemen (of which Harry Dean was one) that he had identified a Communist -- Lee Harvey Oswald -- to fill the role of unsuspecting patsy for their plot to kill JFK. They all had a great laugh at the irony of this announcement.

Therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald was marked for assassination long before Jack Ruby pulled the trigger.

The only question in my mind is whether Jack Ruby knew Walker personally, or whether Jack Ruby only accepted mafia-style cash payment for this up-close hit with a revolver.

The erstwhile gigolo, William McEwan Duff, claimed that Jack Ruby visited Walker at Walker's home at 4011 Turtle Creek Blvd (in the Oak Lawn neighborhood of Dallas) at least once a month from December, 1962 until March 1963 -- i.e. in the months in which Duff himself lived at Walker's home rent-free. Duff claimed that Ruby was always accompanied by two men, one lighter, one darker, and that the lighter one, he believed, was a leader in the John Birch Society. But Duff later recanted his claim, and said he could not be absolutely certain.

The only connection I have between Ruby and Walker, then, with regard to the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald, is that in the late 1950's Ruby was a gun-runner between Florida and Dallas to support Mafia interests in Cuba. In this regard, then, he met Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Larry Howard who were also gun-runners between Florida and Dallas (though in the early 1960's). This was the common link.

As long as Ruby took orders from his underworld employers, the mafia-style hit on Lee Harvey Oswald would never be stopped. It was just work as usual for the mafia.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited December 12, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Since this month marks my one-year anniversary on the Education Forum, I want to take a moment to thank everybody for sharing information with me on this unusual Internet site.

In the past year I interviewed Harry Dean, Dave Robbins, Bishop Duncan Gray and Larrie Schmidt, and conversed with dozens of informed members here, and all this helped me write my academic paper about Edwin Walker 1960-1964 for Dr. H.W. Brands.

I also explored the Edwin Walker personal papers archive at UT Austin's Dolph Briscoe Center for the Study of American History this year, and posted the results to my fledgling Walker web site, www.pet880.com which I freely share with everybody who is interested in the history of ex-General Edwin Walker. This web site continues to grow, month after month.

Many thanks to the Education Forum for a full year of interest, conversation and vital information in our quest for the JFK murder ground-crew.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

Edited December 17, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - I visited your website. Its hard to know where to start. Do you have any suggestions?

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - I visited your website. Its hard to know where to start. Do you have any suggestions?

Thanks, Paul B, for visiting my web site at www.pet880.com. It is really a work-in-progress, I admit it, so a word of explanation is in order.

As part of my history project to delve into the history of ex-General Edwin Walker, with a focus on the years 1960-1964, I visited the archives of the Dolph Briscoe Center for the Study of American History, because the Briscoe Center has 80 boxes of the personal papers of Edwin Walker.

I found a minimum of 1,200 pages that I wanted to copy when I was there -- but the copying costs were prohibitive, and the wait times were impossible for me. Yet the Briscoe Center does allow digital photographs (the kind we take with modern cell phones) of these materials.

So, I decided to take 1,200 photographs (over a three month period) of the pages I wanted -- basically for free.

Of course, 1,200 pages is a tiny fraction of an estimated 40,000 pages of materials (not counting books, magazines, newspapers and tapes). Yet I believe I got some of the very best materials in that collection. I did examine all 80 boxes, page by page over many months.

Let me offer a brief overview. There are roughly five years of papers and photographs supporting Edwin (Ted) Walker's biography, somewhat as follows:

(1) Before 1960, when General Walker served in the U.S. Army, including his command of the National Guard during the racial integration of Little Rock High School in 1957;

(2) 1960, when General Walker assumed command of the 24th Infantry Division in Augsburg, Germany;

(3) Early 1961, when General Walker clashed with the US Army magazine, Overseas Weekly, and was quickly dismissed from his command by the Kennedy Administration.

(4) Late 1961, when General Edwin Walker resigned from the U.S. Army -- resigned, not retired -- and forfeited his pension (which would amount to about $120,000 today adjusted for inflation). General Walker was the only U.S. General to resign from the U.S. Army in the 20th century.

