David Lifton

Robert: Yes, I believe the Walker shooting was contrived. The rest of my analysis will be set forth in Final Charade. DSL

Lee created a number of prints and inscribed one to "my friend George" (referring to DeMohrenschieldt) and another to "my daughter June." The GDM photo was dated April 5, 1963; and I would assume that was the same date he inscribed the one for June. The notion that Lee inscribed an entirely different picture to June in Russia, is very imaginative and without any evidentiary foundation. Of course you are free to believe whatever you wish--and if you really believe the photo was taken in Minsk (and inscribed to June)"to celebrate her birth," then go right ahead.) The pictures that Lee inscribed (on 4/5) were disseminated as follows: the one to GDM was given to him, on or around April 5; and was found in GDM's belongings years later; and turned over to the HSCA. The one inscribed to June went into a scrapbook (according to testimony). As soon as news of the assassination occurred (and Lee's arrest), the pictures were removed from the scrapbook; and --according to Marguerite's testimony--Marina burned one (or more) of them. But negatives existed, and that probably accounted for the existing prints. When I interviewed Michael Paine (in person and at length) --circa 1995, at his home in Boxboro, Mass.--he described seeing an 8.5 x 11 copy of the backyard photo either hanging up or on a book shelf. Michael told me that he made this observation when he went by Neely Street to pick up the Oswalds to take them to dinner at Ruth Paine's house--in earliy April 1963 (from memory).. Greg Parker, please note: Michael Paine picked them up at Neely Street, the place where the Oswalds lived, and about which you state: "He never lived there." (See my reaction to that blooper below). The notion that Ruth Paine "organize[d] the faking of the backyard photograph" is an assertion that lacks any evidentiary support. Believe it if you wish--but then, why bother with serious historical analysis. Why not just write a novel? But I'm starting to understand how you "analyze" this "plot" --Ruth Paine (in your view) was obviously a key plotter. She organized the faking of the backyard photos; she framed Oswald in the Walker shooting. In the same vein, you write that, with regard to Neely Street, "Oswald never lived there". Oh really? Is this another of your imaginative assertions? Yes, Oswald lived there. The postal evidence indicates he did, and of course Marina testified about living there--and gave a description of how they moved there from the previous residence, bringing their belongings over in pone or more trips in a baby carriage. And what about the landlord? Do you think the landlord just imagined that he and Marina were tenants? DSL 4/24/15 - 10:50 pm. PDT Los Angeles, California

