Larrie Schmidt

[Paul Trejo]

...

We're reasonably close here.

(1) Greg, you rightly noted that Larrie’s 1963 interview with the FBI doesn’t describe the black-bordered Ad as a vehicle for promoting Weissman's political career – in so many words. Yet Larrie did say:

"The Ad was written as if an organization known as the American Fact Finding Committee had inserted it with Bernard Weissman being shown as its chairman."

A reader might think that naming Weissman as chairman was a promotion, because Weissman wasn’t the chairman of CUSA.

Let me stick with this FBI report for a minute...it helps explain why the Warren Commission didn’t bother to subpoena Larrie Schmidt in 1964; Larrie had already boldly cooperated with the FBI above and beyond the call of duty (which seems to be his general method).

This FBI report also says that Larrie took the top writing credits for the black-bordered Ad, i.e. that Larrie wrote it in his apartment, and “was assisted some in its preparation by Joseph P. Grinnen.”

Yet Weissman told the WC a somewhat different story:

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

Mr. JENNER. ...There were four or five of you that really promoted it and finally raised the money for it and put it in the newspaper?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is not quite accurate. You might say when you get right down to it, in the final tale, the John Birch Society printed that ad, not CUSA.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us why, now. Please expand on that.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, in order to get anywhere in Dallas...you had to...cotton to the John Birch Society...

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

As I read Weissman’s testimony, Joseph Grinnen, the Dallas chair of the John Birch Society, was the moving force behind the content of the black-bordered Ad.

That is, Bernard Weissman believed that the CUSA did not exploit the Birchers, rather, the Birchers exploited the CUSA. That was the opposite of what Larrie Schmidt had planned.

(2) <snip>

(3) In that same FBI report, Larrie expressed that “the use of Bernard Weissman's name in the Ad would to some extent counter-act the anti-Semitism charges that had been leveled against conservatives”...Also, Larrie wanted to see if public replies would prove that “left-wing persons are just as anti-Semitic as persons in the right-wing".

So, the CUSA (and especially Larrie Schmidt, it seems) was trying to defend the John Birch Society.

In response, Greg, you said that this was not merely a CUSA gambit, but it was also an ACLU gambit. Your evidence was the Warren Commission testimony of Michael Paine, who attended an ACLU meeting in Dallas along with Lee Harvey Oswald in late October, 1963.

The ACLU speaker at that meeting promoted the notion that John Birchers were not anti-Semite, because he (the speaker) was also a Bircher and not an anti-Semite.

So, in that particular case, we seemed to witness the leftist ACLU defending the rightist John Birch Society.

However, I would add that at that same meeting, Lee Oswald stood up and objected to that statement, and he said that he recently attended General Walker’s so-called ‘US Day’ event in which Walker spoke for the John Birch Society and expressed both anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic sentiments (which sentiments were the norm for any Southern WASP in the 1960’s.)

Yet, according to Michael Paine, Oswald wasn’t criticized for his challenge, but was approached with further questions and interest.

Anyway, I think the ACLU never accepted a left or right label, but always advocated only the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The ACLU sometimes seems left-leaning (e.g. defending Free Speech for Reds) but sometimes seems right-leaning (e.g. defending Free Speech for Nazis).

For example, the ACLU rushed to the defense of ex-General Edwin Walker, who was charged by RFK of leading an insurrection in the 1962 Ole Miss riots where hundreds were wounded and two were killed. They did not defend Walker from charges of insurrection – but from RFK’s order to detain Walker in an insane asylum. The ACLU made loud protests against RFK’s alleged ‘crime’ of mixing politics with psychiatry. So, it’s difficult to pin down the ACLU.

However -- you added a new twist, Greg, namely, that the Dallas ACLU (which you called the DCLU) somehow played a role in ensuring that Oswald got no legal representation. If true, this could prove that, in Dallas, the ACLU had indeed been thoroughly penetrated by the John Birch Society. I find that most intriguing and worthy of further research.

(3.1) Next, Greg, you ask if I’m absolutely sure the CUSA was registered in Dallas. I cannot find the citation I had in mind. All I could find was one insipid line from one of Larrie's 1963 letters to Bernie:

"CUSA, as set up in Munich, is now an established fact in Dallas..."

Of course, this wording is too ambiguous. So, Weissman admitted to attorney Jenner that the American Fact-Finding Committee wasn't registered; and I knew that AMBUS had to have a business license to operate; so I must have presumed that CUSA was "set up" in Dallas, as it had been in Munich. (Yet I’ll keep looking for a citation that I thought I once had.)

But the proof of your account was in any case given in this WC testimony, as Weissman said this to Jenner:

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

Mr. JENNER. Was CUSA ever organized formally in the sense of corporate organization or drafting of partnership papers and registration under the Assumed Name Act in Texas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Texas, no.

Mr. JENNER. I take it, it was organized?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, it was.

Mr. JENNER. As a corporation or partnership?

Mr. WEISSMAN. As a partnership.

Mr. JENNER. In what State?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Munich, Germany.

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

So, once again, Greg, you have the facts on your side.

(4.2) You noticed that Larrie Schmidt did not explain why Larry Jones departed. That is interesting. I will research that further in coming weeks and let you know what I find.

(4.3) The notion that three out of four descriptions of the 6^th floor shooter involved a 30 year old man, and that Bernie said that Jones “was 21 but looked 30” could have been a subterranean hint, as you suggest.

However, it seems to me that Larry Jones had large, dark circles under his eyes – hardly common in a 21 year old. So that remark might also have been a casual observation by Weissman.

(5) <snip>

(6) <snip>

(7) <snip>

(8.1) Finally, you suggested that my “non-conspiratorial theory seems to depend largely on” my claim that CUSA was registered in Dallas. Also, you’ve ably argued that CUSA was not registered in Dallas, and now I tentatively agree.

Yet that is a minor point, you admit, since you, like me, don’t find enough direct evidence to link the CUSA with a conscious, criminal conspiracy to kill JFK.

And that was my main point. I prefer to define “conspiracy” in this context as a violent criminal conspiracy, and not merely youthful boldness.

So, yes, I think we are reasonably close here.

(9) <snip>

(10) <snip>

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

(1) Greg, you rightly noted that Larrie’s 1963 interview with the FBI doesn’t describe the black-bordered Ad as a vehicle for promoting Weissman's political career – in so many words. Yet Larrie did say:

"The Ad was written as if an organization known as the American Fact Finding Committee had inserted it with Bernard Weissman being shown as its chairman."