(5) Early 1962, when General Walker had just begun his public speaking career and copyrighted seven speeches that he would use for years. During this same time, while enjoying a rousing reception by the public, General Walker decided to run for the office of Texas Governor and lost soundly to John Connally.

(6) Mid-1962, when General Walker appeared before the Senate Subcommittee for Military Preparedness, to defend his honor against the Overseas Weekly magazine. He expected far more from this testimony than the public would witness.

(7) Late 1962, when General Walker decided to protest against JFK sending Federal Troops to the University of Mississippi at Oxford to defend James Meredith's right to be accepted as a student there, as the first black student at Ole Miss. General Walker used the radio and TV to call for thousands of protesters to join him on the Ole Miss campus. This turned into a nationlly televised riot on the night of September 30, 1962 in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed. Then, RFK arrested Walker and charged him with insurrection, obstruction of justice, and ordered a psychiatric evaluation for him (against his will).

(8) Early 1963, when a Grand Jury in Mississippi acquitted General Walker of all charges. This site contains Grand Jury testimony from two psychiatrists (Charles Smith and Manfred Gutmacher) as well as Edwin Walker himself. These documents are unavailable anywhere else than Briscoe and my web site. Even the NARA does not have these Grand Jury records.

(9) Also in early 1963, General Walker went on a six-week coast-to-coast speaking tour with race-segregationist preacher, Reverend Billy James Hargis. They called the tour the "Midnight Ride."

(10) Mid-1963 when Lee Harvey Oswald (allegedly) tried to shoot General Walker in his house, but missed.

(11) Late 1963, when General Walker played a strong role in organizing the Dallas attack on Adlai Stevenson at his U.N. Day rally. Also, Walker played a leading role in publishing the "WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK" handbills in Dallas, as well as the WELCOME MR. PRESIDENT full-page advertisement in the Dallas Morning News.

(12) 1964, when General Walker appeared before the Warren Commission to testify about the assassination of JFK in Dallas, and after.

The papers were simply photographed and uploaded as individual HTML links. They are listed in chronological order. The first two, for example, are:

19510101_Edwin_Walker

19511221_Hargis_and_Wife_1

Notice they are listed in chronological order. The first is a photograph of Walker in the US Army on January 1, 1951 (thus, 19510101). The second link is a photograph of Billy James Hargis and his wife, front side, taken on December 21, 1951 (thus, 19511221).

The important point to remember is that all these 1,200 items came from Walker's personal papers. (About a half-dozen Non-Briscoe items were added over the months, and those are marked with the suffix, "_NB" for Non-Briscoe. For example, there is a link to a YouTube video, "Operation Abolition", which Walker mentions with regard to his Pro-Blue program, and sings its praises to the US Senate Subcommittee in 1962 -- so it is very relevant.)

In the future I will organize my web site for ease of access. For my research, I only wanted a place to stored the photographs to easily share with other students. But in the future I will add HTML to break out the chronology year by year. Also, instead of 40 photographs for a 40-page document, I will upload a 40-page PDF. (But that is not free or cheap -- and must wait until I can afford to do that.)

I hope this helps to orient you to the elementary organization of my fledgling Walker website, Paul B. Also, I've been updating the Wikipedia entry for Edwin Walker over the past year, as well.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 19, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

After 50 years I imagine very few people still remember the events of 30 September 1962 when ex-General Edwin Walker led the riots at Ole Miss University as her first black student, James Meredith (guided by his mentor, Medgar Evers) registered for his first day of class.

In those riots, hundreds were wounded and two were killed. It was one of the defining moments of the 1960's Civil Rights era -- actually IMHO it was the defining moment -- and IMHO it marked the moment when JFK was first marked for assassination.

To commemorate the passing of the 50th anniversary of the Ole Miss riots -- and in preparation for our national holiday celebrating the Civil Rights heroism of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I want to share excerpts from an article in TIME magazine from 26 June 1964 (Vol. 83, Issue 26) recollecting the Ole Miss riots.

The name of the article is "The General v. the Cub" (copyright 1964 by Time Inc.).