Robert: Marina testified at length as to why she hid the note. She was alarmed at what Oswald had done--i.e., told her he had done, etc.--and said that if he ever did any such thing again, she was going to the authorities (and with the note). I don't find any of this unreasonable. Again, you must take into account her context--she arrived in America in June 1962, was somewhat homesick, but very much attracted to the country--and then had to deal with the fact that (a) her husband had ordered a rifle (which she found puzzling and really inexplicable) and then ( b ) came rushing into the apartment on the night of April 10th, saying he had shot at a public figure (because he thought him to be a fascist). So: she saved the note out of self-protection. She was both amazed and alarmed at what Oswald told her he had done. It was all very real and frightening, and without question marked a turning point in her assessment of her husband and in their marriage. In the response to a previous post--a response which Parker somehow managed to get deleted--he made a bunch of sarcastic remarks ridiculing Marina's credibility. All I can say is that, first of all, Parker doesn't know Marina and secondly, his analysis of Marina is not very good, at all. Again, I go back to my personal experience with the man. In 1995 (approx), and working with Debra Conway (who spent hours at the Fort Worth Library examining microfilms of the Ft Worth Stat Telegram), I obtained printouts from early September, 1956 reporting racial incidents in Fort Worth. These incidents correlated (time-wise) with what Lee wrote in a letter to Palmer McBride or someone else at Pfisterer Dental Labs). Greg Parker--who hadn't even gotten involved in the Kennedy case at that point (and who years later obtained Canadian wire service reports of the same incident )--could not accept the fact that I had unearthed FW Star Telegram reports of the same incident (!). So, he loudly and vehemently accused me of lying and went on to say that if I ever published any such thing, as a discovery that I had made, he would denounce me as a xxxx. So what does that say about Greg Parker and his judgement, when analyzing evidence? ONE OF THE REVIEWS AT AMAZON. . . Last evening, I went up to the Amazon listing for his book, and found reviews from an apparently intelligent reader who complained that the author (Parker) seemed to select evidence to support a predetermined conclusion, and went on to provide 3 examples of this kind of behavior. Asking, at the end of his recitation: "Where's the beef?" Rest assured: that was not news to me. That's par for the course with Parker. He cherry picks data and will even reverse cause and effect to attempt to create the appearance that he has found something which "supports" a pet hypothesis. This is exactly what he has done with the proposition that Ruth Paine authored the Walker note--which (imho) was clearly written by Oswald. In that case, he has invoked the fact that someone in the Dallas Police Department was clearly itching to make the "Walker connection" (based on a question thrown at Curry during an 11/22 or 11/23 press conference, and a subsequent little story in the DMN) and then tried to infer --from the date Ruth Paine turned in the cookbook (!) --that she was the author of the letter found in the cookbook. Again, let me make this clear: someone (at the DPD) was trying to "make the connection" between LHO and the Walker shooting, starting within 24 hours of JFK's assassination. But "they" had nothing concrete. "Walker" was like a bombshell, but without the letter, there was no fuse. Without the note, there was no "trigger." And the DPD search hadn't turned up any note--which (apparently) was the object (or at least one object) of the search. The note was in the cookbook; and the cookbook wasn't turned over to the Irving Police Department until the following weekend. No matter. Parker then infers (falsely, in my opinion) that Ruth Paine was involved, and was doing this "on cue". (That's what he wrote in the post he managed to get deleted). It was the sequence of dates that persuaded Parker of Ruth Paine's guilt (!). This, imho,is flimsy and silly reasoning. He doesn't understand Ruth Paine, or her politics; and when he "discovered" that Sylvia Meagher focused on the fact that a DPD detective was "shaking" one or more books and apparently was "looking for something," instead of drawing the proper inference--that someone had been tipped off as to where to find this "clew" --Parker went off half cocked and improperly concluded that the DPD search was so competent and thorough that it was evidence that the letter (which he had concluded was a forgery created by Ruth Paine) was not then "inside" the cookbook! Just consider the chain of false inferences involved in this "line of reasoning"! RE OSWALD'S LETTER OF 10/22/61 (CE 55) As to the one letter that Oswald wrote in Russian--CE 55 ,dated 10/22/61 (16 WCH 193) . . . : This was an affectionate letter from Lee to Marina written when she was away from Minsk, on vacation. Its the only letter that I'm aware of that he wrote in Russian, and yes, I had forgotten about it in writing prior drafts on this thread. But I just don't see that letter --written some 18 months earlier, and under entirely different conditions--as a valid basis of comparison, or offering a "test "of the authorship of the Walker note. This was obviously a love letter of sorts, and of course Lee would take the time to write it carefully. (He might even have expected that Marina would show the letter to her relatives, with whom she was staying). When Lee wrote longer letters, Marina said that he would take time and use a dictionary, to make sure he "got it right" (my quotes). This is described in Marina and Lee, and Priscilla McMillan spent many hours with Marina, attempting to pick up any details she could. Anyway, it doesn't surprise me in the least that this affectionate very carefully written (and very sweet) letter of 10/22/61 would exhibit superior craftsmanship to the hurriedly written Walker note of April 10, 1963. On the other hand, if someone were to present evidence that an unknown associate of Lee said to him, "Here's what I want you to say - -write this down, and place it somewhere where she will see it," then so be it. But I don't see that as plausible. In any event, I certainly do not believe that the note was placed where it was --in the Oswald's apartment--by someone unknown to Lee, and in an effort to frame him. Remember: he returned to an agitated Marina and said that he had shot at Walker. IMHO: Lee wrote it himself; and what it said (grammatically correct or not) is completely consistent with his bizarre behavior when he came rushing into the apartment later that evening. In other words, the letter served to "set the stage". It was prelude to the performance that Lee staged later. Keep in mind: this is the same fellow who (credibly) faked a suicide attempt on October 21, 1959--an attempt that appeared sufficiently real that it was taken seriously by those "on site" at the time, and went all the way up the chain of command to top Soviet officials (Mikoyan and Gromyko). Lee was quite an actor and producer of real life dramas--in which he "played himself." (Something akin to "reality TV," only decades earlier). I hope this answers your question. DSL 4/24/15 - 6:40 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Robert: Thanks for your prompt reply. Yes, I was trying to be diplomatic: frankly, I do not think any such letters exist. To put it differently, I have no idea what writing (of Oswald) that Greg Parker is talking about. Maybe there is some letter that Lee wrote that I have forgotten about (and if so, please specify and send it to me). Now, let me "move on" to another matter, and I would like your help --Robert Prudhomme--and perhaps that of Jon G. Tidd, as well. I hardly have the time to be on the Internet, but I did spend some time writing these posts about the Walker letter (and about LHO's Russian fluency). Late last night--in my time zone here in California--I turned on my computer and there was a long and inflammatory response from Greg Parker addressing my recent critique of his "Walker hypothesis" (and by that I am referring to his allegations that Ruth Paine was the true author of the Walker note). I was too tired to respond, and decided that my response would be "another matter" and "for another day." Today, I turn on the computer, and find that Greg Parker's lengthy post has disappeared. That's right; its gone. No trace of it. Might either of you have downloaded it? If so, please forward it to me by private email, and use this address: dsl74@Cornell.edu I found his response seriously deficient--i.e., seriously flawed--but he posted it, and I would like to respond to it. So if you have it--please do send it along. Meanwhile, I am going to respond to it, purely from memory. ITEM: Parker asserted that the assertion that Oswald was the Walker sniper first became public because of a statement by Walker to a German publisher on 11/29/63. Its true that Walker had a transatlantic phone call with the German publisher (of a right wing news magazine); but that conversation (and any publication that followed) hardly qualifies as "going public" in the sense that I used the term. "Oswald as the Walker sniper" (my quotes) first was announced by the Dallas Police Department on Friday, December 6, and was the page one news story in the NY Times of Saturday, December 7, 1963. (So, from the standpoint of the "major media" that's when the story "broke" in the United States). ITEM: Parker implies there was a causal connection between Ruth Paine dropping off the cookbook with the Walker note at the Irving, Texas police department on Saturday (11/30) or Sunday (12/1) and the Walker transatlantic phone call a day or two before. He wrote that Ruth Paine appeared with the cookbook "on cue." In fact, there was no causal connection whatsoever. That's a connection that apparently existed in Parker's mind--but not in reality. Further, and in general, that fact that B follows A (i.e., that A preceded B does not mean that "A" caused "B". As every law student learns (in classes on evidence) that fallacy is referred to as "post hoc ergo propter hoc". ITEM: Having engaged in this fallacy, Parker then compounds his error by implying that Ruth Paine somehow would have had anything whatsoever to do with the screwball antics of General Walker. Ruth Paine was a pacifist. The notion that she was involved in a plot to frame Oswald and that --somehow--she was working in concert with General Walker (who would place the phone call on Saturday, and then Ruth Paine would turn in the cookbook, containing a note that she fabricated) a day or two later, is ludicrous. In any event, it is without any logical or evidentiary foundation. This is a creation of Greg Parker's mind; it is not grounded in any credible evidence. ITEM: Greg Parker's false inferences based on the Paine search which involved "shaking" books. Marina said that she placed the note inside a cookbook. When the Dallas Police searched the Paine residence on November 23, 1963, one of the detectives (according to Ruth Paine) shook one or more books, apparently "looking" for something. This fact was first noted and mentioned by Sylvia Meagher in her 1968 book Accessories after the Fact. Parker picks up on this, and draws a false inference. He implies that because the Walker note was not found--during a search which involved "shaking"--therefore, it must not have been there (inside the cookbook, waiting to be "found" in that manner). But just a minute. Let's examine that proposition more carefully. I would not deny that "shaking" took place; the issue is how to interpret that fact. The alternative is that the note wasn't found because the right book(s) weren't searched, or the searcher perhaps didn't shake the book hard enough. But Parker (apparently) didn't consider this possibility. He infers (falsely, imho) that the fact that the note wasn't found on 11/23 means that the note wasn't there. Sorry, but that does not exhaust the possibilities. At all. Another possibility he apparently didn't consider is that someone knew that Marina had placed the note inside a book, and that someone at the Dallas Police department was tipped off as to the location of the note, and that is the reason why a DPD detective was going around "shaking"books in the house, as if "looking for something." But the police detective involved simply did not conduct a thorough enough search. Parker apparently didn't envision that possibility.. So he cites what he apparently believes was a very competent Dallas Police search of the Paine house (rather than a contrived "search")--as the basis for falsely inferring that the note was not inside the cookbook on 11/23. However, the alternative is that the note was indeed inside the cookbook, and simply was not found. Moreover, had it been found--then no doubt the detective would have brought back the note to Captain Will Fritz saying something like "I can't read this. Its not in English!" . At which point the note would have been translated, and Marina would have been confronted with the note, and at that point, Marina would have come forth with the same story she told SS Agent Gopadze on December 3, 1963, only on November 23 or November 24. In other words, the whole "Oswald as Walker sniper" story would have been revealed much sooner--almost two weeks earlier than it actually was--had the note been found on 11/23; and the whole world would have been treated to the story that the man accused of having shot JFK was also the same person who had shot at Walker the previous April 10. But Greg Parker, convinced of Ruth Paine's guilt (as fabricator of the Walker note) never thought of that possibility. He simply never conceived of the possibility that the Walker note was intended to function as a trigger, or fuse, to the entire "Oswald as Walker sniper" story; and so he has gone off half cocked and accused Ruth Paine of being involved in a conspiracy (!). Bottom line: he just doesn't "get it". ITEM: Parker's Mistaken Conception of Marina Oswald's Psychology Parker promotes a completely false view of Marina's behavior and psychology, and does not seem to grasp the effect the Walker incident had on Marina's view of her husband. In fact, it marked a major turning point, because it changed her perception of who he "really" was. Prior to the Walker event (April 10, 1963), Marina may have had her problems with Lee--it perhaps was not the ideal marriage--but she certainly didn't see him as someone capable of murder. However, after that event--i.e., after he came rushing into the apartment and "confessed" that he had attempted to murder General Walker, her view changed. (How could it not?) If Lee was putting on a big act, then it certainly worked, because it seriously affected his wife's view of who he really was. When Lee was first arrested, Marina was frightened, and worried whether --somehow--he had gone off the deep end, and this was a "repeat" of the behavior to which she had been exposed the previous April. Initially, she just couldn't believe it. She knew from personal experience how much Lee admired Kennedy. But over a period of days and weeks and months, and based on pressure from various agents (mainly, Secret Service, but also FBI), she came to believe (that is "accept") that Lee had indeed assassinated Kennedy. Over the course of many years, however, that view changed. I met Marina in January, 1981 (approx) and I think the change had already begun. Certainly, it had run its course by 1988. At that time, around September/October 1988, Marina gave an extensive in-person interview to Myrna Blyth, the editor-in-chief of the Ladies Home Journal, and that led to a cover story in the November1988 issue (the 25th anniversary of the JFK assassination) in which Marina "came out" and publicly stated that she no longer believed the Warren Report; and that she had been brainwashed. * * * POINT OF INFORMATION: Around 1991/92, Marina was approached by David L. Wolper to buy the film rights to her story. Originally the story was to be about her being married to a crazy person who was an assassin. As a consequence, in part, of my advice and intervention, Marina stood up to David Wolper and refused that original design of the project. I don't remember the exact details at this writing, but the result was that the project was handed over to his son, Mark Wolper; and then came a major change in the design of the projected film. Producer Bernard Safronski got involved, along with Director Robert Dornheim, and writer Steve Bello (of Hill Street Blues fame). From interviews with Marina, it became clear the role I had played in the evolution of Marina's views; and I was asked to assist. At some point, a decision was made to actually have me portrayed in the drama. In the resultant film: Marina was played by Helena Bonham Carter; Oswald, by Frank Whaley, and I was portrayed by Robert Picardo (who later became well known from his role in ABC's China Beach, Star Trek, and other major film projects). Most important (to me): I assisted Steve Bello in developing the basic view of the Walker shooting as a staged affair. Steve wrote dialogue that captured that idea, if only briefly, and it was the first time that, to my knowledge, the Walker affair was publicly explained in that fashion. As contrived. "Fatal Deception: Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald" was released in October/November 1993. As described in Wikipedia, "The story focuses on the Kennedy assassination from the point of view of Marina Oswald." By the time Fatal Deception was released, i had been involved in JFK research for almost 30 years, and by that time, Best Evidence was being published by its fourth publisher. Now back to Greg Parker: according to a biography he himself wrote, he dropped out of school at about age 14 (sorry, Greg), knocked around for years, ran an employment agency, and first got seriously interested in the JFK case in the late 1990s, some five years after the release of Fatal Deception, and after reading Tony Summers' book CONSPIRACY. Parker has since engaged in a lot of research, has a website (at which he used to sell T-shirts and beer mugs) and apparently considers himself an expert in numerous areas of the case. In fact, I happen to agree with him in the area of John Armstrong, but, I must say, he has the Walker case,and Marina Oswald, and Ruth Paine, and the Oswald analyzed quite incorrectly. I'll just leave it at that (for now). Again, back to my original reason for writing this post: sometime in the last 24 hours, Parker published an angry rebuttal to my latest writing criticizing his entire approach to the Walker note. I read it late last night, and intended to reply, but now it has disappeared. In this post, I have responded to his many incorrect statements --from memory. If anyone has the full text of what he wrote (and apparently has made to disappear), please send it to me at: dsl74@cornell.edu Thank you. DSL 4/23/15 - 5:05 p.m. PDT Los Angeles,California

