Paul Trejo

Thanks, Tommy, for that quote by Dick Russell. I think there are multiple ways to interpret the data in question. For example: (1) Dick Russell wrote that "Oswald was brought into the conspiracy in July 1963." I question that, because we have evidence that Lee Oswald was making odd moves in May and June 1963 as well. For example, on 26 May 1963 Oswald wrote to the FPCC and requested a charter. Yet Guy Banister had been tracking the FPCC for years at this point. So, I think that Guy Banister persuaded Oswald to write to the FPCC to set up a FAKE CHARTER in New Orleans, as early as May. Also, on 29 May 1963, Oswald ordered a thousand handbills to advertise his Fake FPCC chapter. I think he did this on orders from Guy Banister, with money from Clay Shaw. Remember that Guy Banister's address was stamped on some of these handbills. On 3 June 1963 Oswald rented a new PO Box under his alias of Alek Hidell -- the one and only member of this Fake FPCC chapter. Again, by orders of Guy Banister, IMHO. As early as 16 June 1963, Oswald was seen distributing FPCC handbills at the dock near the U.S.S. Wasp. Insofar as his FPCC handbills were marked with the address of Guy Banister, it should be clear that Oswald was already working for Guy Banister long before July, 1963. On 24 June 1963 Oswald applied for a new passport -- he was already thinking of a journey abroad -- even before July 1963. (2) Dick Russell wrote that Oswald was "deceived into thinking he was working for Castro." That is Russell's guess, but I think the opposite; Lee Oswald knew very well that his FPCC chapter was a fake, and he knew very well the politics of Guy Banister, whose address was stamped on those FPCC handbills. Lee Oswald was far from any notion of working for Castro -- he was FAKING his love for Fidel Castro on orders from Guy Banister. Guy Banister (and David Ferrie and Clay Shaw) deceived Oswald on other grounds -- they probably told him they were grooming him for a permanent CIA position, something he desperately wanted. They were laughing behind his back. (3) Dick Russell wrote that "Soviet intelligence ordered Nagell either to convince Oswald he was being set up to take the rap -- or to kill him in Mexico City before the assassination could transpire." This suggests that Nagell knew something about a Mexico City trip with regard to a Washington DC plot to murder JFK. But the details are vague. What details did Nagell know about the Mexico City trip? Russell doesn't say. (4) Dick Russell wrote that "while both U S and Soviet intelligence agencies were aware of the conspiracy, it was the KGB -- not the CIA or FBI -- that attempted to prevent it." However, Bill Simpich PROVED, I say, that the CIA knew NOTHING about a plot to kill JFK and frame Oswald -- because when some rightist mole in the CIA *impersonated* Lee Oswald over the wire-tapped line from the Cuban consulate to the USSR consulate in Mexico City, the CIA high-command started a mole-hunt! They had NO IDEA who was trying to frame Oswald! (5) Dick Russell wrote that "The Soviets, who had reached a growing accommodation with Kennedy after the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, were also afraid that the assassination would falsely be blamed upon them or the Cubans." This, as I read it, was precisely the point of Nagell's entire case. This was almost word for word what the Soviet representatives said about the JFK assassination after it occurred, so we can be assured that Nagell was telling the truth as he knew it, at least as far as this statement goes. In conclusion, I say the main errors of Dick Russell in that paragraph were: (i) a failure to see that Lee Harvey Oswald was playing along with Guy Banister with his eyes wide open. There wasn't the slightest bit of Communist belief in Lee Oswald -- he was playing a game that he thought would make him a super-spy with a big salary from the CIA; (ii) a failure to recognize that Lee Oswald was working with Guy Banister as early as May, 1963, and probably he moved to New Orleans in April in the first place, precisely to work for Guy Banister through David Ferrie. Instead, Guy Banister was deceiving Oswald into believing he was part of (something like) Operation Mongoose, when in actual fact Guy Banister and his men (in cooperation with Ex-General Edwin Walker and his men) were FRAMING Lee Harvey Oswald to appear to be a Communist officer of the FPCC in the newspapers, on radio and on TV. That TV film of Oswald handing out FPCC handbills is now famous. Regards, --Paul Trejo