--------- Begin excerpt of TIME magazine 26Jun64 ------------------

The General v. the Cub

It was his first big story, and Associated Press Cub Reporter Van Savell was determined to do it justice. "I dressed as any college student would," he wrote in the dispatch that went out to all client A.P. newspapers, "and easily milled among the rioters on the University of Mississippi campus."

On that September night in Oxford in 1962, two men were to die in the violence provoked by the registration of Ole Miss's first Negro student, James Meredith. The A.P.'s Savell reported it all. He also reported the gaunt and commanding presence of one-time Major General Edwin A. Walker, 54.

"Walker assumed control of the crowd," Savell wrote of the man who had ended a distinguished military career by joining the John Birch Society and resigning his commission. Savell went on to say that the general "led a charge of students against Federal marshals on the Ole Miss campus," was met with a repelling volley of tear gas, then climbed the base of a Confederate monument to dispense tactical advice and rally the scattered segregationists: "Don't let up now. This is a dangerous situation. You must be prepared for possible death. If you are not, go home now."

"Bring Your Skillets."

Last week, in the Tarrant County courtroom in Fort Worth, the general and the 22-year-old cub met again. Walker was there to plead his $2,000,000 libel suit, in which he claimed that the Associated Press had, in effect, charged him with helping to incite the insurrection at Ole Miss. Walker had that very charge leveled against him by the U.S. Government, and he had also been subjected to a psychiatric examination.

But doctors found him sane, and a federal grand jury refused to return an indictment.

From two weeks of testimony, there emerged the picture of a man who had come to Ole Miss to play something more than an observer's role. Read into the record was Walker's battle cry to segregationists broadcast over a Shreveport, La., radio station five days before the riots:

"It is time to move. We have talked, listened and been pushed around far too much for the anti-Christ Supreme Court. Bring your flags, your tents, and your skillets."

Even some of Walker's own witnesses testified to his involvement at Oxford.

Appeal.

The A.P. could produce no witness who heard Walker speak the exact words that Van Savell attributed to the general, although defense testimony seemed to corroborate the wire service. But to the Fort Worth jury of eight men and four women, the A.P. statements that Walker had assumed control and led the charge were both false and malicious.

After 2¼ hours of deliberation, the jury awarded Walker $800,000. Still pending: some $27 million in Walker libel actions stemming from the re-publication of the A.P. story.

The A.P. served notice of its intention to appeal. "In the light of the evidence presented by both sides," said A.P. General Manager Wes Gallagher, "we are confident that the verdict will not be upheld."

---------------------------- End excerpt of TIME magazine 26Jun64 --------------------

I'll conclude by observing that Wes Gallager's prediction proved accurate -- in 1967 the Supreme Court, led by Earl Warren himself, overturned all of Walker's millions of dollars of winnings, and sent him home empty-handed.

How far the great General had fallen. A mighty and honorable hero of World War Two, and the bringer of racial integration to Little Rock High School in Arkansas in 1957, Walker fell to the opposite forces of McCarthyism in 1959, and joined the John BIrch Society which preached that FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK were Communist traitors.

Naturally, with this sort of orientation, the General would resign his post, spurning his Army pension, and would lead a rag-tag mob against JFK at Ole Miss in 1962. The story that AP cub reporter Van Savell printed about Edwin Walker was true -- every word of it. We have the eye-witness word of Reverend (now Bishop) Duncan Gray to rely upon.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited January 18, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - Thanks for posting this.

Its reassuring to know that there are people, such as those on this forum, who are interested in historical accuracy, and in history generally. I must say that those around me have limited tolerance for political/historical discussion, and the media is unable to put anything in historical context, a perfect example being the debate around gun ownership and the 2nd amendment.

I am very inclined to view Walker as a principal player. But having recently read some of Salandria's material (took me long enough) I find myself in agreement with him when he points out that the early extreme cover-up could only have been engineered by the perpetrators themselves, who were at the very center of American power. If he is right then it follows that the buck could not have stopped at Walker. I like the theory that Jim Root has espoused on this board that the buck stopped with Gen. Maxwell Taylor, though I think it might have been all of the JCS. I also find the case against the CIA figures compelling - Phillips, Helms, Dulles, Angleton, Morales, and also against Johnson and his Texas cowboys

Looking at the current state of affairs in the US and the events of the past 50 years it would seem that the military industrial congressional establishment is firmly in control. Salandria and others are right to point out that the origins of this conspiracy go back to at least the 1890's, but for me the JFK assassination was the true beginning of domination by this amorphous group of political power in the US.