Jon: Short answer: "no". But I seem to recall that--years ago--one or more researchers collected quotes from those in the White Russian community as to the level of her understanding. I'm pretty sure she understood some spoken English, and of course, after the assassination, her level of understanding went up sharply. As you may be aware, she then attended "the Michigan course"--but presently I don't recall those details. DSL

Jon (commenting on your response to Ron Ecker): Please keep in mind that Marina was already jumpy and uncomfortable about Oswald having ordered a rifle. Now, with that in mind. . . also keep in mind her puzzlement when (on the evening of 4/10) she saw that note. Her reaction was not: "The grammar is wrong" or "the syntax is wrong." Rather, her reaction (almost certainly) was; "What the hell has my 'crazy husband' done now?" Then, (I am tempted to write "CUT TO" because this really sounds like a bad screenplay): Lee rushes in and says he has just attempted to murder General Walker. What does she do? No, she does not say "The grammar in this letter you wrote is wrong, you idiot!" Nor does say: "Someday, a genius named Greg Parker will appear, and prove that you did not write this! There are ortho-whatever mistakes. . so it was not you who wrote this! Where is the author, Lee? Is he hiding in the closet?" Nope. None of the above. So. .. what does Marina say? She says: "Who is General Walker?!" That's right: that's what she asks: "Who is General Walker?" At that point, Lee holds forth that Walker was an American fascist, who deserved to die--and that's why he did it. That's why he attempted to murder the man. Marina, mortified, responds along the lines of: "You have no right to kill another human being just because you don't agree with his politics!" etc etc. Anyway, that's what happened on the night of April 10, 1963. Lee's behavior marked a major turning point in their marriage. From that point forward, she was deeply shaken --Lee was not Mr. Nice Guy (who she met in Minsk). Rather, she was concerned she had married a man she really didn't know. So what is really going on here? I'll tell you what I believe: In plain English, Lee had successfully gas-lighted Marina (See the movie "Spellbound"if you want to know more about that term; or just Google the term). Of course, these are subtleties that are beyond Mr. Parker. Greg Parker is ready to head a lynch mob, falsely accuse Ruth Paine, and string her up for a crime she did not commit. And he is wallowing in a false sense of certainty; but, unfortunately, he has this whole matter analyzed incorrectly. All wrong. For those who doubt my analysis--and especially anyone who is involved in a marriage or other serious relationship--it is a testable hypothesis. Only half-humorously, I suggest the following: 1. Go and order a gun 2. Put the gun in your residence within easy view of your wife. 3. One evening, retrieve the gun, and leave a note (akin to the Walker note, and with grammatical errors). 4. Come running into the house, later in the evening, and say you have shot at someone--e.g., President Obama, or perhaps Vice President Joe Biden, who was visiting your city. Now here's the proposition to be tested: Which of the following occurs? (a) Your wife says: Joe, what's wrong with you? This letter has grammatical errors! ( b ) Your wife says: Joe, have you gone mad? Why are you shooting at a public figure? (c ) She says: "Joe, Please leave the premises. I never liked you; and I never want to see you again!" IMHO: It was that kind of a moment, and of one thing I am fairly certain--the answer will not be (a). DSL 4/22/15 - 5:30 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California Will you address the claim by Greg Parker that the letters Oswald wrote earlier in Russia were written in a far superior Russian than the letter Oswald allegedly wrote to Marina regarding the Walker shooting? I'm not sure how we can accomplish this but, I would dearly love to see all of these letters analysed by an impartial party, fluent in Russian. Robert: Re: Letters written by Oswald --in Russian--and in a "far superior style" In a previous post, you raised this question: QUOTE: Shouldn't we be trying to compare the Walker letter with the letters Oswald wrote while in Russia that Greg speaks of? It seems odd that everyone is quietly ignoring this small but significant item. UNQUOTE In a later post (immediately above) you ask: "Will you address the claim by Greg Parker that the letters Oswald wrote earlier in Russia were written in a far superior Russian than the letter Oswald allegedly wrote to Marina regarding the Walker shooting"? My response (for now): While in the Soviet Union, Lee Oswald engaged in correspondence with his mother, his brother, and the American Embassy. (There was also a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, who he mistakenly thought was John Connally, and which was forwarded to Fred Korth). All of these letters--which can be found in the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission--were written in English. Therefore, in order to address your question, I request that you specify what communication (s)--written by Oswald while in the USSR--you are referring to. In other words, please specify the letters to which you are alluding (and that are being used as the basis for this comparison) that were written by Oswald while Oswald was in the Soviet Union and that were written in Russian. Thanks. DSL 4/23/15 - 12:30 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Jon Tidd: Re your statement: "Assuming Marina showed her husband (i.e., showed Lee Oswald) the letter, which I doubt. . . " ". . .which I doubt. . . " ? Why do you say that? Yes, Marina Oswald showed her husband the letter. And she told the whole (embarrassing) story on December 3, 1963. Let me repeat the sequence. . . : She told the whole story of what happened on the evening of April 10 for the first time to SS Agent Leon Gopadze on December 3, 1963, after Gopadze had been given the cookbook by the Irving Police Department on December 2, 1963. (Ruth Paine had turned over these materials a day or two before). Gopadze telephoned Marina on the evening of Monday December 2, 1963, at which time she denied any knowledge. The next day (Tuesday, December 3) Gopadze and another SS Agent (Brady) went to the Martin residence (where Marina was staying) and was questioned about the note. From Gopadze's report: "Marina Oswald immediately stated that she did not want to talk about the note over the telephone the previous evening but that the note has nothing to do with the assassination of the President. She went on to say that the note was written by her husband, Lee Oswald, prior to his attempted assassination of former General Walker, the head of the Fascist organization in the United States who lived in Dallas, Teas, when they lived on Neely Street in Dallas; that the note, together with a post office (box) key, was left on a dresser in their bedroom and after reading the note she was afraid that her husband was planning to do something dreadful due to his hatred toward the Fascist organizations and their beliefs. She also stated that when her husband returned home late that night he was very nervous and finally told her that he shot Walker with his rifle and that it was best for everybody that he got rid of him. She further stated that when the following day he learned from radios and newspapers that the rifle shot fired by an unknown person missed Walker, she decided to keep the note as a threat against her husband so that he would not repeat the same thing again, which he promised not to do. She also stated that she did not report this matter to the police as she loved her husband and, particularly, on account of their child. However, she stated that if the shot had taken its mark, she would have reported the matter to the police. She also stated that prior to the shooting, her husband was seen drawing all kinds of maps, etc. " Gopadze noted that "Statement concerning the Walker incident was obtained from Marina Oswald in her own handwriting. She requested that the matter not be reported to the police but that, if asked by the FBI, she would tell them everything." The above document from which I am quoting is Warren Commission Exhibit 1785 ("CE 1785") which summarizes SS Agent Gopadze's interview of 12/2 and 12/3/63. He notes that at the end of the second interview, the FBI arrived--in the persons of Heitman and Bogoslov; and the story picks up with their reports, which --as I recall--are also in the 26 Volumes. So, the Walker story is told twice--once on 12/3 to SS Gopadze; and then, within hours, to FBI agents Heitman and Bogoslov. The SS account that I quoted above comes from CE 1785, and is available at the AARC Public Library, in one of the 26 volumes. Next comes a paper trail of FBI reports--when they interviewed Marina. The Walker information was then provided to the major media (e.g., the New York Times) on Friday, December 6, 1963 and was published on page 1 on Saturday, December 7. The headline read: "Oswald Linked to a Shot Fired at General Walker". As to the particulars of the "Walker note" itself, that story was first broken by the Houston Chronicle in late December, 1963 and appeared in the New York Times on 12/31/63 (on page 20). The NY Times synopsis read: "Houston Chronicle reports that night before Walker was shot Oswald left his wife instructions, written in Russian, on what to do if he were arreted; says note was turned over to Warren Commission." On January 1, 1964, the New York Times carried a second story, headlined: "Widow says Oswald Admitted Firing at Walker" etc. In February, 1964, she testified about all this when she appeared in Washington before the Warren Commission. To recap, here's the essentials of the "Walker Chronology": 12/2/63 - Monday - two books (provided by Ruth Paine to Irving Police Department) are turned over to Secret Service by Irving Police Department. Those books are given to Secret Service and provided to SS agent Gopadze. Gopadze telephones Marina about the note; she disclaims any knowledge. 