Paul Trejo

OK, Paul B., let's look at your latest argument. (1) You're right -- both FBI and CIA were officially investigating the FPCC at the same time that Guy Banister was running them. Our disagreement is over my claim that only Guy Banister's operation was exploiting Lee Harvey Oswald there in NOLA. (2) The difference as I see it is that Guy Banister wasn't merely trying to "discredit" the FPCC, nor was Guy Banister trying to "infiltrate" the FPCC. The weird and unique thing about Guy Banister's operation is that he used Lee Harvey Oswald to create a fake FPCC, which had only one member -- Lee Harvey Oswald. Then, Guy Banister used the assistance of David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringiuer (and various other low-level quislings) to carefully and deliberately FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald to look like a genuine member of the FPCC -- knowing full well that he was nothing of the sort. (3) Now, how could this hurt the FPCC? It couldn't! That's why I see no linkage of the FBI or the CIA in Guy Banister's plot using Lee Harvey Oswald. (4) Guy Banister's activity was strictly set up to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald. It had no other purpose in the world. And we know that Guy Banister was the leader of the New Orleans team, because we have his address posted on Lee Oswald's FPCC handbills. (This fact has long been established by Jim Garrison.) (5) But Lee Harvey Oswald was too naive to realize this was happening to him. Guy Banister (and Clay Shaw and David Ferrie) therefore had to be telling Lee Harvey Oswald a big, fat, juicy lie in order for Lee Harvey Oswald to willingly cooperate in every step of this sheep-dipping, FRAMING procedure. (6) The same is true of the Mexico City operation. We know this was linked with the New Orleans FRAMING operation led by Guy Banister, because Marina Oswald said that Lee took all these newspaper clippings about himself as a fake FPCC officer to Mexico City with him. Also, the clerks at the Mexico City compound all testified that Lee Harvey Oswald showed them these newspaper clippings along with other fake documents (like a fake Communist Party card) which was supposed to impress them, but totally didn't. (7) Therefore, when the ROGUE members of the CIA chose to *impersonate* Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City, it was only to further Guy Banister's FRAMING operation -- to make Lee Harvey Oswald appear to be even closer to the Communist Party than Guy Banister did in New Orleans. (8) Now, how could the *impersonation* of Lee Oswald in Mexico City hurt the FPCC? It couldn't! Actually, the CIA had no clue who the *impersonators* were, and they started a mole-hunt to identify them (as proved recently by Bill Simpich). So, this was no CIA or FBI plot. It was Guy Banister's plot. (9) Which is to say, it was a civilian plot -- which, according to my theory, boils down to a John Birch Society plot. (10) It is important, Paul B., that you pointed out that the FBI "lost" Oswald from his arrive in NOLA until the screet scene with Carlos Bringuier, when Oswald himself called the FBI to ensure that the FBI (which was tracking Oswald) wouldn't get the wrong idea that he was really a supporter of the FPCC. (11) While you're right that we have no documents to rely on here, I think that Guy Banister yelled at Oswald for calling the FBI at that point, just like Guy Banister probably yelled at Oswald for stamping his office address on those FPCC handbills. Lee Oswald was young and still made lots of mistakes. (12) As for the domestic/international division of cases between the FBI and CIA, you cited the Mexico City operation, and how J.J. Angleton fiercely took charge of it. But remember -- Mexico is part of the International division. So, my theory still stands as plausible. (13) Yes, I do believe that Harry Dean's claims about his unsolicited reports to the FBI about the JFK murder probably do exist, and probably will be revealed in the year 2017, according to the JFK Freedom of Information Act. I still think the FBI is hiding the good stuff. On 11/22/1963 Hoover ordered the FBI to smash any evidence they saw that contradicted his Lone Nut theory. That's what the FBI faithfully did. They said that Silvia Odio was a "mental case." They also joked that Harry Dean was a "mental case." Both these important witnesses claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald had ACCOMPLICES. (14) As for the CIA documents -- I know for example that Harry Dean never volunteered reports to the CIA. So naturally the CIA would not be hiding anything about Harry Dean. (15) Also, regarding the CIA, Bill Simpich has spent years (thankfully) pouring over FOIA released CIA documents. That's how he discovered the Mexico-City "mole-hunt," which is a great discovery for JFK research. (16) Although everybody knows that CIA plausible denial is built into the system -- this shouldn't be used as a sort of One-Size-Fits-All proof for any conspiracy one wants. We can't use the absence of documentation as a proof of anything. (17) For Harry Dean, I don't start with an absence of documentation -- we have Harry Dean's 1965 claim that he reported the Edwin Walker connection to Lee Harvey Oswald, the John Birch Society and the JFK murder. Now -- that's a documented claim -- and one can either believe Harry Dean or disbelieve him. I choose to believe him. I believe that the FBI has records relating to the JFK murder with Harry Dean's name on them. I believe this because Harry Dean claims it -- AND HARRY DEAN WAS AN EYE-WITNESS. (18) Now, regarding the CIA, it's one thing to sling accusations around like many people do -- but it's something else to begin with an EYE-WITNESS REPORT and start from there. I haven't seen anybody do that yet. (19) The CIA was hiding things to the HSCA. I believe that. Joannides was clearly hiding things -- but we don't know exactly what at this time. It might be that there were more CIA Rogues involved in the JFK murder than I have named so far. That would have been truly be devastating to the CIA in 1977. (20) I insist that David Morales was a ROGUE agent who left the reservation. This is practically PROVED, according to me, by Bill Simpich's worthy discovery of an internal "mole-hunt" inside the CIA for Oswald's *impersonator* who was almost certainly David Morales. Morales was a middle-level CIA Officer -- he had several dozen people reporting to him -- but he was stunned by the failure of the Bay of Pigs -- and he could not forget that the rest of his life. (21) David Morales was a part of a chain of command -- that's true. Yet the CIA high-command was BLIND-SIGHTED by David Morales when he *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. That is ample evidence, according to me, that David Morales was also part of another chain of command -- a civilian chain of command led by mavericks from the John Birch Society. These were the Americans who believed firmly that JFK was a Communist. (22) David Morales may have believed he was doing the right thing by supporting this Civilian plot to murder JFK -- but David Morales didn't tell his own CIA high-command -- and we KNOW this today because of the world-class work of Bill Simpich. (23) Finally, Paul B., you want to make the political opposition of Dulles and Hoover into a "justification" for murdering JFK. But these are Americans, steeped in the tradition of Free Elections. If they really wanted to overthrow the US Government, like the John Birch Society, they had every opportunity to openly join the Birchers. Allen Dulles, for example, wasn't even employed when JFK was murdered. He had every opportunity to join the John Birch Society -- but he didn't. (24) The people who OPENLY claimed that JFK was a Communist were called the John Birch Society. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, again Tommy, you're missing many political nuances. Let's start with that video that you cited from YouTube. The narrator begins with the following words: "Clint Murchison was an oil millionaire with 500 companies and was primarily an oil millionaire. He also controlled Texas and controlled [President] Johnson." LOL This is what I mean when I say that all these accusations about J. Edgar Hoover being in league with the Mafia are politically slanted. The nonsense that Clint Murchison "controlled Texas" is exaggeration enough, but to say he "controlled LBJ" is unforgivable exaggeration. Clint Murchison was very rich -- but he was nowhere nearly rich enough to control Texas, much less to control LBJ, or even to control J. Edgar Hoover. While it is true that J. Edgar Hoover liked living high on the hog, and he took advantage of his wealthy companions, that is utterly zero proof that Hoover was making deals with them. Those are all rumors. It is just as easy to argue that Hoover was chummy with these rich people because he was gathering information about them. Further -- this sappy video tries to make horse racing seem suspicious!. There's nothing at all scandalous about betting on horses. In our day and age, there's no longer any scandal about homosexuality, either. But this video you shared tries to insinuate illegal activities, merely based on the high-prices of Hotel Del Charro, and the fact that Hoover's hosts paid his bill for him. Wealthy people do things like that, Tommy. A few hundred dollars here or there is practically nothing to a millionaire. In fact, it's just good manners in some circles. But this video you shared uses loaded words along with eerie music playing on diminished and augmented chords to manipulate emotions -- just in case their loaded words weren't enough. These are biased political sources you quoted for us, Tommy, and the historical facts implied by them are weak. It's true that J. Edgar Hoover claimed there was no Mafia in 1963 -- but one can easily explain that by saying that this was an FBI strategy to calm the public mood while the FBI worked under-cover more effectively. Your "evidence" didn't really prove what you think it proved, Tommy. My point still stands. Hoover is alleged to be in cahoots with the Mafia, but the evidence is weak at best. Regards, --Paul Trejo