So, in 1963 when this operation was put into action, what was the mechanism by which these principal players decided on a course of action? Is there an individual, such as Walker, Taylor, Angleton, at the top of the pyramid, or was there a group of them which collaborated outside of official government agencies? I like Simkin's ideas around the suite 8F group, but it doesn't seem to include the generals. I value highly JFK's own fears that the JCS would be the likely perpetrators of a coup against him.

To come to the point, how do you connect the dots between Walker and the MIC?

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - Thanks for posting this.

Its reassuring to know that there are people, such as those on this forum, who are interested in historical accuracy, and in history generally. I must say that those around me have limited tolerance for political/historical discussion, and the media is unable to put anything in historical context, a perfect example being the debate around gun ownership and the 2nd amendment.

I am very inclined to view Walker as a principal player. But having recently read some of Salandria's material (took me long enough) I find myself in agreement with him when he points out that the early extreme cover-up could only have been engineered by the perpetrators themselves, who were at the very center of American power. If he is right then it follows that the buck could not have stopped at Walker. I like the theory that Jim Root has espoused on this board that the buck stopped with Gen. Maxwell Taylor, though I think it might have been all of the JCS. I also find the case against the CIA figures compelling - Phillips, Helms, Dulles, Angleton, Morales, and also against Johnson and his Texas cowboys

Looking at the current state of affairs in the US and the events of the past 50 years it would seem that the military industrial congressional establishment is firmly in control. Salandria and others are right to point out that the origins of this conspiracy go back to at least the 1890's, but for me the JFK assassination was the true beginning of domination by this amorphous group of political power in the US.

So, in 1963 when this operation was put into action, what was the mechanism by which these principal players decided on a course of action? Is there an individual, such as Walker, Taylor, Angleton, at the top of the pyramid, or was there a group of them which collaborated outside of official government agencies? I like Simkin's ideas around the suite 8F group, but it doesn't seem to include the generals. I value highly JFK's own fears that the JCS would be the likely perpetrators of a coup against him.

To come to the point, how do you connect the dots between Walker and the MIC?

Well, Paul B., your points are the principal points that I deal with in my arguments. Your view evidently agrees with Vincent Salandria, former ACLU head and author of The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes (1998).

Salandria points out many facts that most JFK researchers know and agree upon, yet IMHO he then reaches out in guesswork about the motives and the "messages" that the JFK assassins were trying to express. For example, Salandria told Gaeton Fonzi: "Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner."

Now, that's only his opinion. Also, his concentration on the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is so typical of writers from his generation. Historically speaking, there never was a nation in history that lacked a MIC. In a Republic it is always a question of whether the MIC will take orders from the Civilian executive. In Latin America that has proved to be a problem. But without proof we cannot (and should not, IMHO) claim that the USA had this problem under the JFK administration, such that the Pentagon was directly the cause of the JFK assassination.

If the facts prove they are guilty, then I will admit it. But the facts don't prove that, and we should not rely only on Salandria's intuition that "the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way." That presumes at the very beginning exactly what needs to be proven.

You ask, Paul B., how I would connect the dots with my theory that centers around ex-General Edwin Walker and his many personal connections in 1963. Well, Salandria's error gives my first clue. In my opinion, the men who killed JFK lacked the means to do it "in the most sophisticated and subtle way." In my opinion, the actual ground-crew (and their principals) were largely in the middle-class and had middle-class resources available to them. This is why the JFK assassination was so gruesome.

Salandria's presumption has the second consequence of making the Pentagon the killers, which then makes the assassination into a terrorist threat from the Pentagon to the people of the USA, as a warning, as in a police state. In my opinion, this is near paranoia on Salandria's part -- which might be excused in his generation because they survived Hitler and WW2, and so were accustomed to paranoia on a daily basis.