12/3/63 - Tuesday -Marina interviewed in person re note; she now owns up to it. Tells Walker story for first time to two SS agents 12/6/63 - Friday; Information about LHO being linked to Walker shooting divulged to NY TImes 12/7/63 - Saturday; First NY Times story linking Oswald to Walker shooting. Report that Dallas Police have identified as having fired shot at Walker And of course as any student of this case knows, all the Walker data is summarized in the Warren Commission Report in the section titled "PRIOR ATTEMPT TO KILL", with the subhead; "The Attempt on the Life of Mag. Gen. Edwin A. Walker" (which starts on page 183 of the Warren Report; and goes out to page 187). It can be read on-line, for example, by just Googling Warren Report" and going to nara.gov. * * * * During the 1964 time frame, Marina repeated the whole story to Priscilla Johnson McMillan, and it appears there, in her 1977 book Marina and Lee. And, as I have said, she repeated the whole account to me--more than once--after I met her on or around Jan, 1981, when Best Evidence was first published. Now it appears, Jon, that you don't believe Marina's account. Apparently, then, you believe that she made up this entire account--and then repeated it, again and again, over the course of many years, starting with the Secret Service, then the FBI, then to the Warren Commission; etc. Of course, you are free to "disbelieve" anything you wish, but the question that must be addressed is: what is the basis for your disbelief? Greg Parker has decided that Marina is a "proven xxxx" and therefore, he apparently believes that that entitles him to disbelieve what Marina says happened that night. And its true, Marina did not tell the truth, in the beginning, withholding the information about Walker (and also, by the way, about Lee Oswald having gone to Mexico City). But what is omitted from such justifications for ignoring Marina, i.e., from such "reasoning" (a la Greg Parker) is that, in the beginning, Marina believed in her husband's innocence, and said so in no uncertain terms. But the secret she was hiding of course--and what makes her a "proven xxxx" (in Parker's view)--was what happened on the night of April 10, 1963. But that's what destroyed her faith in her husband. Moreover, once that note was found, her secret was now "out there". Marina then had to "fess up" as to what had happened that night, and she did. As I recall, when she first testified, she apologized at not being truthful the first time around; and vowed to tell the truth from there on out. (And she did.) Of course, Parker doesn't like where this evidence leads, and so he has decided to create his own "reality" in which--he informs us--the Walker note was written after (!) the event became public knowledge. There is one small problem with that--besides requiring Marina to be a terrific actress: it was the revelation of the note (to SS agent Gopadze, and to the two FBI Agents , Boguslav and Heitman on 12/3/63 ) that led to the Walker incident becoming "publicly known" in the first place (on 12/6/63). In other words, Greg Parker indulges in a facile reversal of cause and effect, and expects people to buy into this nonsense which he then parades around as the supposed "insights" of a serious investigator. MY OWN REACTION TO PARKER'S "WALKER HYPOTHESIS" I have no access to a "time-machine" and was not "there' on the night of April 10, 1963, but I did know Marina reasonably well over the course of 15 years, and can attest to the fact that, once it was clear that the Government had found out about the Walker note, and about Mexico City, she told the truth--to the best of her ability. The idea that Marina wholesale fabricated the "Walker story" (and that Ruth Paine forged the Walker note) is completely unsupportable. Having had my own personal experiences with Greg Parker, I am not in the least surprised that he "reasons" in this fashion. (See my comments on his past behavior, in a previous post on this thread). i caution anyone else following his line of "reasoning" to exercise extreme caution and not to follow him down that rabbit hole. It lacks logic, and it leads nowhere. DSL 4/22/15 - 8:10 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Jon (commenting on your response to Ron Ecker): Please keep in mind that Marina was already jumpy and uncomfortable about Oswald having ordered a rifle. Now, with that in mind. . . also keep in mind her puzzlement when (on the evening of 4/10) she saw that note. Her reaction was not: "The grammar is wrong" or "the syntax is wrong." Rather, her reaction (almost certainly) was; "What the hell has my 'crazy husband' done now?" Then, (I am tempted to write "CUT TO" because this really sounds like a bad screenplay): Lee rushes in and says he has just attempted to murder General Walker. What does she do? No, she does not say "The grammar in this letter you wrote is wrong, you idiot!" Nor does say: "Someday, a genius named Greg Parker will appear, and prove that you did not write this! There are ortho-whatever mistakes. . so it was not you who wrote this! Where is the author, Lee? Is he hiding in the closet?" Nope. None of the above. So. .. what does Marina say? She says: "Who is General Walker?!" That's right: that's what she asks: "Who is General Walker?" At that point, Lee holds forth that Walker was an American fascist, who deserved to die--and that's why he did it. That's why he attempted to murder the man. Marina, mortified, responds along the lines of: "You have no right to kill another human being just because you don't agree with his politics!" etc etc. Anyway, that's what happened on the night of April 10, 1963. Lee's behavior marked a major turning point in their marriage. From that point forward, she was deeply shaken --Lee was not Mr. Nice Guy (who she met in Minsk). Rather, she was concerned she had married a man she really didn't know. So what is really going on here? I'll tell you what I believe: In plain English, Lee had successfully gas-lighted Marina (See the movie "Spellbound"if you want to know more about that term; or just Google the term). Of course, these are subtleties that are beyond Mr. Parker. Greg Parker is ready to head a lynch mob, falsely accuse Ruth Paine, and string her up for a crime she did not commit. And he is wallowing in a false sense of certainty; but, unfortunately, he has this whole matter analyzed incorrectly. All wrong. For those who doubt my analysis--and especially anyone who is involved in a marriage or other serious relationship--it is a testable hypothesis. Only half-humorously, I suggest the following: 1. Go and order a gun 2. Put the gun in your residence within easy view of your wife. 3. One evening, retrieve the gun, and leave a note (akin to the Walker note, and with grammatical errors). 4. Come running into the house, later in the evening, and say you have shot at someone--e.g., President Obama, or perhaps Vice President Joe Biden, who was visiting your city. Now here's the proposition to be tested: Which of the following occurs? (a) Your wife says: Joe, what's wrong with you? This letter has grammatical errors! ( b ) Your wife says: Joe, have you gone mad? Why are you shooting at a public figure? (c ) She says: "Joe, Please leave the premises. I never liked you; and I never want to see you again!" IMHO: It was that kind of a moment, and of one thing I am fairly certain--the answer will not be (a). DSL 4/22/15 - 5:30 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Paul: I knew Marina quite well between the period January 1981 (when Best Evidence was published) and around 1995. We used to speak quite a bit on the phone, and she agreed to do a filmed interview in the summer of 1990. Consequently, and in answer to your question, I had the benefit of many conversations with Marina about the same things to which she testified. With regard to the Nixon incident. . . : As Marina herself testified, she believed--in retrospect--that Lee Oswald behaved in certain ways simply to tease her or provoke her. That may not be a very nice way to treat your wife, but that was Marina's "after-the-fact" assessment of what he did. Following that line of reasoning, I believe there was indeed a "Nixon incident" (as testified to by Marina, and related--by Marina--to Robert Oswald). Did Marina get in a shoving match (of sorts) with Lee, after she was provoked? Apparently so. Did she actually "lock him in the bathroom"? As you well know, that is not physically possible, since bathroom locks work the "other way"--and a person cannot be "locked inside." (Did Marina think she "locked him in the bathroom"? That is another issue). If you read the accounts, once she "won" her little struggle, Lee passed the pistol out from inside, and she provided certain books he wished to read--and Lee ended up sitting in the bathroom, and reading; and that's how it ended. Bottom line: The Nixon Incident was not a fabrication that Marina made up out of whole cloth. (And, to add a question you did not ask: Do I believe that if Marina had not won her struggle, that Lee would have exited the premises, and murdered Nixon? No. Of course not! [And, as you may well know, Nixon wasn't even in town at the time. He was in Washington D.C.] Are you aware of that? Its a most important fact. Nixon was in Washington, D.C., but his picture was on the front page of the Dallas Morning News. Lee--seeing the photo (and knowing his wife could not read English)--then provoked Marina by saying (words to the effect) "Nixon's in town; I think I'll go out and have a look." But it was all play acting, and a provocation. Nixon was not in town; and Lee continued this role-playing, putting on a suit and then ostentatiously taking a pistol and putting it in his vest pocket--until Marina erupted (per her testimony, "No, you can't do that!" --approx) and that's when they had the fight. Do I think this happened? (Yes, I do.) Hope this answers your question. DSL 4/22/15 - 5:10 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California Modified, 4/23/15 - 1 p.m. PDT