...As for Guy Banister, he was a hot-head with a terrible temper. He was also an outspoken racist, and when he ran for public office in Lousiana, he openly ran on a racist ticket -- 'keep our schools lily white.' As such, Guy Banister had broken with the FBI..." Regards, --Paul Trejo What? Guy Banister had broken with the FBI? Let me guess-- Was it because the FBI was such a bastion of progressive thinking and positive action on civil rights? LOL ... --Tommy Well, Tommy, you've missed some important nuances. While it is true that J. Edgar Hoover wasn't personally a supporter of Civil Rights leaders, as FBI Director, Hoover was part of the Executive Branch of the US Government, and so his job was to enforce the Laws of the Land. Now, starting in 1954, a key Law of the Land was established by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and his Brown Decision, mandating racial integration of all US Public Schools. Therefore -- even though J. Edgar Hoover might have personally opposed that Law, he was duty-bound to enforce that Law with of his all FBI personnel, if necessary. That was the Law -- whether Hoover liked it or not, and Hoover was proud to enforce the Law. Now -- private citizens like Guy Banister and resigned General Edwin Walker no longer worked for Executive branch of the US Government. Guy Banister had quit the FBI to start his own Private Eye office. Edwin Walker had earlier enforced the Brown Decision in 1957 at Little Rock high school, when he was a US General, but he also resigned from the US Army partly because of that duty -- which he protested at the time. (His first, unsuccessful resignation was in 1959. His second, successful resignation was in 1961.) In 1962 both Edwin Walker and Guy Banister were supporters of the White Citizens Councils of the Deep South -- they really thought they had a chance to reverse the Brown Decision -- at least in the Southern States, using the Constitutional argument of "States Rights." Now, even if J. Edgar Hoover was personally sympathetic to these people, he would never dare to say so publicly. Although Guy Banister could (and did) publicly boast about this demand for all white schools, the FBI could not and wouldn't even dare to take that position. So -- yes, Tommy. Guy Banister broke with the FBI. That's a simple, historical fact. The foundation of Guy Banister's break with the FBI was simply the ideology of the John Birch Society. Even if the FBI secretly opposed Earl Warren's decision, they publicly supported it. They might still harrass the NAACP, and they might even spy on MLK more than any other person in the USA at the time (as I've read). But they would never dare to contradict Earl Warren on the basic foundations of the Brown Decision. So, you can LOL all you want, Tommy, but you're just mistaken about it because you overlooked these political nuances. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Thanks for the info, Doug. By the way -- if she stopped supporting the resigned General Edwin Walker after her divorce from Kent Courtney, then perhaps Phoebe only supported Edwin Walker because Kent supported him. That could be relevant as late as 1963 because of the activities surrounding known associates of Kent Courtney in 1963. In the summer of 1963 we have interaction between Guy Banister, Edwin Walker and Gerry Patrick Hemming that merits further exploration. Edwin Walker was active in politics in Louisiana, even though this was not his home state. He interacted with the WCC in those counties. In short -- did Phoebe Courtney oppose the extreme measures of the WCC with regard to the NAACP -- and did Phoebe Courtney break with Kent Courtney over his possible move farther to the right-wing along with Guy Banister and Edwin Walker? I think that might be interesting to explore. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Very interesting background, Doug. In a way, your personal development mirrors the development of much of the USA during the same time period. In the 1950's we started out very young and fresh in the world of International Empire, having only just inherited that role after the fall of England from that role in 1945. Conformity was a big value for Americans in 1950, and cultural homogenization was practically enforced. (Perhaps only beatniks and jazz music during that period saved Americans from total conformity.) Just for readers who might not be aware of it -- the "Citizens Councils" you speak about were orignally called "White Citizens Councils" (WCC) and they started in Mississippi in 1954, only weeks after Chief Justice Earl Warren announced his Brown Decision. There is a scholarly book on the topic by Neil McMillen, entitled, Citizens Council (1971) and of course a competent Wikipedia entry on the topic. The WCC sprang up like weeds in the South, but also made considerable progress in the North and in Washington DC, where they used US Government recording and video services to interview Congressmen, Senators and prominent citizens to widely advertise their cause of reversing the Brown Decision. The resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker was interviewed multiple times by the WCC. I have two of those videos, and I posted them to YouTube until the Mississippi Department of Archives and History instructed me to take them down. The WCC were well funded. They were rich, actually. Some thought that the Dixiecrats could use the WCC as a springboard to political power in Washington DC. The strategy of the WCC was somewhat clever -- they began by denouncing the KKK. They said that the violent methods of the KKK would only gain further support for the Brown Decision, so they demanded that their attacks on their opponents always take the form of economic attacks, and never physical attacks. They would target their NAACP opponents and get them fired from their jobs, ensure that banks would not loan them money, get banks to call in their mortgages, and anything possible to harrass them until they stopped demanding local racial integration. They were very successful (the first several years), not only in the South, but also in the North. As Neil McMillen pointed out, however, they were ineffective in Southern counties where Black Americans accounted for more than 40 percent of the population. In those counties, the KKK were allowed to ply their older methods. It's a little awkward for Democrats to take a political position on this, because traditionally the Democrats were the party of segregation -- lots of people forget that. President Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921), for example, was nominated partly because as President of Princeton University he successfully kept Princeton entirely white. President Wilson was sympathetic to the early KKK, and he extoled the first epic movie, Birth of a Nation (1915) as "historical fact". Wilson supported during his term a KKK march in downtown Washington DC. For reasons like these, the South was firmly 'Democratic' in those early days before FDR when Democrats were largely Dixiecrats and opposed Republicans who sought a "Second Reconstruction" through the Brown Decision. These were the politics of Kent Courtney, as you noted, as well as the politics of Guy Banister and of the resigned General Edwin Walker. What I didn't know was that Phoebe divorced Kent Courtney -- and I wouldn't have guessed that they divorced over the WCC. The WCC framed their politics in terms of States Rights. Politically they formed the States Rights Party, claiming that racial integration was entirely a matter for each State to decide, and so the Brown Decision was a "Constitutional struggle". Phoebe Courtney was an avid supporter of States Rights. Those involved in the WCC believed they had a real shot at positions of Governor and US President. That was the feeling as late as 1963 in the South -- where Edwin Walker, Guy Banister and Kent Courtney operated. What was the specific WCC behavior of Kent Courtney, if you know Doug, that caused Phoebe to divorce him? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., I cannot find enough evidence to suggest that Oswald was an official part of the CIA. Oswald wasn't a full-time employee of the CIA, otherwise he wouldn't have been as poor as a church-mouse. We have evidence from Richard Case Nagell to the effect that some people inside the CIA would hand Oswald a little bit of money from time to time, probably for spying piece-work with his Minox camera. The FBI was giving Oswald $200 monthly for information -- said Dallas DA Henry Wade. That was far from a regular salary from the FBI, but it was like a promise of more to come. (In my theory, the FRAMERS of Oswald used Oswald's zeal to get a regular job with the FBI or CIA as leverage to fool him into being their Patsy.) As for Guy Banister, he was a hot-head with a terrible temper. He was also an outspoken racist, and when he ran for public office in Lousiana, he openly ran on a racist ticket -- "keep our schools lily white." As such, Guy Banister had broken with the FBI. Guy Banister was working directly with Mafia leader Carlos Marcello during the summer of 1963. I cannot find any connection linking Carlos Marcello to the FBI during the summer of 1963. I know enemies of Hoover claim that there were -- but those are politically motivated accusations. Therefore, I conclude that Guy Banister was acting ON HIS OWN when he set up his fake FPCC in New Orleans, with Lee Harvey Oswald at the helm. It was Guy's own work. The reason Guy was doing it was to find a way to assassinate Fidel Castro. That's why Guy Banister was so close to Operation Mongoose, as well. The FBI wasn't involved in Operation Mongoose, but on the contrary, were under orders to shut down all paramilitary training camps supporting Cuban Exile counter-revolutionary armies. Guy Banister was far more radical than J. Edgar Hoover during the summer of 1963. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Paul B., it's a good and challenging question. In my opinion, the CIA uncharacteristically allowed the FBI to take the lead on this issue. Although ordinarily the CIA and the FBI were in competition with each other regarding Intelligence cases -- the general consensus was that the CIA should work on International cases, while the FBI should work on domestic cases. It was decided very early in the JFK murder case, that this was a domestic case. If there had been clear and present evidence of an International plot to murder JFK, the CIA would have jumped to duty. They did not. I take this as more evidence that the JFK murder was a domestic issue. The FBI handled domestic issues of this magnitude. I believe that the CIA recognized their juridiction on the JFK murder, so they followed the FBI lead on the question. Now -- what was the FBI position? I say (following Professor David R. Wrone) that J. Edgar Hoover decided only ONE HOUR after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested, that the FBI response must be that Lee Harvey Oswald was NEVER acting on Communist orders, or under Communist influence, but that he acted completely ALONE, as the Lone Shooter or Lone Nut. That is, Oswald arrived at DPD headquarters at about 2pm CST on 11/22/1963, and by 3pm CST the FBI Director decided that the FBI response was that Oswald was a Lone Shooter. At that point, all FBI Agents involved with the JFK murder case (and it was a lot of them) were ordered to hide any and all evidence that suggested more than one shooter, shooting a maximum of three shots from the TSBD building. This has been called the Cover-up of the JFK murder. Actually, it was a Counter-Terrorist strategy intended to foil the plans of the JFK Kill-Team -- because the JFK Kill-Team insisted that JFK was killed by the Communists through their pawn, Lee Harvey Oswald. J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, John McCone and Allen Dulles knew this to be a lie. They all followed Hoover's strategy -- insist that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Lone Shooter, and devil take the hindmost. At this point, the CIA top-command knew that the right-wing had killed JFK. The CIA didn't know that there was a rightist mole inside the CIA who had taken part in this murder. They had no clue that David Morales was their Mexico City *impersonator* of Lee Harvey Oswald, and they still had not yet connected the dots -- that the Mexico City *impersonation* was definitely linked with the JFK murder. Yet the CIA knew that the murder of JFK was done by the radical right-wing in the USA. So it was not their jurisdiction -- it was under the jurisdiction of the FBI, and the CIA followed the FBI lead on this. The FBI lied to the American People, telling us for fifty years that Lee Harvey Oswald acted ALONE on that day. It has been so long, and it has been so habitual, that perhaps to this day most Americans still believe it, and most FBI people have no recollection that this was a political strategy, and not the truth. It is simply taken as read by most Americans and most modern FBI agents today. Also, I have tried to imagine why the US Government would refuse to punish the radical right-wing on this murder case. IMHO, it wasn't because they agreed with the right-wing in any way, shape or form. While Hoover disliked JFK and RFK, Hoover also had pride, honor and respect for Law and Order. The ONLY rational reason for refusing to identify the JFK Killers was that same reason they openly stated in 1964 -- National Security. The FBI continues to repeat this today as their reason for refusing to release their Top Secret files about JFK. There was no other reason a half-century ago; it was National Security. There is no other reason today. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Interesting, Doug. During the years that you volunteered to work for Kent and Phoebe Courtney, to what degree were you aware of their position on the Brown Decision passed by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren? Did you (i.e. your family) also take the position that Earl Warren should be impeached because of the Brown Decision? I presume you were old enough to take a political position regarding Civil Rights marches during that era, and regarding Dr. Martin Luther King, whom J. Edgar Hoover regarded as one of the most dangerous men in America at the time. We know Kent Courtney's opinion about MLK. Had you formed an opinion of your own in those early days? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

All right, Paul B., let's follow your line of argumentation. In that case, Bill Simpich should not have used the word "mole" when he noted that the CIA high-command started a mole-hunt in search of those who *impersonated* Lee Oswald and Sylvia Duran in Mexico City on 28 September 1963. In my reading of Bill Simpich's book, State Secret (2014), the CIA high-command was startled by this *impersonation*. Here are the facts as I recall that chapter: (1) All calls in the Mexico City consulate compound were always wire-tapped. (2) Any calls between the Cuban consulate and the USSR consulate in Mexico City had to be interpreted and set on the desk of the CIA Chief within 15 minutes, along with the names AND photographs of the parties on the line. (3) The wire-tapping interpreters at the Mexico City compound were world-class experts at their jobs. (4) The interpreters knew that Lee Harvey Oswald was already being watched that weekend (5) The interpreters of this *impersonation* phone call realized instantly that the voices were not Lee Harvey Oswald or Sylvia Duran (6) There were two calls, actually. The first call was just a message from the Cuban consulate that Lee Oswald was coming over to the USSR consulate. The second call was a confirmation and a request for names of USSR clerks, fishing for the name of KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. (7) The interpreters realized that the Russian language was very poor. Lee Oswald spoke Russian very well. (8) The interpreters realized that the Spanish language was very good. Lee Oswald spoke almost no Spanish. (9) The interpreters realized that the English language was spoken with a thick Spanish accent. (10) The interpreters reported that whoever claimed to be Lee Harvey Oswald and Sylvia Duran in these phone calls were not really Lee Harvey Oswald or Sylvia Duran. (11) The CIA Chief scratched his head and could not understand why somebody would want to *impersonate* Lee Harvey Oswald. (12) The CIA Chief reported this instantly to the top. Then Lee Oswald's CIA 201 File was quickly modified in order to catch the mole. The photo of Oswald was replaced by this large Russian dude. The middle name of Lee Oswald was changed to "Henry." The names of Oswald's parents were also changed. Now, why in the world would a Soviet "mole" want to *impersonate* Lee Harvey Oswald? No -- it was evidently plain at the time that whoever was *impersonating* Lee Oswald over the Cuban consulate telephone was trying to link Lee Harvey Oswald with KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. But it was clearly a FAKE. It was a FAKE linking between Oswald and Kostikov. SOMEBODY wanted to link Oswald with the Communists. But who? For years this mole-hunt went forward, and nobody ever found the mole. Both Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich have suggested that CIA Agent David Morales was the mole behind the *impersonation* phone call. I tend to agree with them. But clearly Morales was never a Soviet mole. So -- what kind of mole was Morales? I say David Morales was a "right-wing mole". It may be hard for some people to imagine that somebody in America could be more right-wing than the CIA, but it's really possible. If that person is so right-wing that he doesn't care about the US Constitution, and is willing to break the US Constitution to further his political aims -- then that person is what we call the "extreme" right-wing. The "extreme" right-wing has always been just as dangerous to the US Government as the extreme left-wing (e.g. Communists). So, the CIA had to be careful of "moles" on both the right and the left. I believe that CIA high-command considered that they were looking for an "extreme right-wing mole." This right-wing mole was part of a Conspiracy to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist. Jim Garrison showed exactly how Guy Banister, Clay Shaw and David Ferrie, along with Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier, worked to FRAME Lee Oswald as a officer of the FPCC -- with Oswald's own cooperation -- in New Orleans during the summer of 1963. Therefore, this Mexico City *impersonation* was just the final phase of the New Orleans FRAMING. It was the icing on the cake. It was the cherry on top. It tried to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist working with the KGB. It actually proved that David Morales had jumped ship in the CIA, and joined these John Birch Society wackos to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald -- and it also proved that the CIA high-command knew nothing about it! So, Paul B., if you say that Bill Simpich can't use the word, "mole" except in the sense of a "Soviet mole", then please come up with another name to call David Morales, who was no Soviet mole, but was still an INSIDER in the CIA who acted WITHOUT the knowledge of the CIA high-command to try to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Doug, did you also work on the Courtney's newspaper, Independent American? Did you follow their strong support for Edwin Walker as a political candidate in 1962? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Doug, I find your story intriguing. In my research for H.W. Brands on the topic of Ex-General Edwin Walker, I paid special attention to the writings of Kent Courtney and the prominent role that Courtney played in Walker's fledgling political career. For one thing, both men were early members of the John Birch Society -- a sort of Joe McCarthy society on steroids. For another thing, few people know this, evidently, but General Walker was booted out of his command in Augsburg Germany, not because of John Birch Society literature, but mainly because he violated the Army's "Hatch Act," by trying to influence the voting practices of subordinates. Now, in his violation of the Hatch Act, General Walker used the CVI, or Conservative Voting Index. It was a rigged "Index" slanted to favor politicians who (among other things) opposed Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren's Brown Decision. According to the records I have, it was Kent and Phoebe Courtney who designed the CVI, and delivered it to General Walker in early 1960. So, in a certain sense, it seems to me, Kent and Phoebe Courtney were indirectly responsible for General Walker losing his job. If so, that would explain why a few months after Walker quit the US Army, Kent and Phoebe Courtney would publish a book entitled, The Case of General Edwin A. Walker, in which they defended Walker against the "Communists" who "fired" him. In that book, they also called on America to elect General Walker for US President. Nor was that the end of it. At some point they renamed their newspaper from Free Men Speak to the Independent American, and that paper would feature as many as three stories each issue on Ex-General Walker. They praised his patriotism, his greatness, and called on him to lead a Third Party to victory in the White House. Of course, Walker had no political experience, yet, but he soon would seek some as Governor of Texas. And if he had won that post, he would have run for US President in the 1964 Elections -- that was evidently the plan. Kent and Phoebe Courtney were solid backers of Edwin Walker from the start. When most people gave up on Walker, the Courtneys stood by him. I find it fascinating, Doug, that you knew Kent Courtney personally. In my humble opinion, his relationship with Guy Banister and with Edwin Walker (and with Billy James Hargis, evidently) makes him very suspicious in the plot to murder JFK. He knew so many of the principals (according to my theory) and he was clearly on their side. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

It's also my opinion that the eye-witnesses left standing a half-century later are perhaps are most valuable resources in JFK research. I speak here of the following: (1) Michael Paine (2) Ruth Paine (3) Sylvia Odio (4) Larrie Schmidt (5) Bernard Weissman (6) Ron Lewis (7) Harry Dean These people are getting on in years, folks, so we ought to be mindful of their roles in US history. It is fruitless, IMHO, to follow the current wave of opinion which just lumps all these people, and everybody else with any relation to the JFK murder, into the big vat called, "CIA Operative" and let it go at that. That's lazy thinking, IMHO. We should clear out our ears and formulate fresh questions to ask these people yet again. Among the first questions I would ask them ALL would be about Ex-General Edwin Walker, and the role that Walker played in the JFK saga from 1961 through 1963. From the information we have on these people so far -- EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM was aware of the presence of Ex-General Edwin Walker in the world of 1963. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Tommy, I think you're reaching beyond reaching, now. It's not a game of speculation -- we have facts, we have testimonies, we have the research of Jim Garrison (first and foremost) and we know a lot about Lee Harvey Oswald now. The fact that the FPCC in New Orleans was fake is important. The fact that the fake FPCC in New Orleans, allegedly led by Lee Oswald, was really controlled by Guy Banister, is also important. The fact that Oswald pursues this fake FPCC starting in May 1963 (only weeks after he shot at Ex-General Walker) and continued it until September 1963, is also important. These facts tell us quite a lot about Lee Harvey Oswald -- and we owe these insights to Jim Garrison's research, 1966-1968. The person who first told Jim Garrison about this was Jack S. Martin, an employee of Guy Banister. Then, David Ferrie, another employee of Guy Banister, confirmed this information for Jim Garrison. With this breach in the JFK murder conspiracy, Jim Garrison almost single-handedly solved the JFK murder case. Sadly, Jim Garrison failed to distinguish between the Kill Team (the US right-wing) and the Cover-up Team (the FBI and US Government), so when the Cover-up Team slammed into Jim Garrison, he ended up blaming the US Government for the whole mess. That was a major failing of Jim Garrison -- but even that cannot erase the brilliant work that Jim Garrison did by uncovering the fact that Guy Banister was the leader of the JFK Kill-Team in New Orleans. Jim Garrison, in my opinion, also failed to learn the full identity of the JFK Kill-Team in Dallas, because he was hoping that somebody in Dallas would step forward to help him. Only DPD Officer Roger Craig tried that, and he died young. Otherwise, nobody in Dallas stepped forward. That's where we are today, IMHO. We are still waiting for somebody from Dallas, Texas with more first-hand knowledge about the JFK Kill Team in Dallas to step forward. I think Ricky White brought forward some vital facts -- for one thing, the fact that his father, a right-wing activist and a DPD Officer, allegedly confessed to being one of the JFK shooters at Dealey Plaza, and further, had in his possession a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald holding his weapons -- IN A POSE THAT NOBODY ELSE HAD SEEN BEFORE. Yet because Ricky White was so late in coming out, and because his father's alleged diary was missing -- researchers too quickly lost interest. I think we should have pursued Roscoe White much more energetically. Dallas is where we need to start digging, IMHO, if we want to complete the work that Jim Garrison started, and failed to complete. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Andrew, your doubts make more sense in 2014 than they would have made in 1963. As I tried to show, there was a culture of mandatory naivete in America in the 1950's through 1963. We just looked the other way. I'm aware of what you mean by "young male fascists around Walker in Dallas." First and foremost you refer to his younger business partner and publisher, Robert Allen Surrey, who was a member of the ANP (American Nazi Party), and he also published material for the ANP as well as for Ex-General Walker. Also, you may also refer to the fact that the ANP leader, George Lincoln Rockwell, attended the 1962 Senate Hearings in support of Edwin Walker, AND HE WORE HIS FULL NAZI UNIFORM AT THE HEARINGS (and of course was escorted out when he shouted out loud and made a ruckus). Yet Walker expressed his displeasure with Rockwell's comportment. Aside from that, it's debated how many other young "fascists" there were surrounding Walker. If you simply mean "extreme right-wingers" then yes, there were many more, because we can count the Minutemen in his circle, who trained in paramilitary camps on a regular basis. But it may be unfair to call them "fascists" just because they were extreme right-wingers who believed in the John Birch Society doctrine that all US Presidents since FDR have been Communists. That is extreme -- but it does fall short of "fascism" as such. For another ambiguous example, I was fortunate enough to interview Larrie Schmidt for several months in 2012. (He broke it off when he discovered I wasn't going to support Willard Mitt Romney for US President.) Some people have called Larrie Schmidt a fascist, but I must disagree, based on the