Thomas Graves

Well, Tommy, I thought I answered Question #1 fully, so let me take a second shot at it. George de Mohrenschildt (DM) hated Edwin Walker because he saw the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany, and the devastation that this blind racism caused to Germany (in addition to the devastation it caused to European Jews, and to Europe generally). George DM did support the Nazi Party temporarily -- hoping to get his family's large Estate back if the USSR could be defeated. The Nazi Party failed to defeat the USSR. The Nazi Party further failed to keep Berlin from being bombed into little bits of rubble. The Nazi Party failed in all its missions. So, even though George DM supported the Nazi Party in 1940, he also turned againt the Nazi Party after 1945. That's important. In order to make that change of politics, George DM tried very hard to become an AMERICAN. That means that he bent over backwards to erase his former, European prejudice against Black people. George DM's testimony to the Warren Commission, and his booklet to the HSCA, repeat again and again how fair-minded George DM could be, especially with regard to minority races, and to Black people in general. In other words, George DM (for whatever reasons) became a LIBERAL, at least on the subject of racial equality. It is interesting to note that the testimony that his wife, Jeanne DM gave to the Warren Commision, showed that she herself didn't even like New York because there were so many colored people. She admitted she felt more comfortable in Dallas, where most people were white, and where white people could congregate freely in wealthy society, without colored people. George DM did not challenge his wife on the topic, but he, himself, would strident about racial equality. Now -- the friend of George DM, Volkmar Schmidt, said that shortly after that engineer's party in Dallas, Lee Oswald went out and bought himself some weapons, and then tried to murder Edwin Walker. Volkmar said that he often felt "a little bit responsible" for that, but he emphasized, "I certainly didn't tell him to shoot Walker." So, he came to forgive himself. My point is that the question of HATING Edwin Walker and KILLING Edwin Walker must be separated. George DM wanted to be sure that Lee Harvey Oswald HATED General Walker -- and so he would call him, "General FOKKER," when in Lee Oswald's presence. Lee Oswald had already expressed his sympathy with the Civil Rights movement. The one thing JFK did that Lee Oswald strongly approved was his positive stand on Civil Rights for Black Americans. This was a point of agreement between Oswald and George DM. Whether George DM wanted Lee Harvey Oswald to KILL Edwin Walker must be a moot point. The Saturday after the shooting, in response to the many Dallas news reports about the Walker shooting, George and Jeanne DM were so worried that they paid a 10 PM visit to the Oswald home -- got them out of bed -- and Jeane DM searched for any weapons. She found Oswald's Manlicher-Carcano with a scope on it. That was when George DM guessed that Oswald had taken a 'pot-shot' at Edwin Walker, and Oswald didn't deny it -- but then George laughed to break the ice, and they all laughed. (Actually, there are differing versions of that story in the Warren Commission volumes.) Did George DM tell Lee Oswald to KILL Edwin Walker? All we can opine with some certainty is that Lee Harvey Oswald BELIEVED that Edwin Walker (and Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine and the yuppie engineers in Dallas) WANTED him to kill Edwin Walker. The writing on the backyard photograph of Oswald in the possession of George DM, "Hunter of Fascists, ha ha", and signed by Lee Harvey Oswald himself, lends itself to a tragic conclusion. So, Tommy, the flaw in your question as worded is your assumption that because George DM was a Nazi supporter in the 1940's, that he could never change his mind and become Liberal after he moved to the USA, in order to fit in better with American Society. We must also remember that George DM was fairly close to the family of Jackie Kennedy -- a very LIBERAL family. George DM changed. If you can't accept that a rightist Baron could convert and become a Liberal oil-engineer in the wake of World War Two, then there's no reason to continue this specific debate. As for any "Marxist" angle, that doesn't really enter into the legitimate picture. That was always a "front" for Oswald, and never figured into any of the language used by George DM, Volkmar Schmidt or Michael Paine. They had no interest in that. They might not have wanted to see Edwin Walker killed (but they wouldn't have minded seeing him dead, I suppose) and they certainly wanted to have no part in any murder plot -- but Lee Harvey Oswald also liked to shock people -- and I think he did this act on his own to shock his "liberal" friends. Edwin Walker, however, believed that the Liberals (read Communists) in Dallas conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot Walker dead. Regards, --Paul Trejo Why did George de Mohrenschildt and his buddy Volkmar Schmidt want Oswald not to be angry at the US government for the Bay of Pigs Invasion, but angry at Edwin Walker, instead, for what he'd done at 'Ole Miss? Did they think that Oswald's anger towards the government was psychologically unhealthy for him, and that he would be much better off channeling his anger towards Walker, instead? Or was it because de Mohrenschildt and Schmidt, great liberals according to you, had actually supported the Bay of Pigs Invasion? You know, to give "freedom" back to the Cuban people? --Tommy