In my theory -- the way I connect the dots -- there were two conspiracies and two opposite goals. The first conspiracy was to kill JFK with the goal of invading Cuba immediately. The second conspiracy was to cover-up the assassination and had the goal of shutting down the extremists of the first conspiracy, and also of preventing a new Civil War, which was a National Security issue.

I think the dots connect better this way than in the way that Salandria proposes.

One of the great faults of Warren, LBJ, Hoover and Dulles was that they locked up the Oswald files for 75 years, in order (IMHO) to protect the known accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald. The reason they cited was National Security.

The trouble with this solution was that it allowed our imaginations to run wild. Salandria represents all those many US citizens who presumed that the National Security issue was merely to conceal the guilt of the Pentagon and its MIC. This is one legitimate explanation for locking up Oswald's records. But we should try to remember that this isn't the only explanation.

Insofar as National Security was a legitimate explanation in 1964, then it is reasonable that the explanation included the Cold War situation with its threat of the USSR. Since that threat still existed in 1976-1979 when the HSCA was in operation, it is not surprising that the Oswald files still remained locked to the HSCA.

However, today, after the USSR has been defunct for more than 20 years, we might want to ask the present Administration if it still makes sense to keep the Lee Harvey Oswald files locked for purposes of National Security.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited January 19, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul T - you make good points.

Here is a key question - if Oswald was a rightist, as his associations seem to indicate, why would the national security state be worried about war with the Soviets? How long would Oswald's phony left wing credentials - FPCC, backyard photo, Walker shooting - have stood up under the scrutiny that would have ensued had our NSS blamed the Soviets or Cuba for the assassination? Oswald's cover story was paper thin. We know that the FPCC chapter was Oswald's invention, and nothing but a media event. The immediate adoption of the story line that Oswald was a lone assassin, and the proposed reason, we learn later, that the WC failed to put together any conspiracy and stick with the lone nut theory (making up stories about magic bullets etc), is because our leaders were afraid of nuclear war. Given Oswald's obviously false leftist credentials and the absolute paucity of evidence tying Castro or KGB to the assassination, this explanation strikes me as a bunch of baloney. And - if Oswald was really a lone nut why all this mularky?

That only leaves two choices - Oswald was either a patsy set up by a right wing conspiracy or he was part of that conspiracy. Once we assume that Oswald was well known to Intelligence and being watched and/or used by Intelligence, we can safely assume that our Government knew immediately that there was a conspiracy and knew from which side of the political spectrum the conspiracy originated. When our government covered up they knew who they were covering for.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T - you make good points.

Here is a key question - if Oswald was a rightist, as his associations seem to indicate, why would the national security state be worried about war with the Soviets? How long would Oswald's phony left wing credentials - FPCC, backyard photo, Walker shooting - have stood up under the scrutiny that would have ensued had our NSS blamed the Soviets or Cuba for the assassination?

Oswald's cover story was paper thin. We know that the FPCC chapter was Oswald's invention, and nothing but a media event. The immediate adoption of the story line that Oswald was a lone assassin, and the proposed reason, we learn later, that the WC failed to put together any conspiracy and stick with the lone nut theory (making up stories about magic bullets etc), is because our leaders were afraid of nuclear war. Given Oswald's obviously false leftist credentials and the absolute paucity of evidence tying Castro or KGB to the assassination, this explanation strikes me as a bunch of baloney. And - if Oswald was really a lone nut why all this mularky?

That only leaves two choices - Oswald was either a patsy set up by a right wing conspiracy or he was part of that conspiracy. Once we assume that Oswald was well known to Intelligence and being watched and/or used by Intelligence, we can safely assume that our Government knew immediately that there was a conspiracy and knew from which side of the political spectrum the conspiracy originated. When our government covered up they knew who they were covering for.

I agree with your reasoning here, Paul B. I take the view that Oswald was a rightist, and that his FPCC charade was as phony as its single member, A.J. Hidell (and as phony as that one youth, Charlie Steele Jr., who handed out FPCC leaflets with Oswald in downtown New Orleans on 16 August 1963 -- a stranger who was paid $2 for 20 minutes work). The purpose of the FPCC charade was precisely to obtain police records, newspaper clippings, a radio spot and television coverage for this phony FPCC branch, which was unapproved by the FPCC in New York.)