A reader might think that naming Weissman as chairman was a promotion, because Weissman wasn’t the chairman of CUSA.

Paul, if you are correct here, it was a dumb way to promote someone. With or without the assassination, it was only a matter of time before the American Fact Finding Committee was exposed as non-existent. That can't be a good thing for any political aspirations.

Let me stick with this FBI report for a minute...it helps explain why the Warren Commission didn’t bother to subpoena Larrie Schmidt in 1964; Larrie had already boldly cooperated with the FBI above and beyond the call of duty (which seems to be his general method).

This FBI report also says that Larrie took the top writing credits for the black-bordered Ad, i.e. that Larrie wrote it in his apartment, and “was assisted some in its preparation by Joseph P. Grinnen.”

Yet Weissman told the WC a somewhat different story:

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

Mr. JENNER. ...There were four or five of you that really promoted it and finally raised the money for it and put it in the newspaper?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is not quite accurate. You might say when you get right down to it, in the final tale, the John Birch Society printed that ad, not CUSA.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us why, now. Please expand on that.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, in order to get anywhere in Dallas...you had to...cotton to the John Birch Society...

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

As I read Weissman’s testimony, Joseph Grinnen, the Dallas chair of the John Birch Society, was the moving force behind the content of the black-bordered Ad.

That is, Bernard Weissman believed that the CUSA did not exploit the Birchers, rather, the Birchers exploited the CUSA. That was the opposite of what Larrie Schmidt had planned.

I think your evidence and logic here is solid.

So, the CUSA (and especially Larrie Schmidt, it seems) was trying to defend the John Birch Society.

In response, Greg, you said that this was not merely a CUSA gambit, but it was also an ACLU gambit. Your evidence was the Warren Commission testimony of Michael Paine, who attended an ACLU meeting in Dallas along with Lee Harvey Oswald in late October, 1963.

The ACLU speaker at that meeting promoted the notion that John Birchers were not anti-Semite, because he (the speaker) was also a Bircher and not an anti-Semite.

So, in that particular case, we seemed to witness the leftist ACLU defending the rightist John Birch Society.

However, I would add that at that same meeting, Lee Oswald stood up and objected to that statement, and he said that he recently attended General Walker’s so-called ‘US Day’ event in which Walker spoke for the John Birch Society and expressed both anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic sentiments (which sentiments were the norm for any Southern WASP in the 1960’s.)

Yet, according to Michael Paine, Oswald wasn’t criticized for his challenge, but was approached with further questions and interest.

Anyway, I think the ACLU never accepted a left or right label, but always advocated only the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The ACLU sometimes seems left-leaning (e.g. defending Free Speech for Reds) but sometimes seems right-leaning (e.g. defending Free Speech for Nazis).

1.The Dallas Civil Liberties Union (DCLU) was not a branch of the ACLU, but an affiliate, so there is a distinction there and it was the ACLU who went to Walker's aid - not the DCLU.

2. No one but Paine, his friend Krystinick and the minister from Paine's church, Byrd Helligas recalls Oswald being there. And Helligas did not recall Oswald making any statements during the meeting. Greg Olds, DCLU was present and did not recall Oswald and - surprise surprise - was not asked a single question about that meeting during his deposition. Reacting to media reports that Oswald was a member of the ACLU (after picking up an ACLU application from the DCLU meeting), Olds commissioned another member, Barry Cohen, to conduct an investigation. Cohen concluded that Oswald had attended a meeting with MRS Paine.

http://www.history-m...Vol22_0108a.htm

Another internal investigation did find it was Michael Paine, but why was there any confusion at all?

http://www.maryferre...6&relPageId=108 (this document also confirms that the DCLU was an affiliate of the ACLU).

The ACLU was so panicked about media reports that Oswald had joined, they conducted a search of their records, found nothing and issued a media release to that effect. Soon after that, an unprocessed application was found - leaving it with considerable egg to wipe off.

All of this calls into question both Oswald's attendance at any DCLU meeting and any application made to join the ACLU obtained at that meeting (apart from anything else, why not just join the DCLU?)

(4.2) You noticed that Larrie Schmidt did not explain why Larry Jones departed. That is interesting. I will research that further in coming weeks and let you know what I find.

Thanks.

However, it seems to me that Larry Jones had large, dark circles under his eyes – hardly common in a 21 year old. So that remark might also have been a casual observation by Weissman.

That's possible. It was not just the age though... "slender" fits, also (and possibly height and weight) - as does the white spot noted on the top of TCM's head and on top of the head of the person described by Euins.

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/gallery/ASSASSIONATION/JFK-WITNESSES-SUSPECTS/Comparison-images-of-TCM-and-Larry-Jones-pic_21.htm

More than that, you have Weissman's panic at being told that Jones had tried to contact him and the fact that the FBI seems to have muddied the waters on whether this call came in just prior to, or just after the assassination.

What I would love to see is a picture of Jones in profile because front on, he looks a hell of a lot like TCM - but once TCM turns his face to the side in the Hughes film, he seems to change from looking to be of Anglo descent, to looking distinctly Eastern European.

[Ian Kingsbury]

Paul/Greg

Is it

Possible that Larry jones was controlled by a "legit" agency all along?.

Connecting him with the actual shooting would to my mind put him much closer to the

Planners!.

If the man in the tan jacket in the film of the car lot turns out to be the

Tan jacket man from Truly/Baker then we can safely assume they got away with it..... Until now!.

[Paul Trejo]

A reader might think that naming Weissman as chairman was a promotion, because Weissman wasn’t the chairman of CUSA.

Paul, if you are correct here, it was a dumb way to promote someone. With or without the assassination, it was only a matter of time before the American Fact Finding Committee was exposed as non-existent. That can't be a good thing for any political aspirations.

...

1.The Dallas Civil Liberties Union (DCLU) was not a branch of the ACLU, but an affiliate, so there is a distinction there and it was the ACLU who went to Walker's aid - not the DCLU.