evidence I see. Larrie, along with his CUSA (Conservatism USA) group, was an avid supporter of Barry Goldwater for President. That's farther right than I like to travel, but it's still far away from "fascism" properly defined (as Nazi as or a follower of Hitler or Mussolini). Larrie Schmidt's older brother, Robbie, worked for Edwin Walker in his home in Dallas -- but as far as I could determine, Robbie was apolitical -- he followed orders, though he preferred drinking beer to reading books. This is just what disappointed Bernie Weissman, another member of CUSA. CUSA folks were not fascists, but young hopefuls who wanted to capitalize on the New Right in the USA and especially in Dallas. They wanted to use their youth and enthusiasm to rise to the top of literally all the American Rightist Parties, and take them all over. At least, that's what Larrie Schmidt wanted. But Larrie Schmidt told me -- and he told LIFE magazine back in 1965 -- that he would gladly shoot either Gus Hall (CPUSA) or George Rockwell (ANP) any day of the week, if that's what it took to show his hatred of the extremes of left and right. Was Larrie deceiving me? Perhaps. Perhaps he was more right-wing than he admitted to me. Perhaps his brother Robbie was more politically active than he admitted to me. Perhaps his brother knew more about the JFK: WANTED FOR TREASON handbills than he admitted to me (which handbills Bernie Weissman saw in the back seat of the car that Robbie Schmidt drove for Ex-General Edwin Walker). I don't know -- but I say innocent until proven guilty. So -- I can't use the word Fascist as such to describe Walker. He was a rightist extremist, but the best way to characterize his politics and his ideology is just to say that he led his own chapter of the John Birch Society in Dallas. His entire ideology was wrapped up in their twisted belief that all US Presidents since FDR had been real Communists. This isn't Fascist as such -- but I admit that it's very close. Now, you ask, how could H.L. Hunt and the Birchers back Walker with all his baggage. First of all, they only backed him from November 1961 until September 1962. If Walker would have been successful in keeping the first Black American, James Meredith, from attending Ole Miss college on 30 September 1962, then I'm sure the JBS would have backed Edwin Walker for US President. I have no doubt in my mind about that. However, Walker failed miserably in that regard -- and the Birchers stopped rooting for Walker on that weekend. As I recall, after JFK and RFK sent Walker to an insane asylum the next morning, Congressman and Bircher Bruce Alger demanded that the JBS expel Walker from their rolls. However, three days later, after psychiatrist Thomas Szasz and the ACLU successfully won Walker's release from the insane asylum (instead of the full 90 day examination), Bruce Alger changed his tune, and welcomed Walker back into the Bircher fold. It's true that Walker was sullied by his failure at Ole Miss. He was down -- but he was not out of the game -- not as far as the extreme right-wing was concerned. The John Birch Society's star writer, Earl Lively, wrote a booklet in early 1963 entitled, "The Invasion of Mississippi," in which he blamed JFK for the riots, and made Edwin Walker appear to be an innocent martyr. More to the point, two members of the John Birch Society who were also attorneys, namely, Clyde Watts and Robert Morris, who got Walker acquitted by a Grand Jury in Mississippi for his role in those deadly riots, also then began suing all the American newspapers that had printed the TRUTH about Walker's fomenting and encouragement of the riots. They won $3 million in suits over the next five years (which is $30 million in today's dollars, after inflation) and until 1967 Walker truly believed he would be a millionaire because of this. (Mercenaries like Gerry Patrick Hemming would cozy up to Walker to remember him in his political donations when "his ship came in.") If Earl Warren hadn't reversed those winnings, then Walker might have actually emerged as a more dangerous political figure in 1967. But Earl Warren knew the real truth. So, David, if not for his failures at Ole Miss, the Birchers would have backed Walker all the way. They simply looked the other way with regard to his homosexuality (as they did for J. Edgar Hoover) because Walker was clever enough in 1963 to successfully remain "in the closet." The reason I'm sure of this is because Walker's politics were NOTHING MORE OR LESS than the Bircher politics. Walker was not a creative thinker. He was not a creative writer. His speeches follow the John Birch Society line from 1960 through 1967, without changing a word. Look at the JFK: WANTED FOR TREASON handbill, and compare it with the full-page, black-bordered advertisement, WELCOME, MR. PRESIDENT, TO DALLAS, in the DMN on 11/22/1963. The wording is very similar -- and the wording is taken from the pages of the John Birch Society. As for Germany -- any homosexual secrets about Walker probably died with the reporters of the Oversees Weekly newspaper. Now -- I'm deliberately being conservative here -- and I refuse to move Walker farther to the extreme right-wing without material evidence. That said, I will keep an open mind about it, because I do find it interesting that Walker make a friend of the newspaper editor, Dr. Gerhard Frey, who edited the Deutsche Nationalzeitung in 1963, and during WW2 was an active Nazi newspaper editor. Mae Brussell tries to make more out of this than I can make -- but I might wind up being too conservative on this score. Finally, David, about Lee Oswald's connections to Walker and his homosexual/political lifestyle -- I don't see a connection on the surface. It is true that Clay Shaw and David Ferrie were both known homosexuals, and Lee Oswald associated with them almost continually from May 1963 to September 1963. It's true that they were also right-wing extremists. However, their boss was Guy Banister, and Oswald ultimately reported to Guy Banister, not to Shaw (the money man) or to Ferrie (the errand runner). Guy Banister was an extreme rightist and a racist, but he was married and had a mistress on the side, i.e. he wasn't homosexual. The connection I see between Lee Harvey Oswald and Edwin Walker is based on the historical record: (1) Oswald tried to kill Walker because George De Mohrenschildt and his pals hated Walker; and (2) Oswald found Walker's politics mildly interesting, based on Oswald's few words about him in his notes, and the fact that Oswald attended Walker's US-Day meeting on 10/23/1963 in which the sabotage of Adlai Stevenson's UN-Day speech the following evening was planned. Those are the only connections that I can see at present, from the viewpoint of Lee Oswald. Walker's connection with Oswald was deeper, because as Walker admitted throughout his life, he knew that Oswald had been his shooter on 10 April 1963 -- and Walker tracked Lee Harvey Oswald from April 1963 all the way through November 1963. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

It's implicit, Tommy, in your suggestion that Oswald "snitched" on the JFK Kill Team to the USSR, so that he could go live in the USSR and escape the American right-wing. That's obvious to many of us, I'm sure -- not just to me. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Tommy, it's my opinion that many JFK researchers have lost sight of Jim Garrison's early work. Nobody can have a complete theory of the JFK murder without taking into consideration the roles played by Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw. (For those who are new to this literature, I recommend the film, JFK by Oliver Stone, 1991, now nearly a quarter-century old, because it's based on the 1988 book by Jim Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins.) To these three mandatory ground-crew we should add three others who were closely aligned with them in New Orleans, and who provided much information to Jim Garrision, and later to his protégé, Joan Mellen. I speak here of Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman and Thomas Edward Beckley. Furthermore, in the context of "sheep-dipping" Oswald (to use Jim Garrison's term) we must also include two radical Cuban Exiles, namely, Ed Butler (INCA) and Carlos Bringuier (DRE). Furthermore, in harmony with insights derived from Larry Hancock's study of personnel, we should include Cuban Exiles and their American associates, including John Martino, Johnny Roselli, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Larry Howard. Jim Garrison interviewed most of these people. He gave special attention to Gerry Patrick Hemming and Loran Hall, for example. Lee Harvey Oswald PRETENDED to be a Communist. This is one of the key features of Jim Garrison's theory. Lee Harvey Oswald was in no way, shape or form, a legitimate officer of the FPCC. He was a fake officer in a fake FPCC. Jim Garrison basically PROVED that, because the New Orleans FPCC chapter had only one member -- Lee Harvey Oswald, and it was run out of Guy Banister's office. Furthermore, Lee Harvey Oswald had a fake Communist Party card with him in Mexico City. Furthermore, Lee Harvey Oswald never PERSONALLY hung out with known Communists -- he hung out with known right-wing mercenaries, like Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Gerry Patrick Hemming, what to speak of Cuban Exiles who wanted nothing else than to murder Fidel Castro. These were the PERSONAL