Tom, yes, I will again attempt to obtain Gary Schoerner's copy of the Jack Martin Film. I agree that it's a potentially important bit of evidence for any theory that attempts to show Edwin Walker at the center of the JFK murder. As for yesterday's link -- it worked for me at one time, but later not even for me -- so I replaced it with a working link. In any case, your reposting of a previous post reproduced the Martin Shackelford text about the Jack Martin Film in its *entirety*, so thanks for that. As for your three options, Tom, here are my replies: (1) The connection between Walker and Oswald never entailed that they met each other. Walker was famous amongst the ultra-right-wing, and Oswald wrote about him in his journals on that basis only. Walker claimed that he knew that Oswald and one other mystery person tried to kill him on 10 April 1963 -- and Walker even told the Warren Commission that he suspected Michael Paine was Oswald's accomplice. Walker, a Dallas resident, would have known about Lee Harvey Oswald from local newspaper articles about him. When some US government official (Walker offers no name) told Walker the next Sunday that Oswald was his shooter, Walker apparently made secret plans to get revenge on Lee Harvey Oswald -- and never actually met Oswald, as far as I can tell. (2) If somebody tried to fabricate a connection between Walker and Oswald using the Jack Martin Film, they did a GREAT job, IMHO. Yet the person who actually brought the Jack Martin Film to Harold Weisberg and Gary Schoener during their 1968 speaking engagement at Minnesota University, was a young man in his mid-twenties, who claimed to have served under General Edwin Walker in Germany 1960-1961, and who was a Minuteman in 1963. How would a "fabricator" get such a specific person to deliver the Film to Weisberg and Schoener, specifically? The proposed "fabricate" solution raises more questions than it answers. (3) The best benign explanation about the Jack Martin Film is that it was merely a coincidence -- this Edwin Walker worshipper just "happened" to be in New Orleans on the day that Lee Harvey Oswald was staging a PHONY arrest for the police record in the context of his PHONY branch of the FPCC in New Orleans, completely controlled from the offices of Guy Banister, who was also a Minuteman and also a leader in the John Birch Society, as well as a frequent speaker at right-wing venues in the South, along with Edwin Walker. Just a coincidence? I don't think so. Best regards, --Paul Trejo deleted and moved

[...] Well, Paul, since you didn't really answer Question #1, let me rephrase it for you-- Why did George de Mohrenschildt hate Edwin Walker so much that he and his friends encouraged Oswald, as you claim, to kill Walker? Because de Mohrenschildt, a Russian-born baron whom British Intelligence believed was a Nazi agent, loved black people so much and hated Walker for being a high-profile and powerful racist? Because "The Baron" loved the United States' democratic process so much and was afraid that right-wing Walker would lead a putsch against the government? Because "The Baron" was so afraid that Walker would start a Far-Right-versus-Far-Left civil war? Once again, why would the conservative "Baron", whom British Intelligence believed was a Nazi agent, hate ultra-conservative Edwin Walker so darn much that he and his friends would encourage Oswald, as you claim, to kill Walker? Answer: If George de Mohrenschildt and his right-wing buddies actually encouraged Peaceful "Marxist" Oswald to try to kill Walker, it makes more sense to me that they so in order to make him appear to be Violent "Marxist" Oswald in some future event (which might even have been unknown to them). --Tommy