2. No one but Paine, his friend Krystinick and the minister from Paine's church, Byrd Helligas recalls Oswald being there. And Helligas did not recall Oswald making any statements during the meeting. Greg Olds, DCLU was present and did not recall Oswald and - surprise surprise - was not asked a single question about that meeting during his deposition. Reacting to media reports that Oswald was a member of the ACLU (after picking up an ACLU application from the DCLU meeting), Olds commissioned another member, Barry Cohen, to conduct an investigation. Cohen concluded that Oswald had attended a meeting with MRS Paine.

http://www.history-m...Vol22_0108a.htm

Another internal investigation did find it was Michael Paine, but why was there any confusion at all?

http://www.maryferre...6&relPageId=108 (this document also confirms that the DCLU was an affiliate of the ACLU).

The ACLU was so panicked about media reports that Oswald had joined, they conducted a search of their records, found nothing and issued a media release to that effect. Soon after that, an unprocessed application was found - leaving it with considerable egg to wipe off.

All of this calls into question both Oswald's attendance at any DCLU meeting and any application made to join the ACLU obtained at that meeting (apart from anything else, why not just join the DCLU?)

...

It was not just the age though... "slender" fits, also (and possibly height and weight) - as does the white spot noted on the top of TCM's head and on top of the head of the person described by Euins.

http://reopenkennedy...ones-pic_21.htm

More than that, you have Weissman's panic at being told that Jones had tried to contact him and the fact that the FBI seems to have muddied the waters on whether this call came in just prior to, or just after the assassination.

What I would love to see is a picture of Jones in profile because front on, he looks a hell of a lot like TCM - but once TCM turns his face to the side in the Hughes film, he seems to change from looking to be of Anglo descent, to looking distinctly Eastern European.

Greg, all these are good points and food for thought.

My current theory says that Larrie and the CUSA were clearly naive in Dallas. Larrie was not a political science student, nor was he active in politics before this period. As Weissman suggests, they set up CUSA in Munich in response to boredom.

Also, Cold War soldiers overseas were actively discouraged from becoming involved in politics beyond casting a single vote, and perhaps that stimulated their youthful rebellion. But it didn't seem to expand their reading list.

Also, Larrie's local fame as a newspaper advertising guru seems to have given them a false sense of sophistication. Thus, it wouldn't surprise me if this phony promotion was the best they could come up with at the time.

Also, thanks for the links regarding the DCLU vs the ACLU. Very informative. Can we see Robert Morris' hand in the DCLU?

As for the story about Oswald at the DCLU meeting -- if it isn't true (as you suspect) then that fact transforms Michael Paine into a much darker character than the one who emerges from the Warren Commission testimony.

Yet for years I've wondered about Michael Paine's testimony about Lee Oswald and General Ediwn Walker.

It is precisely on the topic of General Edwin Walker that Michael Paine contradicts himself the most -- i.e. Oswald knew a lot about Walker, yet Oswald didn't say much about Walker. Hmm.

In my current theory, Michael Paine was part of the conspiracy of Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenschildt to convert Oswald from a typical Marine upset about the Bay of Pigs into a sophisticated hater-of-Walker. That did not occur in a few remarks or glances, as Michael Paine related to the Warren Commission -- but only after hours and hours of intense discussion. I suspect that Michael Paine was far more involved with Oswald than he admitted.

If so -- remember that Walker and Morris were very close during this period -- they had $30 million of law suits pending againt AP and dozens of American newspapers that said nasty things about Walker after the Ole Miss riots. That's $300 million in today's dollars. They started that fight in February of 1963, and kept fighting hard through 1965. So in 1963 Walker and Morris were as thick as pecan pie.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 31, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

In my current theory, Michael Paine was part of the conspiracy of Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenschildt to convert Oswald from a typical Marine upset about the Bay of Pigs into a sophisticated hater-of-Walker. That did not occur in a few remarks or glances, as Michael Paine related to the Warren Commission -- but only after hours and hours of intense discussion. I suspect that Michael Paine was far more involved with Oswald than he admitted.

Paul/Greg

I've been reading your discussions with interest. These few sentences above has gotten my cogs turning. Have we ever considered that Oswald, rather than living on North Beckley during the 6-7 weeks leading up to the assassination, was actually living with Mike Paine?

The girls living together and the boys living together?

It's an intriguing thought, Lee.

Marina suggested that Lee and Michael communicated a great deal about politics. Michael admits only communicating a little bit with Oswald about politics.

Yet Michael Paine was facing an unexpected scenario -- Lee Oswald was being accused of killing JFK -- was Michael going to admit being close to Lee Oswald? I think not.

So, Michael Paine told the WC that Oswald wasn't very bright, and that he was superficial, and that he put on a show of Marxism, but he wasn't well-read enough to be a Marxist.

Well, Michael Paine should know, since Paine's father was reportedly a leader in the American Trotsky movement -- talk about expertise in Marxism. If that's true, then Michael Paine had heard the vocabulary of Marxism from infancy -- and he would be in a good position to criticize any dilletante.

On the other hand -- Lee Oswald knew how to speak Russian, while Michael Paine did not. So, they were not really such a lopsided match after all.

Michael Paine was not a Marxist -- but he knew far more about Marxism than the average American -- that seems certain. Also, Michael Paine admitted that he truly despised ex-General Edwin Walker for his role in the Ole Miss riots, and similar political events.

Also, Paine steadfastly refused to admit that he and Lee Oswald spoke in detail about this, but Paine did tell the Warren Commission that he was confident that Lee Oswald "knew about Walker" and that their views were fairly similar on that topic. How, he was asked? By a glance, a nod, a single word. Oh, really?

And how did it come to be that Lee Harvey Oswald would attend a meeting (US Day) led by ex-General Walker on Wednesday 23 October 1963 at Dallas Memorial Auditorium, in which Walker painstakingly planned each and every move of the disruption of Adlai Stevenson's meeting (UN Day) to be held in the same place the following Thursday night? The answer is that Michael Paine (by his own admission) drove Lee Oswald there.

Yet here's the part I find suspicious -- Michael Paine then swears that he himself did not enter that Auditorium with Oswald, but instead walked a little further down the street to attend an ACLU meeting there. It just doesn't seem to fit.

Then, the night after Adlai's Dallas mistreatment, on Friday 25 October 1963, Michael Paine and Lee Oswald are seen together at another ACLU meeting, in which Lee Oswald describes the anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic remarks made by Walker two nights previously, as a spokesman for the John Birch Society. Two ACLU meetings in one week, Michael? I doubt it.