This means that the people who took that famous film clip of Oswald and Steele handing out FPCC leaflets were working along with Ed Butler (from INCA, a professional propaganda firm of Cuban Exiles) and Carlos Bringuier. That film crew was at that site because Ed Butler arranged all this. When Carlos Bringuier debated Lee Harvey Oswald on television in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, Ed Butler was also present in the debate room.

Now, you see two options:

...Oswald was either a patsy set up by a right wing conspiracy or he was part of that conspiracy...

In my theory, Oswald was both a part of that conspiracy and also set-up by it. Oswald's trouble was that he was attempting to portray himself as a double-agent. Many players in the right-wing were none too bright, and they were easily confused by double-agents (e.g. the confusion of Nico Crespi).

We have evidence, too, from Gerry Patrick Hemming, Richard Case Nagell and Harry Dean -- all three worked on both sides of the Cuban Crisis, and all three claimed evidence that they were being set-up to be the patsy for the JFK assassination. It seems that the double-agents were far more at risk than others -- they were too expendible and accessible.

I agree with you that when the Warren Commission covered up the plot to kill JFK, they knew exactly who they were protecting. I deny, however, that the Federal Government had a direct role in the JFK assassination, despite all the political enemies that the Kennedys had garnered. Rather, I believe the Federal Government was caught off-guard when civilian heavy-hitters too close to the Southern power-structure showed what they could do in Dallas.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited January 21, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Why did our government protect those 'civilian heavy hitters'? If its not a case of 'they are us' what is it?

Do you agree with Salandria that the net effect of all this confusion was to disconnect people from the truth, and from their government?

I never cease to be amazed at the disinterest shown by the general public, by my personal friends and family, to this crime of the century, and their utter disconnect from its meaning. I am recommending JFK and the Unspeakable to all my friends precisely for that reason.

[Paul Trejo]

Why did our government protect those 'civilian heavy hitters'? If its not a case of 'they are us' what is it?

Do you agree with Salandria that the net effect of all this confusion was to disconnect people from the truth, and from their government?

I never cease to be amazed at the disinterest shown by the general public, by my personal friends and family, to this crime of the century, and their utter disconnect from its meaning. I am recommending JFK and the Unspeakable to all my friends precisely for that reason.

Well, Paul. B., although I'm a fierce critic of the Warren Commission, I believe that the reason that Earl Warren stated, namely, National Security, was his honest reason for locking up the files about Lee Harvey Oswald,

By locking up the Oswald files, the Warren Commission effectively protected Oswald's accomplices (who were the same ones who betrayed Oswald by making him their patsy). But I believe that was unintended.

In other words, the US Government was caught in a Catch-22. If they exposed the heavy-hitters in Dallas, an American Civil War with the paramilitary right would almost certainly erupt. In peace time, the USA would handle that with ease. But this was during the Cold War, and an American Civil War would have tempted the USSR to interfere, and then World War III would have erupted.

So -- it was a problem of National Security. To prevent World War III, the Warren Commission was forced to hold their nose and protect the White Citizens' Councils, the John Birch Society, the Minutemen, the KKK and anybody else who celebrated when JFK was assassinated.

So I say that Salandria is half-right -- this Catch-22 situation did cause millions of Americans to disconnect from our government. However, Americans are still by and large faithful to the USA (unlike Revolutionary France, for example) and so most of the American people accepted the Warren Commission's verdict at face value -- we cannot be told the truth because of the risk to National Security.

By the way, I don't regard the American faith in the USA as "disinterest". I myself am pleased to have the freedom to question the government and search for the real killers of JFK along with the worldwide JFK buff community. Yet most Americans seem to show disinterest in these threads because, IMHO, most Americans have great faith in the USA, and they feel confident that in only 25 more years the US Government will release the Lee Harvey Oswald files. In the meantime the economy is recovering.

Sure, those of us who might not live to see the release of the Lee Harvey Oswald files cannot help feeling gyped. So I wrote to President Obama yesterday, and asked him that since the USSR has fallen some 20 years ago, do we really still have a National Security reason to keep the Oswald files locked?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited January 22, 2013 by Paul Trejo