associations of Lee Harvey Oswald. His contacts with known Communists was always through the mail -- the postal service -- in order to deliberately leave a visible paper trail. His PERSONAL contacts were always on the right-wing, and he kept them secret from his wife. Both George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt said that they worked on Lee Harvey Oswald for an extended period to make him stop saying that JFK should be punished for his failure to act at the Bay of Pigs (and they painstakingly transferred his hostility to Ex-General Edwin Walker instead). This harmonizes with what "Leopoldo" (probably Loran Hall) told Silvia Odio in a phone call a day or so after that 25 September 1963 visit to her door with "Angelo" and Lee Harvey Oswald -- that "the American says you Cubans don't have any guts, because you should have killed Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs." Lee Harvey Oswald -- like Harry Dean -- wanted to be accepted as part of the American right-wing in 1963. Regarding the murder of JFK, they both engaged in right-wing conversations about it -- but when it came to actually doing the deed, they both backed off. It was too late for Lee Harvey Oswald. The people that Jim Garrison named above had FRAMED Oswald as a Communist in newspaper, radio and TV. Even down to this very day, you, Tommy, are still wondering if Lee Harvey Oswald was really a Communist. That's how good a job the ground-crew did with sheep-dipping Lee Harvey Oswald. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Great question, David; thanks for pursuing this with me. Walker was a homosexual -- I think that's fairly well known. Now, in 1961, it was a felony to be a homosexual in the US Army. The homosexual faced not only court-martial, but also prison time in Leavenworth. It was a serious matter in the 1961 US Army. A major question was how a homosexual could rise to the level of Major General in the US Army, and never be detected. One reason was that 1961 was very naive when it came to authority. For example, JFK was perhaps the most sexually promiscuous US President in history -- up to 1963. Other US Presidents had the occasional affair -- but JFK had a new affair every month, according to some reports. Now -- why didn't this make the newspapers? President's Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky made headlines for a solid year. But although many people in high places -- including the Secret Service -- knew about JFK's many sexual liaisons, it was never, ever reported by the mainstream US Press. Also, J. Edgar Hoover was (probably) a homosexual. He never married, and he lived with another gentleman (Clyde Tolson). Yet he kept his post as FBI Director for life, with never a sexual scandal in his long, long career. The answer, IMHO, was simply the culture of the times. Until 1963, the US culture was largely the culture of the 1950's -- Happy Days and very naive. We didn't want to know these scandals. So, that's why Edwin Walker might rise as high as Major General in the US Army. He was a victorious warrior of WW2, so everybody kept looking the other way. Edwin Walker got used to this, and kept exploiting it. He became a master of deceit in this regard. Now -- that's the way things were in the USA. That isn't the way things were in Europe after WW2. Europe after WW2 was cynical and bitter. To hell with naivete -- the newspapers were going to print every scandal they could get their hands on. What we know from the personal papers of Edwin Walker is that he ran into conflict with the Overseas Weekly during his very first week in Augsburg, Germany. Walker complained and complained about the Overseas Weekly at the Senate Hearings on 'Military Muzzling,' but he never got down to brass tacks -- he never told us the real reason why they hated each other so much. We did find out that Walker sued the Overseas Weekly editor and a reporter in a Civil court in Germany, and he won. But he shared very few details about that, so that we're left wondering what was going on. He charged the paper with harassment -- but this only made the newspaper editor more angry. We know only that Overseas Weekly reporters started following Edwin Walker around -- and when Edwin Walker tried to get away from them, they pursued him that much more fervently. One reporter went snooping through Walker's desk in Augsburg (and evidently that's why he was sued). Walker banned that reporter from the US base, but the Overseas Weekly editor just called a few higher Generals and got the reporter back on the beat. One gets the notion that the enmity began in December 1959, when Walker began his duty there, and ended in April 1961, when Walker was kicked out of his command post. That's almost a year and a half of hatred. One of the many fights they had was over medical issues -- claims Walker. Walker claims that he had to go off-base several times to see medical specialists about a possible brain tumor. None was found, but that was his reason for absenteeism at the base. The Overseas Weekly reporters tried to check this out, because apparently they didn't believe Walker's story. From the Overseas Weekly articles themselves, one can get only hints -- no true sexual scandal shows forth, but there are hints. Here's my speculation: Walker was probably spotted as a homosexual soon after he arrived in Germany, by reporters of the Overseas Weekly. That would be a big story, so the editor chose to pursue it. Walker noticed he was being followed, so he threatened the reporters. The editor then decided to spy on Walker even more. The rumors evidently increased -- Walker never fraternized with the married officers -- and that was most of them. Instead, when they were having barbeques and other events, Walker would simply leave the base and find his own, private entertainment around this active German city of Augsburg. Suspicion arose that Walker was unmarried because he was homosexual. The Overseas Weekly was compiling a dossier on Walker. We know this because Walker said they were -- and he told the Senate Subcommittee that the Overseas Weekly planned to "blackmail" him with the dossier. "Blackmail?" He was asked? "What were the contents of this dossier that somebody could blackmail you?" "Well, uh, it was about my health -- about my possible brain tumor." Yeah -- right. Pardon my skepticism. The enmity didn't stop. Walker kept taking the Overseas Weekly to court, and was preparing a super-large lawsuit against them when the editor simply decided to let out all the stops and force the Top Brass to sit up and take notice of this maverick. They knew that a scandal about the John Birch Society would embarrass the Top Brass in Europe, and raise eyebrows among the Joint Chiefs in Washington DC as well. They were right. The Overseas Weekly articles about General Walker came out on 16 April 1961, and the very next day General Walker was relieved of duty. It wasn't JFK that made that snap decision -- it was the Joint Chiefs. The last thing they wanted was a scandal as they were trying to defend the Berlin Wall against the USSR. Just get rid of him. JFK didn't want a domestic scandal. If Walker resigned, he would be the first (and only) US General to resign in the 20th century. So JFK quickly offered General Walker another position -- this time in Hawaii (also overseeing troop training, as it happens). But Walker was fed up. Walker had tried to resign under President Eisenhower, but Eisenhower decided instead to reward General Walker with his own command in Germany. Walker commanded 10,000 troops and supervised all their dependents there in Augsburg. It was the biggest command of his career. But Walker was miserable there. He just wanted to be free to be himself -- to be homosexual -- and yet he had to live in the closet every day of his life, because of the US Army rules against homosexuals. He was living a lie. He decided for the second time to quit. To the Senate Subcommittee, Walker blamed the Overseas Weekly for his failure in Augsburg Germany. Many, perhaps most of Walker's fans were disappointed, because they were looking for a Joseph McCarthy style of Communist scandal in his firing. But instead they had to hear about how "subversive" this US Army newspaper was. It was a big let-down to most of Walker's fans. If he had made a strong showing in these Senate hearings, it is virtually guaranteed that Walker would have won the election for Governor of Texas in May. But the results were dismal, and the reports were terrible, and Walker ended the race in last place. Walker said many times to the Senate that the Overseas Weekly should be called the "Oversexed Weekly" because they sported bikini girls on every third page. Well, this was a fine old US Army tradition -- if one was heterosexual. But Walker found nothing redeeming in it -- all this sex was for Walker "subversive." Walker claimed that "many men" in his command also called the paper the "Oversexed Weekly," although it was never seen in print before Walker used the term. More likely it was men close to Walker who pleased him by repeating his term. This, as I see it, was the sub-text of the Overseas Weekly, and the role it played in Walker's dismissal from his post. It wasn't the John Bircher thing so much as it was the fact that General Walker made almost no friends among the Top Brass in Germany. He was a loner. He was a homosexual who didn't belong in the US Army in 1961 -- and although they never said so, everybody knew it -- especially Edwin A. Walker. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Tommy, if Lee Harvey Oswald snitched out Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw to the USSR when he was in Mexico City, then why didn't he move to the USSR immediately? Also, if Oswald snitched out the JFK conspirators, then why did JFK still get murdered? No -- Oswald didn't snitch out anybody -- nor was Oswald in any way, shape or form, a Communist. Oswald never joined a Communist Party. He actually had a fake Communist Party card that he showed the Cuban consulate in Mexico City! As if they couldn't tell a fake CP card! Larry Hancock and Bill SImpich trace Oswald's moves in Mexico City with world-class precision. Lee Harvey Oswald made a fool of himself in Mexico City. When they denied him his "Instant Visa" he shouted, he screamed, he demanded to see managers, and in the USSR consulate he actually took a loaded pistol, and then he wept! Hancock and SImpich are today's authorities on the actual events of Mexico City. Now -- as for the interpretation of those events, I think that Simpich is mistaken to imagine that the impersonators wanted to "blackmail" the CIA. But aside from that one mistake, I think that the work that Bill SImpich did on Mexico City is second to none. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Because, Paul B., that's what Bill Simpich demonstrated very well. But that is irrelevant to the *impersonation* of Duran and Oswald, and it is irrelevant to the mole-hunt. No, Paul B., because nobody said it was a Soviet mole. it was only a mole who *impersonated* Duran and Oswald. That's all the CIA high-command had to work with. They knew it was a mole because whoever did it knew a lot about CIA operations in Mexico City. Yes, the CIA exploited Oswald as a low-paid dangle before Mexico City, but again, that is irrelevant to the *impersonation* and the mole-hunt. Regards, --Paul Trejo

It's fascinating that, according to your theory, in order to kill Castro, Oswald would consider infiltrating himself into Cuba by hijacking an airplane. I'm just wondering if he was going to do this before or after he got that "instant visa" from Sylvia Duran. --Tommy Well, Tommy, let's take this slower, please. In my theory, in order to kill Castro, on orders from Guy Banister (and his associates, Clay Shaw and David Ferrie), Oswald would fake being an officer of the FPCC in a fake chapter of the FPCC, and would get himself involved in police reports, newspaper stories, TV news spots, radio spots and even a TV show -- all showing without any shadow of a doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was an officer of the FPCC. With the newspaper clippings of all these events, Lee Harvey Oswald went to Mexico City, to show them to the Cuban consulate clerk there -- and to demand an "Instant Visa" to Cuba. That isn't my theory -- that's a demonstrable fact. This was proven by Jim Garrison back in 1968. Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler -- two radical Cuban Exiles -- pretended to be Lee's opponents in all this, when actually they were working for Guy Banister also -- and the media FRAMING of Lee Harvey Oswald was professionally accomplished by Ed Butler, an expert propagandist for INCA. Now -- as for the completely separate and second part -- Oswald's talk about hijacking an airplane to Cuba -- this also is a fact, that is, it was stated in Marina Oswald's sworn testimony. That isn't my invention or theory. That is a historical fact -- Lee Oswald told Marina that he wanted to hijack a plane to Cuba. Now -- WHY would Lee Oswald want to do this? Here is where my theory begins. Marina had no clue. Ron Lewis, who was a companion of Lee Oswald's during the summer of 1963 in New Orleans, had no clue why. They only knew that Lee worried for many days about hijacking a plane to Cuba, and bothered them endlessly about it. Here's where my theory begins. I say that something caused Lee Oswald to doubt the word of Guy Banister, Clay Shaw and David Ferrie, when they promised him that getting into Cuba instantly would be easy if he could fake being an officer of the FPCC. Why would Oswald doubt that? Oswald had spent months preparing for this. As early as May, 1963, he applied for an FPCC charter in New Orleans (and was denied but he did it anyway) and he also ordered a thousand FPCC handbills to be made (some of which had Guy Banister's address stamped on them). So, from May 1963, all the way to September 1963, when he went to Mexico City, Lee Harvey Oswald was playing ball with Guy Banister. But suddenly -- out of the blue -- Lee Harvey Oswald suddenly decides that he will get into Cuba some other way. Not by an Instant Visa, but by hijacking an airplane. WHY WOULD HE CHANGE HIS MIND? The only reason that I can think of, is that Richard Case Nagell changed Lee Oswald's mind. According to Richard Case Nagell (as reported by Dick Russell in 1997) he was ordered by the KGB to kill Oswald in Mexico City, if Oswald did not extricate himself from his role in SOME assassination plot. So, it seems to me -- in my theory -- that Lee Harvey Oswald CHANGED HIS MIND about following Guy Banister's route to Cuba (i.e. an Instant Visa based on phony FPCC credentials) because Nagell forced him to change it. What could Nagell have told Oswald to change his mind? He might have warned Oswald that he would kill him in Mexico City -- that's the likely scenario. I admit I have no proof for this theory. Marina also says that Lee Harvey Oswald sat in his kitchen one night, all by himself, weeping. What would bring on this sort of stress to a US Marine? It seems to me that Oswald wanted more than anything to be a CIA Agent, and that Guy Banister & Co. were promising Lee a job in the CIA, if only he would follow their plans to get Fidel Castro killed. But Richard Case Nagell, in order to protect his triple-agent cover with the KGB, would have to kill Lee Oswald in Mexico City if Oswald played along. This, I think, is what drove Lee Oswald to contemplate a different route to Cuba -- namely, hijacking a plane. See the difference, Tommy? It's not both together -- it's EITHER/OR. EITHER Oswald would hijack a plane to Cuba, OR Oswald would go through with Guy Banister's plan to get an Instant Visa to Cuba based on these fake FPCC credentials that Oswald and his team had been forging since May 1963. To his credit, Lee Oswald realized that hijacking a plane was a stupid idea. Still, he went along with Guy Banister's plan, and we have ample evidence that he did, because Lee Harvey Oswald went on to make a fool of himself at the Mexico City consulates in late September 1963. So, yes, Tommy. My theory still stands as plausible. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

I hope that I've provided sufficient information about resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker to generate interest about his possible role in the murder of JFK. To that end, I want to review the main 'urban myths' still told about him. I'll start with the first myth; that General Walker was fired by JFK for teaching his 10,000 troops in Germany from John Birch Society books. That's inaccurate on many counts. Actually, the Joint Chiefs dismissed General Walker from his command in Augsburg in April 1961, not JFK. Actually, JFK offered Walker another position -- a training position -- in Hawaii, because JFK knew that the resignation of a US General would make scandal headlines (and it did), and JFK wanted to avoid that. The Joint Chiefs reviewed Walker's case immediately, and produced several hundred pages of documentation in June, 1961. In that report, it was denied that the John Birch Society (JBS) was the cause of Walker's termination. The real cause, according to the official report, was twofold: (1) Walker told a gathering of his troops and their wives that former President Truman was "definitely pink"; and (2) Walker tried to influence the votes of his troops. Although most of the top brass rejected the JBS, because the JBS taught that every President since FDR was a Communist, there were some who tolerated it, because at least it moved the troops closer to the right-wing, where they believed troops ought to be. After all, there had to be SOME ideology of Anticommunism among the troops, and anything was better than nothing. So, Walker wasn't fired for distributing JBS literature as such -- but he was fired for openly preaching its key doctrines in public gatherings, namely, that President Harry Truman, if not an outright Communist, was "definitely pink". Also, Walker tried to influence his troops' voting using the Conservative Voting Index which was designed by Kent and Phoebe Courtney -- two influential JBS members from New Orleans, Louisiana. The CVI came complete with a telephone number which provided advice about which candidate was truly "American" and which candidate was really a "Communist sympathizer" -- in the opinion of Kent and Phoebe Courtney. This was a violation of the Hatch Act within the US Army. Anyway, Edwin Walker turned down JFK's offer of a transfer. Walker resigned from the Army -- which is not the same as retiring. With retirement you get an Army pension. With resignation you forfeit your Army pension. Walker knew what he was doing when he resigned. In fact, he first submitted his resignation under Eisenhower, but Eisenhower rejected the resignation and gave Walker his command in Augsburg. Walker