In my mind, Michael and Lee were spending a great deal of time together, and most of had to do with their political alliance against ex-General Edwin Walker. In a few more days Lee Harvey Oswald would become a member of the ACLU.

=*=

We should also recall that George De Mohrenschildt (formerly a Nazi collaborator) told the WC that Lee Oswald was a dilletante in Marxism as well as in clandestine activities. Further, George wrote to the HSCA (before he committed suicide) that he despised General Walker, and persuaded Lee Oswald to call him "General Fokker", and they laughed about it. George, in his writing to the HSCA, called the Ole Miss riots "Walker's big show off".

So, it appears that Michael Paine and George De Mohrenschildt thought basically the same way on the topic of Lee Oswald and General Walker. Also, De Mohrenschildt wrote that he and Volkmar Schmidt thought the same way.

So we have a triad: George De Mohrenschildt -- Volkmar Schmidt -- Michael Paine. And they all (1) despised General Walker; (2) encouraged Lee Harvey Oswald to despise General Walker; and (3) thought of Oswald as a dilletante of Marxism.

Given all this, is there a chance that Michael Paine and Lee Harvey Oswald were really closer to each other -- politically and personally -- than Michael Paine would ever want to admit to a world which was ready to condemn Lee Harvey Oswald to eternal perdition? I should think so.

Yet the mighty hammer of Fate was pounding on Lee Harvey Oswald -- so who can blame Michael Paine for hoping to minimize any former friendship that he had with the most unfortunate Oswald?

=*=

Now -- what might any of this have to do with Larrie Schmidt?

We observe Larrie Schmidt walking into Dallas, ready and willing to take over the American right-wing, practically single-handedly. He walks into a Dallas that is dominated by the John Birch Society, not only under Dr. Robert Morris, but under H.L. Hunt & Sons, and under ex-General Edwin Walker (who was still standing firm enough to plan the humiliation of Adlai Stevenson in October).

H.L. Hunt was not as fond of General Walker after the Ole Miss riots as he was before the Ole Miss riots (when Hunt financed Walker's campaign to be Governor of Texas). But Dr. Robert Morris was still General Walker's personal attorney insofar as Morris and Walker comprised a team with Clyde Watts in early 1963 to go after $30 million worth of libel charges against AP (Associated Press) and dozens of American newspapers that said nasty things about Walker after Ole Miss.

Here's a summary page about the AP lawsuits from the personal papers of Edwin Walker: http://www.pet880.co...Walker_v_AP.JPG

That would be about $300 million in today's dollars. That kind of money can form a very strong bond. In November 1963 those lawsuits were still raging, and the prospects looked very good to Robert Morris.

Now -- here comes Larrie Schmidt and his CUSA waltzing into Dallas, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. But they fail to perceive the major players: in one corner we find Hunt-Morris-Grinnen-Walker, and in the other corner we find DeMohrenschildt-Volkmar-Paine-Oswald.

Larrie Schmidt and the CUSA have no clue in hell what a snake pit they just fell into.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited August 1, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Ian,

yes, that's possible. Army intel, maybe...

Paul,

yes, the Paines are of great interest. One of the varied and many reasons for suspecting Mike: the cops who arrived at the Paine home on Nov 22, described the blanket as still holding a rifle shape. Frazier's putative polygrapher would claim later that the bag was shaped like a rifle case... so IF THERE REALLY WAS a rifle hidden in that garage and Mike moved it a number of times... how could he think "tent pegs"?

Lee,

To be honest, I think that may be a longshot. Mike lived in an apartment building which would make it far harder to cover up anyone sharing than it would have been at the Paine household. I'm pretty sure some of the LHO sightings around Irving shops happened on days he was not supposed to be there.

I note also that just about all his co-workers said he brought a packed lunch every day - not just Monday. But Hugh Slough told Mark Bridger that boarders had "no kitchen privileges".

Mr Johnson had no idea whether he did or not:

Mr. BELIN, Do you know whether or not he took his lunch to work with him?

Mr. JOHNSON. No; I don't.

Mr. BELIN. You don't know?

Mr. JOHNSON. No.

Mrs J wasn't specifically asked, but did make some interesting comments on the general question of food.

Mrs. JOHNSON. $8 a week, refrigerator and living room privileges.

Mr. BALL. The refrigerator was located where?

Mrs. JOHNSON. In my kitchen--he wanted to know if he could put milk and lunch meat in my refrigerator and I told him he could.

She later gets asked if he ever ate meals there and she claimed he drank a half gallon of "sweet milk" a day ate sandwiches in his room or in the kitchen if no one was there (naturally - it wouldn't do have him any place anyone could actually confirm!).

We don't know where or how he made sandwiches since bread is never mentioned, but she does hint he made the sandwiches in his room by saying she sometimes saw him take the cold cuts in there, and there was space in his closet that could havestored food.

Roberts is just flat never asked any questions about Oswald's eating habits.

I just don't buy it.

They can't have him eating out because he can't afford it and no one can confirm he actually did anyway. They can't have him eating in the kitchen because there are no "kitchen privileges" so they have him keeping some stuff in the refrigerator and maybe more food in his room and skulking around eating in his room or in the kitchen when he thinks no one will see him doing it.

And they avoid asking the one person most likely to know: Mrs Roberts.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Paul Trejo]

Lee,

...I think that may be a longshot. Mike lived in an apartment building which would make it far harder to cover up anyone sharing than it would have been at the Paine household. I'm pretty sure some of the LHO sightings around Irving shops happened on days he was not supposed to be there.

Greg, the spirit of Lee's question seems to be whether Michael Paine and Lee Harvey Oswald were really much closer as personal associates than Michael Paine ever admitted to the Warren Commission. They didn't really have to room together to be more closely associated.

If we look at the scenario that Paine describes to the WC, there is a three day period in which Michael and Lee seem to be in downtown Dallas, practically arm in arm in October: Wed23 (the Walker rally for US Day) -- Thu24 (the Adlai rally for UN Day) and Fri25 (the ACLU meeting).

That's a close relationship, sir. And these were on week nights -- work nights -- not during the week end.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 1, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Oswald was at the ACLU meeting with RUTH Paine on Oct 25. Michael was at a Bircher meeting that night. Both Mike and Lee were at the Walker US Day rally of Oct 23 and the UN day rally of Oct 24.

This sets out the reasons for believing the above to be the correct reading of the evidence.