Good question, Tommy -- thanks for the invitation to explain this important nuance of the JFK murder. We know from George De Mohrenschildt's last writing that he hated Edwin Walker. He taught Lee Harvey Oswald to call him, "General Fokker". Then they would laugh and laugh. We know from the personal confessions of Volkmar Schmidt that he tried to convince Lee Harvey Oswald for hours to channel his anger against JFK over the Bay of Pigs toward anger against Edwin Walker for the Ole Miss riots of 1962. Both De Mohrenschildt and Schmidt speak about this in the context of a dinner party in Dallas, given for young engineers (mostly oil engineers), in which Schmidt would ply his craft of psychology (both his parents were psychologists) on the raw material of Lee Harvey Oswald. This party occurred in early February 1963. Now, let's look at USA history in this period. The biggest domestic news of that day -- for young, liberal yuppies, was that Ole Miss University was the victim of a brutal race riot on the final night of September 1962, and Edwin Walker was known to have started it. On the first morning of October 1962, JFK and RFK had Edwin Walker arrested and sent to a nut house. In three days Edwin Walker was freed after protests by the ACLU and many others. In December Edwin Walker started his Grand Jury hearings in Mississippi. His lawyers (Robert Morris and Clyde Watts) argued brilliantly, that Walker was on trial for being insane. They produced many psychiatrists to prove that Walker was sane, and they called two hostile witnesses -- the two psychiatrists who admitted Walker to the Springfield insane asylum in cooperation with RFK and JFK. Morris and Watts turned the table on these two psychiatrists, and put them on the defensive. "Are you saying that all right-wing people should be locked up in a loony bin?!" The psychiatrists replied, "No, of course not." The Grand Jury then acquitted Edwin Walker. Edwin Walker was acquitted in late January 1963. A great shock ran through the liberals in the USA -- including the young liberal engineers of Dallas, including Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine and their spouses and associates. They held this dinner party only a few days later. They all knew that the Oswalds would be invited. They all wanted to see Volkmar Schmidt in action. Volkmar Schmidt argued ably to Lee Harvey Oswald -- "If somebody had stopped Hitler before he took power, it would have saved millions of lives!" And many other arguments for several hours. (We know this argument was effective for Oswald, because he repeated it back to Marina Oswald on the morning of 11 April 1963.) Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine had a fairly close relationship, i.e. when Michael Paine separated from Ruth Paine one of those times, he went to stay with Volkmar Schmidt for a while. Michael Paine also admitted that he was against Edwin Walker. Volkmar Schmidt also gave an interview to our own Bill Kelly, which also covers some of this material. Regards, --Paul Trejo Trejo said, "We know from George De Mohrenschildt's last writing that he hated Edwin Walker." ... "Both De Mohrenschildt and Schmidt speak about this [schmidt's efforts to brainwash Oswald] in the context of a dinner party in Dallas, given for young engineers (mostly oil engineers), in which Schmidt would ply his craft of psychology ... on the raw material of Lee Harvey Oswald." ... "The biggest domestic news of that day -- for young, liberal yuppies, was that Ole Miss University was the victim of a brutal race riot on the final night of September 1962, and Edwin Walker was known to have started it." ... "A great shock ran through the liberals in the USA [when Edwin Walker was acquitted]-- including the young liberal engineers of Dallas, including Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine and their spouses and associates." Question #1: So de Mohrenschildt claimed late in life to hate Edwin Walker. Why would George De Mohrenschildt hate Edwin Walker? Because Walker was a violent segregationist? Because Baron von Mohrenschildt, being so pro-democracy, was afraid that General Walker would lead a far right military putsch against the government, or start a civil war? Question #2: Do you think Dallas was a hotbed of liberal-minded anti-segregationsts, yuppie oil engineers or otherwise, in 1963? Question #3: As I recall, most anti-segregations at the time were liberal across the board. On what other issues were Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine, and George de Mohrenschildt known to have taken a liberal stance? (Michael Paine's belonging to the ACLU and attending a few meeting doesn't qualify IMHO. He could have been spying on it and it's Dallas members.) --Tommy