Jon Tidd: Addressing your primary question, the short answer is: for the most part, Spring 1959, while at El Toro. He had an off-base tutor; and I'll have considerably more to say about this in Final Charade. In evaluating Oswald's Russian "learning curve", please be aware of the following data: 1. When Oswald enlisted in the Marines, he already had an intense interest in Russia. (See continuation of my post below, at MARKER AAA. There was a computer glitch. . .). DSL MARKER AAA Jon: Short answer: spring 1959, while at El Toro Marine Base. He had an off-base tutor. My entire analysis of this situation will appear in Final Charade. Meanwhile, here is data that ought to be kept in mind: ITEM: When Oswald enlisted in the Marines in October 1956, he already had a serious interest in the USSR. (To be discussed in Final Charade). ITEM: By the spring of 1957, while in the USMC, he was studying the Cyrillic alphabet. (See Felde FBI report). ITEM: While in Japan, he apparently had a tutor--at least, that's what certain fellow Marines believed. (See FBI reports of Marines who knew LHO in Japan, Epstein's book; plus FBI and WC info of Marines who knew LHO at El Toro, Spring 1959). ITEM: When he returned from Japan and appeared at El Toro (12/58), he was already "speaking" (albeit probably most poorly) some Russian; and that's when he arranged to have a Russian variant of his name ("Oswaldkovich" or some such thing) sewn onto his USMC uniform. (See WC affidavits) ITEM: Oswald's verbal fluency increased sharply in the spring of 1959. The evidence for that will be discussed in Final Charade, along with the indications that he had an off-base tutor. ITEM: Oswald definitely did NOT go to Defense Language Institute (DSL) in Monterrey. All the class records were provided under FOIA. According to that evidence, he was not there. Anyway, there is no evidence of any prolonged absence from El Toro (located in Southern California, and DLI, which is hundreds of miles up north). But Oswald did work out of a superior officer's office, and did make regular trips off base. That evidence will be set forth in Final Charade. ITEM: Oswald was trained to "listen" -not necessarily to speak--and that had a lot to do with his intelligence assignment. That's why he pretended not to understand spoken Russian (beyond "da" and "nyet") and with one interesting exception (when he was hospitalized), did not speak it. ITEM: Armstrong's assertions that he did not speak Russian after he arrived in the USSR (and was there for awhile) are false. Completely incorrect. ITEM: Once Oswald decided to remain in the U.S.S.R.--at least for a while, which turned out to be a long while--he had to be careful about revealing the level of his fluency. I have specific knowledge about this situation from information provided by Larry Schiller (who worked as Norman Mailer's investigator, for his book "Oswald's Tale.") The Soviets assigned a Ph.D. (physics) at the Minsk factory, Stanislov Shushkevich, to be his tutor. (Schiller believed he was assigned to see if LHO already had Russian language instruction). You can read all about Shushkevich--an extraordinarily accomplished man who is now about 83--by Googling him. He was recently interviewed on Radio Liberty on the occasion of the 50th anniversary. In 1991, he went on to become the first president of Belarus (if I've got the title right) and was responsible for (a) Belarus seceding from the USSR and ( b ) voluntarily surrendering its nuclear weapons. There are excellent photographs of Shushkevich shaking hands with President Bill Clinton at one of the early post-USSR conferences. Shushkevich recently made a trip to the U.S. and actually visited the Sixth Floor Museum. He does not believe the Warren Commission Report (at all), and has quite a bit to say about the character of Lee Oswald, with whom he spent significant time. I find most appealing his closing quote in the radio interview: "My student did not assassinate President Kennedy." ITEM: Of course, by the time Oswald returned to the U.S., he had spent some 34 months in the USSR; and, being an aural learner, had the advantage of (almost constantly) being the presence of--and speaking Russian with--Marina, who had excellent linguistic skills herself. (See Priscilla McMillan's book, which expands on this theme, and is quite good on this subject). Hope this sheds some light on Oswald's linguistic capabilities. DSL 4/22/15 - 4:55 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Jon: Some years back, I went over Oswald's Russian fluency. Oswald, I learned, was an "aural learner"--and a very good one, at that. An aural learner picks up a language the same way a parrot functions--they learn by "hearing" as opposed to studying a textbook which contains information re grammar, syntax, etc. If Oswald was an aural learner--and I have been persuaded this was in fact the case--then I would assume it is entirely possible that his spoken Russian could be quite good, whereas when he sat down to write a note--like the one he left for Marina--he made a variety of errors (as your daughter noted). Anyway, I see no reason to extrapolate from these errors to the notion that Oswald was not the author of the letter. And incidentally: Marina never questioned that it was her husband who wrote the Walker note. Nor is there any evidence at all that Lee Oswald ever said, "I didn't write that note. Someone must have gotten into the apartment and left that note for you to read; it was not me!" etc. My conclusions: 1.Oswald wrote the note 2. Oswald came rushing into the apartment, just as Marina has described, breathless, etc. --and said (I stress "said") that he shot at Walker. That doesn't mean he did shoot at Walker; but he definitely said that he did. And then he sat down in front of the radio, and was twirling the dial, looking for news coverage of the event. DSL 4/21/15 - 9:10 p.m. PDT Los Angeles,California Your conclusions are seriously flawed. Did you miss the part where it was determined that OTHER Russian writings of Oswald contained only a small fraction of the errors contained in the so-called Walker note? "Nor is there any evidence at all that Lee Oswald ever said, "I didn't write that note." Damned sorry I missed the seance where Oswald was given the opportunity to deny authorship! Do tell us all about it, Mr Lifton, sir! Greg Parker: Perhaps you misunderstood, or--for whatever reason--have a limited understanding of the facts. When Oswald returned home on the night of April 10, Marina confronted him with the note; and demanded an explanation. Are you unaware of that? (If so, then go read her testimony or the underlying FBI and Secret Service reports). So. . .: your barbs aside, no seance was needed. All Lee Oswald had to say (if your hypothesis had any validity) was: "Gee, Marina. . .I didn't write that! Someone must have entered the apartment, written the note, and placed it there for you to find! But not me!" And perhaps he might have added: "Yes, I shot at Walker. . as I just told you. But no, I left no such note!" Unfortunately, that's not the way the confrontation went--at all. Instead, Oswald--confronted by Marina with the note and with the statement he made to Marina (that he just returned from shooting at Walker)--he then added a justification for what he said he had done. He added that if Hitler had been assassinated, then perhaps there would have been no World War II. (I don't have the time to look up the citations, and assist you in your research, but I am sure that an experienced researcher like yourself can find this material in the 26 volumes). ABOUT RUTH PAINE . . . Anyway, you really ought to cut out the unjustified innuendo attempting to implicate Ruth Paine in framing Oswald for the Walker shooting by either (a) claiming that she authored the Walker note and/or ( by claiming, in addition, that she then foisted the note on the official US Government investigation by hiding it in a cookbook, and then turning over the cookbook to the Irving Police Department a week or so later. In other words, engaging in a conspiracy to (a) fabricate evidence and then ( introduce that false evidence that she herself fabricated into the official "information stream" of the Kennedy assassination investigation. Now that's really some hypothesis! Really, Greg Parker- - what are you smoking? Do you think that people reading this thread are so totally uninformed that they are unaware of the fact that Marina immediately identified the note when first shown it by Secret Service agent Leon Gopadze in early December 1963? (Gopadze having found it in the cookbook). Do you think that people are going to accept your "Ruth Paine as author" hypothesis simply because you've found a convenient person to blame? And speaking of that. . . YOUR PAST BEHAVIOR. . . This reminds me of your completely unfounded assertions and accusations against me concerning the matter of newspaper articles published in September, 1956 in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. You apparently believed that because you used Google news to find some clippings ---wire service accounts published in Canada--you refused to accept the fact that I was quite aware of this data (years before) because of the efforts of Debra Conway. Debra, at my behest, was working with microfilms at the Fort Worth Library. It was she who found the actual original local articles published in 1956, by working with library microfilms in 1995 (!) Your response? Oh no, that couldn't be true, you insisted. After all, this was your "original" discovery; you were "present at the creation". And so off you went, half cocked, and threatened to"expose" me if I ever dared to claim credit for finding out this data some years before you did! So now you are back with another completely garbled version of reality; Greg Parker's version of what "must have happened" on the night of April 10, 1963 to explain the Walker note. Unfortunately, you are dead wrong. Based on Marina's testimony and document examination, it is clear that the note was written by Lee Oswald himself. Any errors in syntax or grammar were his own errors. As George DeM (and his wife) both made clear, Oswald spoke "beautiful" Russian. Apparently, he was less competent when it came to written Russian. No great surprise since he was an "aural learner." But. . so what? Do you think that cancels out the fact that Oswald himself came running into the house and told Marina he had shot at Walker? Does syntactical or grammatical errors in the letter justify pointing an accusing finger at Ruth Paine, and claiming she was the author? Are you writing a novel, or are you trying to function as a historian? Get real, Mr. Parker. Get real. Before mouthing off and accusing people of crimes they did not commit. you might ask yourself: "Do I have some unacknowledged bias that is driving me in an incorrect direction, and to make unwarranted inferences?" In other words, "know thyself" and try to exercise some discretion before running off and making unfair accusations. The fact that Ruth Paine had an underlying animus towards Oswald is "old news"; it is an annoying fact, and it has been written about for decades. None of that justifies accusing her of fabricating the Walker note, and then --in addition--not only accusing her of fabricating the note, but also of then stuffing it inside of a cookbook, which she then (according to you) deliberately gave to the Secret Service! Is that your concept of "conspiracy" in this case? Oh pleez. . . DSL 4/22/15 - 9:30 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California (Slightly edited - 4/22/15 - 4:20 p.m. PDT)