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t108-oswald-late-october

[Greg Parker]

Oswald was at the ACLU meeting with RUTH Paine on Oct 25. Michael was at a Bircher meeting that night. Both Mike and Lee were at the Walker US Day rally of Oct 23 and the UN day rally of Oct 24.

This sets out the reasons for believing the above to be the correct reading of the evidence.

http://reopenkennedy...ld-late-october

Been thinking about this for the last few hours and am going to do a back-flip on it. I no longer believe Oswald was at the UN Day Rally.

Here is how I think things worked:

Oswald was at the ACLU meeting with Ruth on Oct 25 while Michael was at a Bircher meeting.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1006047

Oswald never said anything about Walker at that meeting and the only two people who claimed he did were Mike Paine and his friend, Frank Krystinick.

On Dec 9, 1963, the Washington Post reported that they had located the person sitting next to Oswald at the ACLU and that he had "confirmed" Oswald stood up and took the speaker to task about the Birchers. He also "confirmed" that Oswald made an aside to Paine that he had also attended the Stevenson Rally. This person was not named -- but who else would be claiming to sit next to Oswald except Mike or Frank. And since Mike was a known figure, the "witness" had to have been Krystinick. So the whole thing is a sham. This was not independent corroboration. It was a friend of Paine. Once this was published (regarding LHO at the UN Rally), psychology tells us that some who had been at that rally would search their memory for any one there who resembled Oswald - and in their mind, this person MUST be Oswald.

And so it happened...

A Dallas businesswoman said: "In my opinion, I did see him (at the scene of the Stevenson speech). I didn't see him anywhere else, but in the lobby. He was picketing."

She had arrived early and first saw a group of well-dressed, neat youths; she remembered a sign, "Wanted For Treason," among them. Then a second group came into the lobby.

"This boy (the one she believes was Oswald) was ahead of this second line. These were different type of people. Some were young, some were old. There were five to seven of them and they were seedy looking. He was clean, but he was very shabbily dressed. I remember thinking how pathetic he was," the businesswoman said. "He was the only one who did a military-type turn. This called my attention to him," she said. Also, he had "a real, different type neck -- he walked like a soldier, did an about-face. He had a very pleased expression with himself, but not a smile."

This woman said that she became "absolutely certain" that it was Oswald she had seen, at theStevenson scene when she saw a picture of Oswald on TV before he had been, bruised during his arrest after the assassination. She believed Oswald's group picketed and left before the disturbance broke out against Stevenson. A second Dallas, woman, a housewife, said: "I believe, he was there and he was carrying a picket sign in the lobby." Her description of what he wore matched the business woman's -- black leather gloves, a suit jacket with unmatching pants. She, too, mentioned his unusual neck and his military gait.

http://quixoticjoust...01_archive.html

Mr. SPECTER - In what manner was the rifle being held by the man whom you observed?

Mr. ROWLAND - The way he was standing it would have been in a position such as port arms in military terms.

According to at least two researchers, "TJM peels off out of the crowd, with almost a heel turn like in the army, before leaving pretty rapidly..."

The ineluctable conclusion is that the Paines were at the forefront of setting Oswald up - and whether or not they actually knew what they were setting him up for PRIOR to the assassination, they certainly knew what they were doing and saying post-assassination was tightening the noose.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Paul Trejo]

Been thinking about this for the last few hours and am going to do a back-flip on it. I no longer believe Oswald was at the UN Day Rally.

Here is how I think things worked:

Oswald was at the ACLU meeting with Ruth on Oct 25 while Michael was at a Bircher meeting.

http://www.maryferre...sPageId=1006047

Oswald never said anything about Walker at that meeting and the only two people who claimed he did were Mike Paine and his friend, Frank Krystinick.

On Dec 9, 1963, the Washington Post reported that they had located the person sitting next to Oswald at the ACLU and that he had "confirmed" Oswald stood up and took the speaker to task about the Birchers. He also "confirmed" that Oswald made an aside to Paine that he had also attended the Stevenson Rally. This person was not named -- but who else would be claiming to sit next to Oswald except Mike or Frank. And since Mike was a known figure, the "witness" had to have been Krystinick. So the whole thing is a sham. This was not independent corroboration. It was a friend of Paine. Once this was published (regarding LHO at the UN Rally), psychology tells us that some who had been at that rally would search their memory for any one there who resembled Oswald - and in their mind, this person MUST be Oswald.

And so it happened...

Greg, I'd like to ask you to reconsider this yet again, please. My take on this is conditioned by the Warren Commission testimony of eye-witnesses. Let's look at two snippets from Michael Paine's own testimony in March 1964 and in July 1964. Let's start with the earlier testimony, from WC Vol. 2. TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL R. PAINE AND RUTH HYDE PAINE at 9 a.m. 18 March 1964 in Washington DC. Before Earl Warren, Senator John Cooper, Gerald R. Ford, John McCloy, and Allen Dulles. Counsel was Wesley J. Liebeler.

-------------------------------- BEGIN Warren Report volume 2 ---------------------------

<snip>

Michael PAINE. ...I was trying still to find common ground with Lee, and I think we probably spoke critically of the far right. It even seems to me we may have mentioned Walker. I had been bothered at the time that Walker had -- I guess it doesn’t do any good to enter into the matter because I don’t remember his response.

...

Mr. LIEBELER. Give us your best recollection, and I want to ask you again this was in early April 1963, that you had this conversation, is that correct?

Michael PAINE. It was that first meeting when we had them over to dinner and Ruth can give you the date of that.

Mr. LIEBELER. For the benefit of the Commission the record indicates it was about April 2, 1963, that that occurred. Tell us to the best of your recollection what the conversation about General Walker was at that time?

Michael PAINE. I think he had mentioned, a friend of ours had a German wife and she just achieved her citizenship papers, and this had been done at the ceremony and General Walker had been invited to lead the singing, conducted by June Davis who is somewhat old and slipped into error of calling him Judge Walker every once in a while, and it somewhat offended this friend of ours who was aware of why she liked this country, freedoms, and liberties and values that are expressed here. And she was rather sorry that Walker should take it upon himself to define, to these ...ignorant foreigners, what this country stands for. So I think I mentioned this episode to...Oswald, and I think he smiled and nodded his assent. I don’t think he said any -- I don’t think he made any important remarks about Walker.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember anything that he said about Walker at all?