Well, Ernie, from the evidence I've seen, apparently JFK and RFK thought that Edwin Walker was nuts. This is why they remanded him to the Springfield, MO insane asylum on 1 October 1962. Their very real worry about Edwin Walker showed in their personal support toward the producers of the movie, Seven Days in May, starring Burt Lancaster as the seditious US General who built a wild following in his right-wing speeches, who tried to take over the government. Yet their treatment of Walker was clearly reflected in the "General Jack D. Ripper" character from the movie, Dr. Strangelove, -- a suicidal nut case. One must remember, however, that JFK and RFK were severely criticized for their decision to send Edwin Walker to an insane asylum, not only by the right-wing, but also by the left-wing, including the ACLU and Dr. Thomas Szasz personally. It was perhaps the biggest domestic blunder of JFK's career. The Kennedy brothers had to backpedal on that decision very quickly -- and instead of the standard 90 day observation period, Walker was released in only 3 days, with all but an apology from RFK. But it was an over-reaction. Even the ACLU argued that only the USSR would stoop so low as to use Psychiatry for political purposes. This was the Cold War -- the right-wing may have been wrong at Ole Miss in 1962, but you don't call the Psychiatrists when you should call the Police. If Edwin Walker had been normally arrested, charged and tried for his crimes at Ole Miss, I feel certain that Walker would have served many years of prison time. That was what JFK should have done. As it was, Walker was acquitted of all charges, and he emerged behaving worse than ever -- he basically went underground and began dealing with Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Joseph Milteer, Carlos Bringuier, and Guy Banister, among others. JFK and RFK did lose sight of Edwin Walker. Walker was humiliated in the public media -- and to this very day millions of people just remember Walker as "that nut." Big mistake. Walker was a US General -- and no matter his intellectual shortcomings, he was as shrewd as a jungle tiger -- and a global expert in military and paramilitary operations. JFK and RFK lost sight of Edwin Walker -- but Walker never lost sight of JFK and RFK. It seems that Walker suffered from a mild case of paranoia -- this was according to two psychiatrists of the dozen or so who examined him. Not enough to restrain him, but enough to notice medically. After he emerged from his insane asylum experience, Walker was indeed afraid of RFK and JFK. Also, Walker knew good and well that he should have been punished for his crimes at Ole Miss -- and that to be acquitted of those crimes he had to lie to the Grand Jury. Walker had a conscience -- it probably bothered him. Yet Edwin Walker had also lived with a life-long crime, namely, being a homosexual in the US Army at a time when it was a court-martial offense to be homosexual. Even though he was gay, Edwin Walker rose to the rank of Major General. This means that he had to lie every day of his career -- he had to live in the closet for life. Edwin Walker had become accustomed to lying. In any case, after Lee Harvey Oswald (as I believe) tried to murder Edwin Walker in his home in Dallas on 10 April 1963 at the urging of George De Mohrenshildt, Volkmar Schmidt and various, young Dallas engineers, Edwin Walker lost his cool. It was at this point that Walker decided that RFK and JFK were out to kill him. It was partly because he escaped the true charges of sedition at Ole Miss that Walker felt guilty, and then when Oswald failed to kill him, Walker blamed the whole event on RFK and JFK. This is very plain from his personal papers. I don't believe that RFK and JFK hired Lee Harvey Oswald to kill Edwin Walker. That was Walker's paranoia talking. But I do believe that Edwin Walker truly, truly, truly believed that Oswald worked for RFK. Some leak in the US Government told Edwin Walker on Easter Sunday 1963 that Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter, but that the government wouldn't prosecute -- for some reason. This is what Walker says in his personal papers, and it is also what Walker told the German newspaper, Deutsche Nationalzeitung less than 24 hours after JFK was murdered. This was Walker's justification for using Lee Harvey Oswald as his patsy. It comes clear in his personal papers. Here's just one more example among many. This is a four-page article by Edwin Walker, dated 12 June 1968, in response to the assassination of RFK. Skip down to the final paragraph to see Walker's attitude (he writes of himself in the third person) and his Near-Confession: http://www.pet880.com/images/19680612_RFK_released_Oswald.pdf Regards, --Paul Trejo Why would "George De Mohrenshildt, Volkmar Schmidt and various young Dallas engineers" want to kill Edwin Walker in April qf 1963? --Tommy

Kathy, I think you should let "Professor" Trejo have the last word (which he will insist upon having, anyway), and then close the thread. But don't be surprised when he starts two or three new ones to replace it! Sincerely, --Tommy