As I see it, David, the question about the identity of the two Latinos who accompanied Lee Oswald in New Orleans while Nagell was investigating a planned JFK murder in Washington DC, is still wide open. Silvia Odio testified that two Latinos (probably Loran Hall and Larry Howard) were with Lee Oswald at her apartment around 25 September 1963 -- but I'm not confident that these were the same two Latinos that Richard Case Nagell investigated. They might be -- there are signs that suggest it. For example, the plot motives were the same -- set up Lee Harvey Oswald as a patsy so that the American People would believe that the Communists killed JFK. That's too close to ignore. But there are also differences. Nagell first met these two Latinos in Mexico City, while Hall and Howard were running guns between California and Florida on an almost full-time basis in 1963. There were probably MANY such plots to kill JFK circulating among the USA right-wing. (Many plots involved Latino-Americans, e.g. David Morales, Guy Gabaldon, Loran Hall and Larry Howard, though this is not often emphasized.) The two Latinos that Nagell investigated seemed to him to be Cuban Exiles who resided in Mexico City. Loran Hall and Larry Howard, however, were Americans. Loran was a Cuban-American born in Kansas. Larry was a Mexican-American born in Southern California. They were both US Army veterans and they both liked combat. They both served with Gerry Patrick Hemming, first in supporting Fidel Castro (for the CIA) and then in opposing Fidel Castro (for the CIA). They both later served with Guy Gabaldon's DACA run out of Mexico City. It's vaguely possible that Nagell met Hall and Howard in Mexico City's DACA offices -- and confused the Dallas plot with a Washington DC plot -- but I doubt it. That's too wide to miss. Also, I think Nagell would have mentioned that he was following specifically American Latinos, instead of specifically Cuban Latinos. I doubt that he would have missed that. I think there were SEVERAL plots to kill JFK. It sounds to me that Nagell was following a specifically Washington DC plot, as he said. Yet Jim Garrison basically PROVED that Lee Harvey Oswald signed up for the plot instigated by Guy Banister and David Ferrie, to occur (unknown to Oswald) in Dallas. It remains possible that other Cuban Exiles at a paramilitary training camp overheard that Lee Harvey Oswald was the perfect PATSY, and then tried to recruit Oswald into their own plot. Maybe Oswald accepted some of their money, but he'd already signed up with Guy Banister, and he wouldn't go to Washington DC after all. But he thought about it, as the evidence shows. This is how it sounds to me today. As for threatening to kill Oswald -- that report came from Nagel himself. Nagell knew Oswald since 1959 -- they were practically pals. But Nagell had to protect his own cover story -- and Nagell warned Oswald that pretending to be a real Communist was Nagell's bread-and-butter, and he had to keep up appearances. (That's what I read somewhere -- I'm still searching for the quote.) Oswald seems to have ignored Nagell -- probably because Nagell showed that he knew NOTHING about what Guy Banister was having him do, i.e. working for Operation Mongoose. Your theory, David, that Oswald was hired (by the ONI?) to dangle himself to everybody, left and right, and to report on anyone who took the bait -- is interesting. But do we know of anybody else who was a combo left-right dangle? Sure, dangles were common -- but they were typically dangled to ONE SIDE ONLY -- usually to the left-wing ONLY, or to the right-wing ONLY. A combo left-right dangle would quickly be spotted, it seems to me. If you can show more evidence of a combo left-right dangle, I could follow your argument more closely, because a combination left-right dangle could explain much. Anyway, David, I fully agree with you when you say, "Nagell was warning him of bad company, regardless of whether he had full knowledge of Oswald's movements." The most interesting fact about Nagell, IMHO, is that he seems to know about ANOTHER plot to murder JFK which involved a PATSY as a way to blame the Communists for the murder -- and that plot also selected Lee Harvey Oswald as its PATSY. It's small wonder that both plots (Washington and Dallas) center around New Orleans, where Guy Banister and David Ferrie were operating. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Let's see, Tommy -- are you going to argue for the rationality of Lee Harvey Oswald, even down to his inner FANTASIES? Marina Oswald testified (and I believe her) that Lee Harvey Oswald talked endlessly about hi-jacking an airplane to Cuba. Now -- are you saying that Marina Oswald is lying, or that I'm "inventing" this story? I'm saying that Marina truthfully reported this story. I'm starting from Marina Oswald's testimony. Some JFK researchers believe her, and some don't. I believe her. I don't know how to convince anybody to believe Marina if their minds are closed with regard to her sworn testimony. But Marina Oswald is my starting point for this story. (By the way, the book, Marina and Lee, by Priscilla McMillan (1977) is almost entirely based on Marina's Warren Commission testimony. When McMillan interviewed Marina, Marina mainly repeated her testimony -- what else? It was all Marina had to say. The Warren Commission got it all. (McMillan filled in some blanks with her American middle-class imagination, which forms the weaker part of her book.) The Warren Commission testimonies are largely reliable, in my opinion. They comprise the most important body of testimony that we have concerning the JFK murder. It is indeed unfortunate that the conclusions of the Warren Commission were deliberately falsified by the FBI (and by the Warren Commission by extension) because it allows one-sided thinkers to "throw out the baby with the bathwater." We should recall what Allen Dulles told his clerk, Jacques Zwart: "The full answer to the JFK assassination is right there in the Warren Commission (WC) volumes -- but the reader must become an expert at 'hairsplitting'." This is why Zwart in 1970 published his book, Invitation to Hairsplitting. Now -- given that Lee Harvey Oswald at least FANTASIZED about hi-jacking a plane to Cuba, we are right to contemplate the implications of that report. I agree -- and everybody agrees -- that it was a dumb, childish idea. Lee Harvey Oswald rejected the idea himself!. But first he fantasized.about it. Remember that he was reading lots of 007 novels at the time. Also, Jim Garrison suggests that David Ferrie, Guy Banister and Clay Shaw were all manipulating Lee Harvey Oswald in some way -- probably filling his mind with CIA fantasies. Also, remember that Ron Lewis in his book, Flashback: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald (1994), says that Lee Oswald tried to get him to help hi-jack the plane to Cuba. In this account, it was Ron Lewis who told Lee Oswald that Cuba is only 90 miles from Florida, so it made no sense to hi-jack an airplane to Cuba -- and more sense just to commandeer a small airplane to get to Cuba, instead. These are the words that Lee eventually told Marina when he dropped the idea. So -- it makes sense that Ferrie, Banister and Shaw told Lee Oswald that he could get a Visa into Cuba very easily through Mexico City, simply by showing that he was an FPCC officer. With these phony credentials of being an FPCC officer, the "dumb" Mexican consulate clerks would just give him a Visa, no questions asked. This would be fairly common thinking for a rightist American Southerner in 1963. That's also the most straightforward explanation for Oswald's bizarre behavior in Mexico City. He really expected the Cuban consulate clerk in Mexico City to just hand over a Visa upon the sight of these American newspaper clippings about this "FPCC officer". And Oswald expected this because his "friends" were lying to him. Otherwise, his behavior in Mexico makes no sense at all. How much can we say about the rationality of Lee Harvey Oswald in the face of his foolish behavior in Mexico City? Oswald was rational to this extent -- he finally admitted that hi-jacking a plane to Cuba was a dumb idea. Now -- the only question left is WHY would Oswald want to get to Cuba. I say that Oswald wanted to go to Cuba because his FRAMERS talked him into it. The simplest answer is that they told him he would be a big hero (and get a lot of cash) if he would participate in Operation Mongoose. We know from Jim Garrison's investigations that Lee Harvey Oswald was active in New Orleans among low-level people involved with Operation Mongoose -- another plot to kill Fidel Castro. You can mock the idea that Lee Oswald wanted to kill Fidel Castro, Tommy, but you don't seem to offer any alternatives to it. My theory still stands as plausible. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Paul B., as usual your objections are reasonable, courteous and challenging. I'll try again. (1) First, there's nothing I can do for readers who think Marina Oswald was lying under oath. That's unfortunate, but that is a breaking point between my theory and most others. The good news for me is that I'm not alone in believing Marina Oswald. Yet I suspect that I'm in a minority on this. (2) Newman's book, Oswald and the CIA (1995), has too many holes for my taste. He assumes the CIA is guilty at the start, so it's no surprise that he winds up with that same conclusion. Newman fills in the holes with guesswork, and his guesses are inadequate, IMHO. (3) You're absolutely right that without Marina Oswald's testimony, my theory takes a serious blow. But let me add something interesting here. She said that Oswald shot at Ex-General Walker -- but so did George De Mohrenschildt and so did Jeanne De