Michael PAINE. I think that is the only time, probably the only time we mentioned Walker...We seemed to agree at least superficially that in thinking the far right was unfortunate in its thoughts.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he say anything or do anything that would lead you to believe that he planned an attack on General Walker?

Michael PAINE. Absolutely not.

Senator COOPER. Did he indicate in any way that he knew about General Walker’s activities and beliefs and position on public affairs?

Michael PAINE. When I went to the ACLU meeting he then got up, stood up and reported what had happened at the meeting of the far right which had occurred at convention hall the day before U.N. Day; they called it U.S. Day, and I think Walker had spoken then. From this I gathered that he was doing more or less the same thing -- I thought he was, I didn’t inquire how he spent his free time but I supposed he was going around to right wing groups...familiarizing himself for whatever his purposes were, as I was...This...happened in the ACLU meeting in late October. I suppose he was familiar with the right-wing groups and activities, and movements. And certainly familiar with Walker; yes...He was familiar with Walker. He knew who Walker was, there was no doubt about that. We were talking about Walker.

Michael LIEBELER. Did he indicate any understanding to you at that April meeting of Walker’s attitude?

Michael PAINE. I don’t think he singled out Walker as -- I had the impression that he was quite familiar with Walker and probably familiar with the names of various right-wing groups, shall we say, the Christian Science, not the Christian Science, I have forgotten the names of various organizations [PT: probably Paine refers to racial segregationist religious groups like the Christian Crusade, the Christian Nationalist Crusade or the Christian Anticommunist Crusade that were active in the USA in the early 1960's].

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you relate to Oswald this story about Walker speaking at the meeting or the ceremony at which the immigrants were given their citizenship?

Michael PAINE. I believe I did; yes. I believe that is what I said about Walker at the time.

Mr. LIEBELER. What was his response to that?

Michael PAINE. I think he didn’t say much. I think he smiled and nodded his head and did that kind of thing. He may have said just a few words.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you take it that Oswald agreed with the views that you expressed?

Michael PAINE. Yes; I did.

...

------------------ END Warren Report volume 2 -----------------------

I quoted that section to clarify the context for the next section. Here we've confirmed that Michael Paine and Lee Harvey Oswald had political conversations, and they tended to agree on the political status of resigned General Edwin A. Walker, an extreme right-wing activist.

Walker was the buzz in Dallas at the time. Notice that Michael Paine was careful not to speak about any details of his objections to General Walker; i.e. Walker's "big showoff" that is, his role in the bloody riots on the Ole Miss campus at the end of September 1962. However, he did remember that Lee Oswald stood up to speak to the ACLU (perhaps more accurately the DCLU) to criticize General Walker. Michael Paine testified that he was present to observe that. That's my starting point.

Also, this is relevant to a Larrie Schmidt thread because Larrie Schmidt sent his brother, Robert Schmidt, to work for General Walker as a full-time aide in the latter part of 1963, and so we see two political groups in Dallas building up -- Walker and the Schmidts along with Oswald and the Paines.

Now let's see where our differences stand, Greg. Like David Lifton, I believe that Marina Oswald (after she calmed down and realized she could stay in the USA and get lots of money from sympathetic Americans) told the Warren Commission the truth as she knew it. That is what makes this next segment so interesting. It is from volume 11, and is the second set of interviews for Michael Paine taken about noon on 23 July 1964, in the office of the U.S. Attorney in Dallas, Texas. Counsel was again Wesley Liebeler

--------------------- BEGIN Warren Report volume 11 ------------------------------------

<snip>

Mr. LIEBELER. You testified previously that when you first met Lee Oswald in April 1963, that you discussed to some extent General Edwin A. Walker?

Michael PAINE. Yes; I think we did discuss him in passing.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did Oswald ever indicate to you in any way that he had been involved in the attempt on General Walker’s life?

Michael PAINE. Not that I remember at all -- nothing whatsoever. I think the only thing he did -- the only thing that I can remember now, was that he seemed to have a smile in regard to that person. It was inscrutable -- I didn’t know what he was smiling about -- I just thought perhaps it was -- the guy assumed it was rapport for a person who was an extreme proponent of a certain kind of patriotism or something.

Mr. LIEBELER. General Walker was?

Michael PAINE. General Walker was -- yes.

...

Mr. LIEBELER. On June 11, 1964, Marina Oswald testified before the Commission at which time the following colloquy occurred, as indicated on page 7363 of the Commission’s transcript:

------- begin excerpt --------------------

Mr. MCKENZIE. Mrs. Oswald, you say, or you said a few minutes ago, that Mr. Paine knew or knows more about your husband’s attitude about the United States than you do. Why did you say that?

Marina OSWALD. Because my husband’s favorite topic of discussion was politics and whoever he was with, he talked to them politics and Mr. Paine was with him a fair amount and I am quite sure they talked about politics...They went to meetings of some kind together. I don’t know what kind of meetings.

Mr. McKENZIE. Do you know where the meetings were?

Marina OSWALD. In Dallas. After they came back from some meeting, my husband said to me something about Walker being at this meeting.

---------- end excerpt ----------------

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember going at any meeting with Lee Oswald at which Mr. Walker was present?

Michael PAINE. No -- the only meeting I went to was the ACLU meeting, that I recall.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall going to any meeting yourself in October 1963, with or without Oswald, at which General Walker was present?

Michael PAINE. General Walker was present at the -- Oswald mentioned the U.S. Day meeting held by the rightists, which occurred a day or two or two nights before the ACLU meeting. He had been to that by himself. I had gone that same evening to a John Birch meeting. We were not together, but they were two things that occurred simultaneously, and that’s where Lee, by his report at the ACLU meeting said he was and Walker was there. Maybe that’s what Marina had in mind.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you, yourself, don’t have any recollection of your ever being at a meeting when he was there?

Michael PAINE. No; I have never seen General Walker that I can recall...

<snip>

Mr. LIEBELER. Marina Oswald goes on to testify and I will recapitulate part of it: "After they came back from some meeting, my husband said to me something about Walker being at this meeting and he said, ‘Paine knows that I shot him.’ ” Do you have any reason to believe that...Oswald might have thought that you knew that he, Oswald, had shot at General Walker?