gave JFK his reasons for not accepting the position in Hawaii -- it was only one step away from Vietnam, he said, and he already swore after the Korean War that he would never again become involved in another No-win War run by the 'Communistic' United Nations. But there were other reasons. Remember that no other US General in the 20th century ever resigned. This was an odd act -- Walker wanted attention. But why? Perhaps the answer can be found in his first resignation letter to President Eisenhower in 1959. In that letter, Walker cited a "conspiracy" in the US Government that was preventing him from doing his duty. We should remember that this was exactly the time when Walker joined the JBS, which taught him that the Communist Conspiracy had reached the highest offices in Washington DC, and that even Eisenhower himself was a "conscious, deliberate agent of the Communist Party." Walker submitted his resignation to Eisenhower because the JBS convinced Walker that Eisenhower was a Communist. If that sounds odd, we should also remember that Walker graduated from West Point in the bottom ten percent of his class. He was not much of a reader. His personal papers reflect his reading level -- it was not very high. Evidently the JBS was the limit of his intellectual horizon. In summary: Walker wasn't fired by JFK. That's an urban myth. Walker resigned for political reasons -- and this was his second resignation. As soon as Walker quit the Army (in November, 1961) he made a bee-line for Dallas, Texas. Why? He'd never lived in Dallas before. Also, his family had little money, and he now had no income himself (because his paycheck and his pension were now entirely gone). Not only did the penniless Walker move to Dallas, he moved into a nice family home in a nice neighborhood -- the same neighborhood where the relatives of H.L. Hunt were living in Dallas, on Turtle Creek Boulevard. Where did he get the money? The answer will be obvious when we look closer. Within twelve weeks of resigning from the U.S. Army, H.L. Hunt himself financed Walker's political campaign for Governor of Texas. The keynote of Walker's campaign would be the JBS slogan "Impeach Earl Warren!" That is, Walker would oppose Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren's Brown Decision and its mandated, racial integration of US Public Schools. Notice that this was the opposite political position of General Walker's successful racial integration of the high school in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. Here's my theory: H.L. Hunt financed the campaign of General Douglas MacArthur in 1948, and lost. MacArthur was wildly popular as a victorious General of WW2 -- then he was fired by Harry Truman for insubordination. This "firing" increased MacArthur's popularity in the polls. I think H.L. Hunt saw an opportunity of using the urban myth that Walker was fired by JFK as a way to capitalize on the public feeling he observed regarding Douglas MacArthur. In fact, H.L. Hunt might have planned the whole thing -- including Walker's notorious "resignation", which they hoped could win Walker popular sympathy. There was no real risk -- H.L. Hunt was a billionaire, and could afford to support General Walker for a while -- especially if he was going to be President of the USA. It may sound far-fetched today, a half-century later, to imagine that anybody would consider Ex-General Edwin Walker as US President -- but Kent and Phoebe Courtney actively promoted Edwin Walker for President, not only in their newspaper, Independent American, but also in a book they wrote dedicated to Walker, The Case of General Edwin A. Walker (1962). In preparation for Walker's first political campaign for Texas Governor, Walker took a small office inside a Dallas oil company, and began writing speeches. He gave his first speech in December, 1961, at the Dallas Memorial Auditorium (the same auditorium where Adlai Stevenson would be humiliated in October, 1963). In that first public speech as a citizen, Walker addressed the NIC (National Indignation Convention), and his right-wing audience simply LOVED him. YouTube offers a snippet from that first speech at this URL: []https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYyONwsHqbw] The success of that speech encouraged Walker to write many speeches -- he copyrighted six speeches in the next three months. In every place that Walker spoke throughout the South in early 1962, his audiences gave him thunderous applause and long standing ovations. This revved up Walker to run for public office as "the General who resigned," with H.L. Hunt as his backer. Having read all of his copyrighted speeches, I can say that Walker was nowhere near as radical as his contemporary, Governor George Wallace of Alabama. Still, Walker had a sizable following. Newsweek magazine plastered Walker's face on its cover during this period, calling him the Leader of the Right. (A movie script was written with Edwin Walker as a model -- Seven Days in May -- starring Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas, finally released in 1964, having received lots of support from JFK and RFK.) In all of his copyrighted speeches, Walker would promise that he would be justified by the Senate for having been "fired" by the JFK administration because of his political views. Walker looked forward to the Senate "Military Muzzling" Hearings organized by Strom Thurmond (Military Cold War Education and Speech Review Policies; Hearings before the Special Preparedness Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 87th Congress, 2nd Session) In those Senate hearings, Walker appeared in April, 1962, and gave an impassioned plea for his cause, to explain why he was "fired" by the JFK administration, in violation of his Freedom of Speech. Walker, however, made a very poor showing at those hearings. Walker was at his best when he was preaching to the choir, so to speak. His right-wing audiences never challenged him, but always encouraged him. Walker spoke poorly under cross examination. He stumbled, stuttered and lost his temper. He even punched a newspaper reporter in the face. Walker's focus -- to the dismay of his supporters -- was less about Reds in Washington DC as much as it was the US Army newspaper, Overseas Weekly. Walker spent perhaps most of his time denouncing the Overseas Weekly. Everybody was bored by this. But the question of the Overseas Weekly also raises another critical question about Edwin Walker -- the question about his homosexuality. More later. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edited>

It's just all interconnected, isn't it Steven? --Tommy The trouble with it "all being interconnected," folks, is that it becomes chaotic, like a spaghetti-vegetable soup. Everybody is a suspect -- including their parents and in-laws, their children and their adopted children. It's fruitless, yet we're plagued with conspiracy thinkers who take their cues from the John Birch Society (e.g. the CFR, the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission are undermining the USA via the Federal Reserve Bank -- yes, that argument is also a half-century old, first taught by the JBS). Other conspiracists won't let go of their Nazi paranoia 70 years after the Fall of the Third Reich. Yet as Jim Garrison said -- this is a murder case -- pure and simple. When he started out, Jim Garrison didn't claim that the CIA killed JFK -- he claimed that some right-wing knuckleheads killed JFK -- and he could name some of them -- Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman and Thomas Edward Beckley. It was only after Jim Garrison hit the brick wall of FBI resistance to his case against Clay Shaw that Jim Garrison finally threw up his hands in despair, and realized he was out-numbered. But instead of blaming the FBI (perhaps because Jim Garrison was once an FBI agent) Jim Garrison ended by blaming the CIA. But that was the end-game for Garrison -- not the starting point. I say that Jim Garrison was closer to solving the JFK murder nearer to the start of his investigation. Why did we stop our focus on the New Orleans ground-crew? Just because there is not one single CIA Officer in the bunch? It's time to get back to Jim Garrison's early case work. And remember -- Jim Garrison began by reading all 26 volumes of the Warren Commission's report. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Nagell is the source of that story, according to Dick Russell (TMWKTM, 1997). Oswald and Nagell met at the Atsugi Airforce Base in Japan in 1959. It appears that Nagell was observing the young Oswald, and they had talks in Japanese bars. Nagell knew a lot about Oswald, and claimed that Oswald "had CIA connections" in Japan, although Oswald was never a CIA employee, but instead "got paid by indirect means." This can be found in Dick Russell's book on pages 145 and 361. Regards, --Paul Trejo

David, there is much to contemplate here. The defection of Oswald to the USSR could make him interesting to both sides -- to the leftists if they thought he was one of them, or to the rightists, if they thought he was a double-agent. Lee Harvey Oswald knew Richard Case Nagell fairly well -- and one gets the impression that Oswald knew that Nagell was a double (or triple) Agent. Could Oswald have been reaching for this super-spy status? Could this be what embroiled Oswald in a plot over his head, where he wound up as the Patsy, rathern than as a super-spy? Regards, --Paul Trejo