Jon: Some years back, I went over Oswald's Russian fluency. Oswald, I learned, was an "aural learner"--and a very good one, at that. An aural learner picks up a language the same way a parrot functions--they learn by "hearing" as opposed to studying a textbook which contains information re grammar, syntax, etc. If Oswald was an aural learner--and I have been persuaded this was in fact the case--then I would assume it is entirely possible that his spoken Russian could be quite good, whereas when he sat down to write a note--like the one he left for Marina--he made a variety of errors (as your daughter noted). Anyway, I see no reason to extrapolate from these errors to the notion that Oswald was not the author of the letter. And incidentally: Marina never questioned that it was her husband who wrote the Walker note. Nor is there any evidence at all that Lee Oswald ever said, "I didn't write that note. Someone must have gotten into the apartment and left that note for you to read; it was not me!" etc. My conclusions: 1.Oswald wrote the note 2. Oswald came rushing into the apartment, just as Marina has described, breathless, etc. --and said (I stress "said") that he shot at Walker. That doesn't mean he did shoot at Walker; but he definitely said that he did. And then he sat down in front of the radio, and was twirling the dial, looking for news coverage of the event. DSL 4/21/15 - 9:10 p.m. PDT Los Angeles,California

Jon: Regarding your statement "I lean toward believing the backyard photos were created post-assassination." FWIW: Marina made clear to me--in many conversations starting around January 1981 --when Best Evidence was published, and I first met her--that Lee asked her to photograph him with the rifle etc. She also repeated those statements --with considerable certainty--in her interview with Jesse Ventura. I realize that she may have taken pictures that were not identical to the one's in evidence; my point is that, at Oswald's request, she did take photos of him posing with the rifle. DSL 4/21/15 - 8:45 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, Ca

I have no idea why you say the umbrella man was not Steve Witt. As I have written years ago, I knew someone well who knew the Umbrella Man's dentist, and so I heard the umbrella man's story at least a year (or more) before the HSCA hearings. What is the basis for your asserting that the man with the umbrella in Dealey Plaza was not Steve Witt? DSL 4/21/15 Los Angeles, California

Jon Tidd: No, I have never questioned the translation of the Russian note. My understanding is that those translations were done by the State Department and/or the FBI. Is there reason to believe that the translation--as published in the Warren Report--is incorrect? Please respond to dsl74@cornell.edu (as I don't check the London Forum very often). Thanks. DSL

Mark: I understand your frustration (with the state of the evidence); but your post doesn't capture "the reality of the event" (as Professor Liebeler used to say, in that UCLA seminar). Here's what is significant (IMHO): Marina states that Lee came home that night, rushing in, and breathless, and said he shot at Walker. She didn't just say this to the Secret Service and the FBI (and then testify about it). During the years I knew her, I went over this very carefully. Agreed: she is not a witness to what went on over at the Walker residence that night; but she is a witness to what Oswald said when he came rushing in that night; and then turned on the radio to listen to news broadcasts. So, she's a witness to what Oswald said. And, let me assure you, it left an indelible impression on her. As for GDM, he's a witness to Oswald's reaction when he (GDM) made a joke about it. No, that's not proof, but it is relevant. One other thing: the handwritten note was written by Oswald, and it was placed prominently in that private little area where Oswald worked. One other matter: The photographs taken in Oswald's camera can be timed--because of the progress of construction on that building in the backgroud--and they were taken during the period that the rifle was ordered. So those are "the facts". . .exactly what they mean is another matter. DSL 4/18/15; 3:20 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, Ca.

Douglas, I think you're doing a good job by bringing up material related to these "collateral" murders. DSL

Today I was sent the following email concerning the court decision in the lawsuit Robert Oswald filed to retain ownership of his brother's casket. At the end is a link to the actual facsimile of the judge's opinion. Can someone on this forum please download this document, in pdf format, and send it to me (at the email below below my typed signature? (I couldn't get it to download on my computer). Thank you. DSL email: dsl74@Cornell.edu Tarrant County judge rules that Lee Harvey Oswald’s casket belongs to his brother Robert A Tarrant County judge has ruled that the rotting casket of Lee Harvey Oswald belongs to his brother Robert. Judge Donald Cosby issued that conclusion this morning, almost two months after the 80-year-old Robert appeared in a Fort Worth courtroom in an attempt to keep the casket out of a stranger’s hands. Writes Cosby, he bought his brother’s pine box for $300 on November 24, 1963, and it remains to this day “the personal property of Robert.” That means the person who bought it at auction in 2010 can’t have it. What remains of Lee Harvey Oswald's casket, which will be returned to Robert In December 2010, a Los Angeles auction house sold the casket to an unidentified buyer for $87,468. Weeks later, Robert filed a suit in Tarrant County to stop the transaction, which he blasted as “highly objectionable to a reasonable person.” Oswald sued Nate D. Sanders, Inc., and Baumgardner Funeral Home over the sale of the casket, as well as other grim items tied to his brother’s death. The casket’s journey from six feet under to a Tarrant County courthouse is a long one involving the sale of a funeral home, Lee Harvey Oswald’s exhumation in 1981 (following allegations he wasn’t really buried in that box) and his transfer to a new casket when he was put back in the ground at Rose Hill Cemetery. In his lengthy finding, Cosby details its tortured history. But long story short, he writes: When Baumgardner Funeral Home kept the 1963 casket following Lee Harvey’s re-burial in 1981, it should have told Robert or Lee’s widow Marina of its whereabouts. At trial, the funeral home’s attorney argued that it was “a gift” from Robert to Lee since “Robert would never see the casket again, and it would remain in the ground forever and ever.” Instead, it kept the box, and in 2010 partnered with Nate D. Sanders, Inc., to auction off the casket and other “funeral items.” As far as the Los Angeles auction house was concerned, Baumgardner had every right to the casket. Wrong, says the judge, who has awarded Robert the $87,468 in damages as well as the casket. Baumgardner Funeral Home will have to pay for its return. Says the judge, the funeral home “wrongfully exercised dominion and control over the 1963 casket.” Click here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/254213782/Judge-Rules-on-Oswald-Casket

This is completely false. As Lane well knows--and sets out in Rush To Judgement (See his chapter "The Gauze Curtain") --the reverse is the case. The doctors were near unanimous in offering their opinion (both to the press and in their medical reports) that the throat was an entry. Lane was either careless or just forgot. If you want to see the doctors statements analyzed, with emphasis on the throat wound, see Chapter 3 of Best Evidence. For evidence that the throat wound was substantially enlarged by the time the body was received for the Bethesda autopsy, see Chapter 11. please note the way WC attorney Specter handled the depositions of the Dallas doctors: in each case, he asked the doctor what he originaly believed; and then asked his famous hypothetical question, which in effect, ran along these lines: "Well, if the bullet entered from the rear of the back or the neck, and traversed the neck back to front, and then exited at the front of the throat, through the wound which you observed, could it have been an exit wound?" Of course, just about every doctor conceded that it 'could have been'. In my earliest writing --The Case for Three Assassins--I reviewed this kind of questioning and called it "yanked from the mouth testimony." In any event, for whatever reason (and perhaps it was just confusion or memory loss), Lane has completely mangled the record in making the above statement, which is clearly incorrect. DSL 12/26/14 - 10:45 AM PST Los Angeles, California