Accomplices to what? Accomplices to his having been framed? Accomplices to his having never fired a shot? Accomplices to his not being involved in a conspiracy? I can hardly wait. Well, Greg, "accomplices" is an ambiguous term, in the context of the JFK murder. In Hoover's Lone Shooter mandate, Lee Harvey Oswald "had no accomplices who are still at large." That's why the FBI stomped so hard on the testimony of Sylvia Duran, who claimed she saw Lee Harvey Oswald at her doorstep with two Hispanic guys, who also talked about killing JFK. Now, I think you and I agree that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK, and didn't even SHOOT at JFK. We agree on that. So then -- why would I say that Lee Harvey Oswald had ACCOMPLICES? I will now explain my use of this term. (1) Lee Harvey Oswald was UNAWARE that he was part of a plot to murder JFK, but in fact HE DID BECOME a part of the plot. (2) Lee Harvey Oswald was FRAMED for the murder of JFK, and was completely fooled by the people who FRAMED him. Oswald fully COOPERATED with the people who framed him. That is how Lee Harvey Oswald came to be part of the plot to kill JFK. (3) Lee Harvey Oswald cooperated FOR MONTHS with the people who murdered JFK. That's what makes Oswald part of the plot. (4) Lee Harvey Oswald left himself wide open to be fooled by the JFK plotters -- and even let his own rifle fall into their hands! So, even against his will, Oswald was part of the plot. (5) Gerry Patrick Hemming told A.J. Weberman that he himself called Lee Harvey Oswald the night before the JFK murder, and offered Oswald double the market price of his rifle if he would only bring it to the TSBD the next morning. Because Oswald let himself be fooled by Hemming -- Oswald let himself become part of the plot. (6) After the JFK murder -- of which Lee Harvey Oswald did not directly take part -- Oswald fled the scene, went home to fetch his pistol, and then fled to the Texas Theater -- on the run. He should have run directly to the nearest DPD policeman -- but because he failed to do that, he made himself part of the plot. (7) While under arrest at the DPD jail, Lee Harvey Oswald realized too late that he was "just a Patsy." Yet when he realized that, he should have told the whole world who his ACCOMPLICES were -- the very people he had been associating with for MONTHS beforehand, including Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Gerry Patrick Hemming and so many more. But Oswald kept hoping that they would come running to his side to help him with "legal assistance." He continued to trust them -- and that is what finally made Lee Harvey Oswald a part of the plot. (8) Even though Oswald was fooled and was a Patsy, he had a chance to spill the beans in the last two days of his life, and he didn't take that chance -- and at the very least Oswald became an "accessory after the fact." In other words, he had become part of the plot. And that is why, despite the complications, it is still viable to say that Lee Harvey Oswald had ACCOMPLICES. Yes, they were back-stabbing accomplices, but they still qualify under the broadest meaning of that term. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Greg, This is a classic example of word twisting by "Pedantic as a Professor" Trejo. --Tommy

Ernie, Could this be him? http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=2844075 Looks like he was in the navy during WW II when he was only 14 years old. LOL --Tommy

Yes. It makes me wonder if the misinformation in Hemming's CIA files was put there intentionally as a "barium meal". --Tommy

Larry, Please don't confuse Trejo with the facts. LOL --Tommy

Not at all, Tommy. I only claim that it leaves the matter OPEN. Ernie is trying to say that the matter is CLOSED. That's our difference. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo According to your way of thinking, it will either: 1) always remain open, or 2) it will be proved that Harry did what he said he did with the FBI. I.e., by definition can never be "closed" with negative results; it must always remain "open" at the very least. I've always heard that it's much harder to prove a negative than a positive. Even though you've been insisting that Ernie prove a negative, it appears to me that he's already done so. Top Secret FBI and CIA, etc, documents, although generally unavailable to the public, still have reference numbers which can be known. Ernie has shown that there are no such reference numbers pointing to any available or unavailable "secret documents" about Harry. --Tommy