Michael PAINE. I can’t see how he would have thought I knew that. I just don’t see -- he might have said something that revealed that and I didn’t catch his meaning, so it never sunk in to me at all, that is, to assume that he wasn’t lying and that is the only way I can explain it.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that you think that this testimony that Marina has given is either the result of a misapprehension, or a lie on Oswald’s part or on Marina’s part?

Michael PAINE. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you don’t have any doubt about that whatsoever?

Michael PAINE. I am perfectly certain that I didn’t know he shot at Walker.

Mr. LIEBELER. Marina herself goes on to say: "I don’t know whether this was the truth or not, I don’t know whether it was true or not, but this is what Lee told me." ...The point we want to bring out now at this time is that your testimony is quite clear that you did not know before the assassination that Oswald had shot at General Walker?

Michael PAINE. Yes.

-------------------- END Warren Report volume 11 ---------------------------

There are several items of interest there.

(1) Marina says that Lee and Michael spoke "a fair amount" together, and that was probably always about politics;

(2) Marina says that Lee and Michael went to meetings together in Dallas;

(3) Marina says that at one of the meetings General Walker was present;

(4) Michael himself remembered that Lee Oswald went to Walker's US Day meeting, which was one day prior to Adlai Stevenson's meeting. [Chris Cravens presents detailed documentation that General Walker plotted for hours to disrupt Adlai Stevenson's rally in that meeting];

(5) Michael Paine claims that he was not with Lee Oswald at that meeting, but rather went to a "John Birch" meeting. But that is suspicious, because according to Chris Cravens, all of the right-wing groups in Dallas were at Walker's US Day rally that evening. It was specifically a right-wing rally with more than a thousand in attendance. Atttendees included the John Birch Society, the Minutemen, the Citizens' Council, the States Rights party, and the local KKK. I personally suspect that this is solid evidence that Michael Paine was lying.

(6) Marina also testifies that Lee Harvey Oswald told her that Michael Paine knew that Lee had shot at General Walker.

(7) Michael Paine vigorously denied this (yet if he had not denied it, he would have been charged with perjury). Yet if Paine had already lied about being at the U.S. Day rally with Oswald, a meeting in which Walker was the key speaker, then we might consider Marina's testimony with substantially more weight.

The evidence you presented from the Mary Ferrell web site, Greg, does not seem to contradict my reading here. Ruth Paine admitted recommending to Lee Harvey Oswald that he look into the ACLU -- but there is scant evidence that they were seen together at an ACLU meeting.

On the other hand, Michael Paine personally admitted being at an ACLU (DCLU) meeting with Oswald in which Oswald reported his observations about Walker from the U.S. Day rally.

If (and only if) we grant that Michael Paine lied about joining Oswald (and the John Birch Society) at General Walker's U.S. Day rally, then we are left with the conclusion that Michael Paine and Lee Harvey Oswald spent an extraordinary amount of time together in the middle of that week in October, 1963.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited August 6, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

Vey interesting discussion Paul and Greg.

-If CUSA was so above board, why create a fictitious sponsor organization in the first place (TAFFC)?

-Why let Grinnan contribute the point of view of the JBS, and then list (without permission) a fellow CUSA member as signator?

Sounds like someone got hung out to dry...?

-Bill

[Paul Trejo]

Vey interesting discussion Paul and Greg.

-If CUSA was so above board, why create a fictitious sponsor organization in the first place (TAFFC)?

-Why let Grinnan contribute the point of view of the JBS, and then list (without permission) a fellow CUSA member as signator?

Sounds like someone got hung out to dry...?

-Bill

Bill, if you mean that Bernie Weissman was hung out to dry, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I advised Larrie Schmidt to allow me to help him write his memoirs, and to give this work the title, Dear Bernie Weissman, I'm Sorry. I opined that such a work could be ready in time for the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination coming up, and we could possibly have a good market for the book. He declined. (As an advocate of Mitt Romney for President, his slogan was evidently, "No apologies.")

Your question is interesting. Yet after hearing Larrie Scmidt's full story over several months, I'm convinced that CUSA was little more than a teen-age boys club of naive yet ambitious young men who thought they could parlay their support for Barry Goldwater into real political power and riches. It was a pipe dream and they had no great sophistication of any kind.

I'm convinced of this not by Larrie Schmidt's persuasive charm as a professional advertising copy writer, but from the material events, e.g. his alleged followers really did not follow him, but tolerated his egoistic antics, until it became clear that they might actually make some money from this guy. Note, for example, that Bernie Weissman did not join Larrie Schmidt in Dallas until only a couple of weeks before the JFK assassination. Bernie testified to the Warren Commission that he basically thought Larrie was full of hot air -- until Adlai Stevenson really was heckled, spit on and assaulted with a placard in Dallas on 24 October 1963.

Weissman mistakenly believed that Larrie Schmidt was the mastermind of that political skirmish, and for the first time became convinced that Larrie was really going to be somebody big and important. That's why he and Bill Burley moved to Dallas (that and because they were scraping by as encyclopedia salesmen). But when Weissman got to Dallas, he was again disappointed.

For one thing, Larrie was not a major player in Dallas -- quite the contrary. Larry Jones and his fiance had recently moved out of Dallas after only a few months there, in disappointment over Larrie's promises. Larrie's brother (besides Larrie himself) was the only one with a steady job, and his brother was a mere chauffer for ex-General Edwin Walker, paid with room and board and a small stipend. Everybody else had to fend for themselves, so to speak.

No, Weissman quickly realized that the John Birch Society had taken charge over Larrie Schmidt, through its various leaders in Dallas, including Robert Morris (Walker's attorney), ex-General Edwin Walker himself, and at the higher and more unapproachable end of the spectrum, H.L. Hunt and his two sons.

Weissman is also clear about where the ideas came from for the black-bordered ad. The John Birch Society (JBS) paid for and dictated every single sentence and every single revision of that ad, with the exception of one revision for one sentence that Bernie himself insisted upon, and perhaps one revision by Larrie Schmidt.

Even though Larrie Schmidt boasted that the CUSA would one day take over the John BIrch Society even as he had personally taken over the NIC (which was already going bankrupt) and the YAF (which was actually a pending deal, under Robert Morris), the JBS leaders secretly held this as a running joke.

For the JBS, the boys of CUSA were errand boys. That's how they were treated, and that's how history finds them on 22 November 1963. As for the fictitious sponsor organization (TAFFC) that was also a JBS mandate.