Doug: Thank you so much for posting this YouTube video of my presentation back in 2003. I haven't watched this in about 10 years. I'm very proud of this talk, I stand behind what I said, and I hope it serves to educate (and entertain) newcomers to the case. My best, DSL 10/20/14 - 9:40 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Here's the first news story (I have seen on the net) re the AARC conference in Bethesda. It was published in this morning's Boston Globe, and runs under the headline: 50 Years Later, Doubts Still Raised about the Warren Report. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/09/27/skeptics-gather-years-after-warren-commission-report-about-jfk-assassination/IrTSgQgrKGXHU2bjw0kRnM/story.html Here's the text: BETHESDA, Md. — Fifty years after the Warren Commission concluded that a lone gunman killed President John F. Kennedy, a conference examining the assassination convened here, dominated by skeptics who mulled over conspiracy theories and cast doubt on official reports. One panelist, John Newman, who gave a presentation on CIA pseudonyms used by agents connected with the Kennedys, said the Warren Report “was not just wrong. The longer we have to study the case, the wronger its conclusions become.” Theories about the case have sprouted from the moment that Kennedy was killed, and countless forums have been held since then. This gathering, five decades after the Warren Commission published its report on Sept. 24, 1964, drew more than 200 people. It was sponsored by a private group, the Assassination Archives and Research Center, which says on its website that it is the world’s largest private archive “dedicated to acquiring, preserving, and disseminating information on political assassinations.” One of the speakers, Antonio Veciana, an 86-year-old involved in the anti-Castro movement, said through a translator that he had seen a CIA officer in Dallas with Lee Harvey Oswald before Kennedy’s assassination. Attendees had so many questions for Veciana that his talk went almost an hour over the allotted time. One attendee, Mike Chesser of Arkansas, who was 8 years old at the time of the assassination, said he wanted to learn more about what he believes is “our true history.” “I always felt there were a lot of unanswered questions,” Chesser said. The conference began Friday with panels on secrecy and democratic accountability and featured testimony from witnesses who said they encountered Oswald in the months before the assassination. On Saturday, the conference will focus on the subsequent “coverup’’ of the assassination, and a dramatization of the Warren Commission will be presented Sunday. The official investigation was overseen by then-Chief Justice Earl Warren. But in the half century since Warren Commission, public opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Americans do not believe its primary finding: that Oswald, a disgruntled former Marine, acted alone in murdering the 35th president. A 2013 Gallup poll found 60 percent of Americans think others were involved, although that percentage was down from its peak in 1976, when 81 percent said they believed there was a conspiracy. Theories about who the culprits might have been include leading organized crime figures, Cubans who were seeking to overthrow communist dictator Fidel Castro, Castro himself, and elements within the CIA, or some amalgam of these groups. The attendees filled the ballroom of the Bethesda Hyatt Regency Hotel as a row of cameras filmed the scene for an upcoming DVD. Books written by the conference’s speakers, with titles such as “Oswald: Russian Episode,”' were sold in the lobby. DSL NOTE: "Oswald: Russian Episode" is Ernst Titovets' book on Lee Oswald. Ernst met Oswald around September 28, 1960, and was his best friend, in Minsk,for some 20 months. They went to partys and opera together; and --in general--I think its fair to say that Ernst Titovets was Oswald's best friend. Their friendship lasted until mid-May, 1962 when Oswald (by then married to Marina) departed for Moscow, and then left for the U.S. (arriving back in New York on June 13, 1962). Even after Oswald returned, he and Titovets kept in touch by mail, right up until a few weeks before the assassination. As far as I'm concerned, Ernst's account of Oswald is one of the best written--and its clear to me that other than his mother, Ernst Titovets knew the "real Oswald" better than anyone else. I highly recommend the book. In the interest of full disclosure: I met Ernst --via phone--some 20 years ago, corresponded with him at the time, and am mentioned in his book. END DSL NOTE NOW CONTINUING WITH THE NEWS STORY. . . Jefferson Morley, a former Washington Post reporter who has researched the assassination, said he believed the Internet would usher in a new era of Kennedy assassination research. “Now anybody, anywhere can get access to the original record of the assassination, or most of it,” Morley said. “That has never been true over the past 50 years and it’s only started to be true recently. It’s only going to become more true as time passes.” Bryan Bender of the Globe staff contributed to this report. I hope that anyone at the AARC conference who has access to the Internet, will post on this thread their impressions about this event. DSL 9/27/14 - 5 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

In 1967, I had a long telephone conversation with William Greer, and following that, he sent me a map of the area, on which he drew the route he traveled from Andrews AFB to Bethesda. (And yes, as I recall, it matched the one reported by William Manchester. DSL 9/25/14 - 5:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

At the 2:08 point. This guy is the Keynote Speaker? Sigh...I have standing offer for any JFK Conference...Every time the following question is asked from the podium I'll give a dollar to my favoite local charity (Tami the Street Sheet Lady on Haight): "What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?" That's the central question of JFK's murder -- a question rarely addressed. Last year it cost me a buck -- 3 major conferences and the question was asked once...by Cryil Wecht, who gave the wrong answer on TV. With Doug Horne on the schedule...that should be one buck right there! Cliff: I tried to communicate with you privately. Sent you an email, but got no response. Perhaps I have an incorrect email address. Please send your email address to me at: dsl74@cornell.edu Thanks. DSL 9/18/14; 3 AM Los Angeles, California

Douglas Caddy, This is a real treasure ! Was this found at the JFK Library? Thank you so much for posting this here on the London Forum. Here's what I just wrote in the Comments section for this item, at YouTube: This is wonderful find. A great piece of primary source material. Unfiltered by any speech writer. Just Kennedy himself, making a rather introspective record that he probably intended to use someday when writing his own memoir. If you're interested in what made Kennedy tick, this is loaded with wonderful data. Kennedy had a historian's insight (about himself) but obviously wanted to make his mark on history. He clearly wanted to be a force for change, to personally do what he could to shape the future. Where was this found? And by whom? Congratulations to those found it and made it available here on YouTube. DSL 8/5/14

Pat: I have a reasonably clear recollection of the release of the Clark Panel's Report about 3 days before Nixon's inauguration --on or about January 17, 1969. I immediately wrote the Justice Department and received --again, "as I recall"--an entire press kit consisting of not only the Clark Panel Report but the November 1966 Naval Inspection report, and the January 1967 "military review" (the examination of the autopsy photos by Humes, Boswell and Finck in January, 1967. I do not have the Wozencraft memo--in fact, I never heard of it until your post here on the London Forum. Is it available at the Mary Ferrell website? If so, perhaps you could provide the Internet link. If not, perhaps you could scan your copy, and send it to me. I don't doubt that Wozencraft wrote the memo you say he did, but if so, then it seems that NARA ignored his advice, because i do remember getting those"auxiliary" documents when I wrote DOJ for the Clark Panel report (just days after the news accounts appeared) and asked for anything else that was relevant and available. DSL 8/5/14 - 6:20 PM PDT Los Angeles, California