Paul, you STILL don't understand. Let's be honest about this -- just one time OK? 1. You have NO knowledge about any "secret files" pertaining to Harry Dean or the "JBS plot". If you had such specific knowledge, you would quote from or refer us to some document which lends credence to your assertion about the possibility that such files or serials exist. 2. Instead, you have just INVENTED your assertion from whole cloth. <snip> I'm honest, Ernie. You just misunderstand me. I'm not saying that I KNOW that there are FBI secret files about Harry Dean. I'm saying that you DON'T KNOW that there AREN'T any. You claim that there's no way I can possibly be right, based on the partial evidence you've seen. So, your logic is simply incorrect, that's all. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo "In other words, Ernie, it's obvious that the FBI has some super-duper, extra-special, top-top-top-top secret files on Harry of which you are totally unaware. The fact that you can't prove that they don't only confirms my theory." LOL -Tommy

Bring back Robert Charles-Dunne! --Tommy

Excellent work, Ernie! Thank you for spending the money and taking the time to do all of this. Two quick questions: Are there any redactions in the documents? If so, could any of them be taken to even remotely suggest the existence of "secret files"? (I'm just trying to think like Trejo here.) Thanks, --Tommy

Welcome back, Len. We need an intelligent "lone nutter" like you here to help balance things out whenever an overly-gullible CTer gets carried away. --Tommy PS I am a Conspiracy Theorist. Len's a "lone nutter"? Say it ain't so.... It ain't so! RE: the JFK assassination but I am regarding most other CTs Regardless, Welcome back Len. --Tommy

Welcome back, Len. We need an intelligent "lone nutter" like you here to help balance things out whenever an overly-gullible CTer gets carried away. --Tommy PS I am a Conspiracy Theorist.

Robert, Your grasp of the obvious is truly amazing. --Tommy

Yes, John, you're right. "Totally wrong angle of the elbows." She's probably just blowing her nose as the President goes by. Or checking her makeup. LOL --Tommy

The blonde lady wearing a pink dress on the grass in the Bronson clip is standing still, looking in the direction of the limousine, and if you look closely you can see that she has both hands raised to her face. Judging by the shadows on the grass, she's not looking into the sun so there's no reason for her to be shielding her eyes from it. I think she's taking a photograph. --Tommy edited and bumped

Dear "Fast and Loose With Words" Trejo, Just because a CIA agent might do something that he's not authorized to do doesn't necessarily mean that that agent is unknown to the "CIA high command". D'oh. --Tommy

I think it would be a nice gesture to start over with a clean slate. Declare a amnesty. Many of those missing voices would certainly provide for some lively debates. Agree. A forum is its members,and while some may have had a big ego.If I knew as much as them,perhaps I would have a big ego.But they certainly brought lively debate to the table.More members equals more interaction. We have lots of knowledgeable members,authors etc,but I expect they would rather debate with someone who know,s what they are on about.I am a rookie,late starter and freely admit it.But I learn a lot from good members who have a lot to share. Yes, then we can all start insulting each other again. LOL --Tommy

The blonde lady wearing a pink dress on the grass in the Bronson clip is standing still, looking in the direction of the limousine, and if you look closely you can see that she has both hands raised to her face. Judging by the shadows on the grass, she's not looking into the sun so there's no reason for her to be shielding her eyes from it. I think she's taking a photograph. --Tommy

Paul, That's why I think of him as being "Pedantic as a Professor". That and the fact that he's always reciting to us the well-known facts of the assassination. --Tommy

So who does Sturgis say killed Tippit? Jack Ruby? Larry Crafard? Igor Vaganov? Roscoe White? Michael Paine? --Tommy

[...] --Tommy PS By the way, I think the guy walking across the street from the direction of the Terminal Annex Building wearing the dark sport coat and white pants could very well be Pedro Diaz Lanz. The same guy is shown standing at the Elm street curb on the "infield grass" right after the assassination, and may be the same guy that Tan Jacket Man possibly hands something to in a secretive manner in the Hughes film. Question for Robert Mady: Who took the film you put in this post with the little red box around Charles Brehm? It's always a good idea to give the photographer credit, Robert, if you know who it is. It's also useful for other researchers and students of the assassination so they don't have to spend a lot of time wracking their brain and / or doing Google searches to determine who shot / filmed it. Thank you, --Tommy I just noticed that the woman in the pink dress seems to be taking a photograph. --Tommy