As for Grinnan, he was a middle-man -- he did not contribute money (but he did collect and deliver money) and he did not contribute ideas (but he did collect and relay revisions) for the black-bordered ad. He was a messenger -- another errand boy.

I should also point out that Bernie Weissman finally gave his consent to use his name for the black-bordered ad -- at the very last minute. The JBS dictated that one of the CUSA boys must sign his name to it, and Larrie Schmidt did not want to be that person -- although if Weissman had flatly refused, Larrie Schmidt would have been obliged to sign it.

As it turned out, after the assassination occurred, Larrie Schmidt did his best to distance himself from Bernie Weissman, and I have the impression that he never saw Weissman again in his life. In that sense, Bernie was indeed hung out to dry.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited November 30, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

Paul, Yes I was referring to BW as scapegoat, and the fact he was Jewish could be played several ways by those who wished to, post 11/22.

I still find it hard to swallow that it was all a genuine (innocent) mistake, to have him as signator of such a caustic ad. Again, why the subtrafuge with the fictional sponsor?

Grinnan was much more than an errand boy in the bigger picture. He had bigger connections than I first realized, in radical Right Wing circles. It was no accident that he was involved in this caper.

But that's another ball of string.

Good stuff!

-Bill

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, Yes I was referring to BW as scapegoat, and the fact he was Jewish could be played several ways by those who wished to, post 11/22.

I still find it hard to swallow that it was all a genuine (innocent) mistake, to have him as signator of such a caustic ad. Again, why the subtrafuge with the fictional sponsor?

...

Good stuff!

-Bill

Bill, I think I know what you're hesitation is about -- the Jewish angle could be played several ways in politics. For example, Jack Ruby was upset that a Jewish man's name was on that harsh advertisement, and it is possible (and Bernie Weissman believed this) that Jack Ruby was out to kill Bernie Weissman for this scandal upon all Jews.

I agree with you that it was no accident that the real controllers wanted Bernie Weissman's name on the ad, including a totally fictional, "American Fact Finding Committee." It was planned fairly carefully. It is likely that the planner knew that a Jewish name would cause side-arguments and detours to contribute to the chaos.

Larrie Schmidt told LIFE magazine (1965) the reason that he was told -- that this way nobody could accuse the right-wing of being anti-Semitic; that the right-wing also had Jews in their ranks, that not all Jews were liberals, and that a Jewish man could be valuable to the right-wing. That, of course, is one possible spin on the topic.

Yet I don't know anybody who considers Jack Ruby to be a liberal intellectual -- and he wanted to shoot Bernie Weissman for running the black-bordered ad. Clearly there was more than one possible political spin on this.

My opinion, however, is simply that the John Birch Society (JBS) wanted to cover their tracks as much as possible. They never wanted any part of this black-bordered ad to be traced to the JBS. Having the CUSA take credit for the ad was risky because it was well known in Dallas that Larrie Schmidt was the leader of CUSA, and Larrie Schmidt was fairly well known in rightist circles in Dallas. So, to put Larrie's name, and CUSA on the ad (which was closer to the truth) would have been too risky for the JBS

Why all the subterfuge, you ask? I believe it was a continuation of the general trend of the events -- it was all set up to hide the fact that the JBS was the ultimate sponsor of the black-bordered ad. Weissman and Schmidt and Grinnan were at the ground level, working with the DMN clerk, carrying money and paying bills -- but they did not use their own words and they did not use their own money. Nor were they paid for this (as far as I know) but it was all volunteer work. They were acting on "orders from above."

And one of the most persistent demands from these "orders from above" was that the identity of the commanders would be kept secret. The Warren Commission through the FBI was able to learn who the three financiers were for the black-bordered ad (by grilling Joe Grinnan for hours). However, Grinnan could not tell the FBI who proposed the all-important words of the black-bordered ad, because he himself was not permitted to know. He himself could only guess.

That's my take on it. I'm open to other information. The JBS leadership (including H.L. Hunt, Robert Morris and ex-General Edwin Walker) were the commanders, IMHO. Probably they communited through the financiers to get messages to Grinnan. They strove to keep their identities secret, and so the more subterfuge the better.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited December 1, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

I spoke with Larrie Schmidt last year, and he offered me very little information that is not already published and well-known.

With great respect and courtesy, I asked him some questions about General Edwin Walker, somewhat along these lines:.

(1) What were your thoughts about the events in the USA immediately preceding the Ole Miss riots of 30 September 1963?

(2) What were your thoughts about the Ole Miss riots themselves?

(3) Did you perceive at the time of the Ole Miss riots that ex-General Edwin Walker was one of the leaders of those riots?

(4) Did you believe -- as many Americans did -- that Edwin Walker should have been punished for leading those riots?

(5) What were your thoughts when Edwin Walker was arrested the next morning, and remanded to a psychiatric hospital?

(6) What were your thoughts when the ACLU and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz demanded the immediate release of Edwin Walker from the psychiatric hospital, on the grounds that mixing politics and psychiatry is a bad business?

(7) What were your thoughts when Edwin Walker returned to Dallas only seven days after the Old Miss riots?

(8) What were your thoughts about the Mississippi Grand Jury hearing about Walker's alleged insurrection at Ole Miss in November and December 1962 and January 1963?

(9) What were your thoughts when ex-General Edwin Walker was acquitted of all charges relating to the Ole Miss riots?

Larrie responded to me somewhat as follows: "I did not pay much attention to the news about General Walker in those days. I had more important things on my mind, like moving to Dallas, setting up CPUSA, and making contacts in Dallas. General Walker was not on my list of contacts."

Yet Larrie told LIFE magazine in 1964 that shortly after he arrived in Dallas, he sought and found a job for his brother, Robbie Schmidt, working as a chauffeur for General Walker -- and he told LIFE magazine that his purpose for this placement was so that Robbie could "spy" (his word) on General Walker.

When I asked Larrie what Robbie discovered in his spying mission on General Walker, Larrie replied, in effect: "Nothing. There was nothing very interesting about Walker."

Bernard Weissman reported to the Warren Commission that shortly before he left Dallas, he noticed in the back seat of General Walker's car -- driven by Robbie Schmidt -- a stack of "Wanted for Treason: JFK" handbills. But he didn't inquire further into it, since he only wanted to get out of Dallas as fast as he could.

The Warren Commission did not inquire any further, either.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited March 14, 2013 by Paul Trejo