Mohrenschildt. Do you say that they were also lying under oath? We can say that Marina Oswald was under tremendous pressure -- but not George DM. Why would he lie about it? Why would Jeanne DM lie about it? Remember that the Warren Commission starting asking about Ex-General Walker in volume one of the Report, and they even re-called Marina to ask her more about Walker, and then re-called George DM to ask him more about Walker, and then re-called Jeanne DM to ask *her* more about Walker. The Warren Commission also asked Michael and Ruth Paine about Ex-General Walker -- and I was dissatisfied with their testimony -- I felt it was incomplete. They never called Volkmar Schmidt to testify, but he openly admits his limited role in the Ex-General Walker shooting -- to our own Bill Kelly, and even on Youtube. Why would Volkmar Schmidt lie about it? So, Paul B., to accuse Marina Oswald of lying about Lee Oswald shooting at Ex-General Walker, you also have to accuse George DM, Jeanne DM and Volkmar Schmidt of lying about it, too. Why would they? Especially if this was General Walker's own story. Let's say he was able to put pressure on the FBI and on Marina Oswald to lie and claim that Lee Harvey Oswald was the one who shot at Walker back in 10 April 1963. Hypothetically. OK, but we know that George DM just *hated* Ex-General Walker. He wrote to the HSCA that he and Lee Oswald would call him, "General Fokker," just to laugh at him. Why in the world would George DM be persuaded to spread General Walker's favorite story? It doesn't add up. Marina Oswald was not alone in saying that Lee Oswald was Walker's shooter. That's one of the many reasons that I believe Marina Oswald. (4) I myself have a lot more faith in the FBI and our US Government's handling of Marina Oswald than you do, evidently. Her intepreter was a professional, and anyway, the translations were written, so historians can check his work anytime they want. His work was accurate. Marina didn't lose her freedom -- she became a free woman when she married Lee Harvey Oswald and stepped off the boat in New York City. She was arrested -- true -- and protected, too. But after reading all the material about her connections, I believe her testimony. At first she was terrified of the FBI. (After all, she knew about the KGB handling of suspects.) But then after a few weeks of talking with them, she relaxed, and realized that we Americans are a relatively honest bunch. It's true that Marina told a different story when she was first arrested than she told later. That is to be expected. It's also true that George DM bent the facts to protect his own behind -- he'd never admit under oath that he pushed Lee Oswald to shoot at Walker. That was his lifetime secret (until his book, "I'm a Patsy" was written, and then he killed himself). But aside from that withhold, he told the truth to the Warren Commission. I find him believable, if somewhat self-righteous. As for Volkmar Schmidt, he was a consummate professional and a Christian gentleman with no reason to lie to anyone. I don't see why you claim he was untrustworthy. (5) I make a sharp distinction between the Kill-Team of JFK and the Cover-up Team of the JFK murder. In this belief I truly might be all alone. I haven't seen anybody else develop this distinction. Yet for this very reason I disagree with your effort to make the Warren Commission Cover-up into part of the effort to FRAME Oswald. In my theory, the Kill-Team FRAMED Lee Harvey Oswald as a "Communist". In my theory, the Cover-up Team opposed the framing, and redefined Oswald into the "Lone Shooter." These are very different portraits of Lee Harvey Oswald. So, no, I never believed the Framers. Nor do I believe the Cover-up Team. There were three theories that hit the streets on 11/22/1963: (1) that Oswald was working with Communists to kill JFK; (2) that Oswald was working with the right-wing to kill JFK; and (3) that Oswald was a Lone Nut, with no accomplices at all. According to me, theory #1 was invented by the Framers of Oswald. According to me, theory #2 was always the truth. According to me, theory #3 was the FBI response to Cold War pressures, and won the day. So, Paul B., in my opinion, NONE OF THE WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY FRAMES LEE HARVEY OSWALD. Only a few, like Edwin Walker and Robert Allen Surrey, still dared to tell the Warren Commission attorneys that they should be investigating the Communists to find the accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald. Nobody else pushed theory #1 in the face of the Warren Commission. So -- I deny that I've chosen to believe the Framers. (6) You're in sympathy with the NEXUS of power outlined by Larry Hancock, between JM/WAVE on the one hand, and the thousands of Cuban Exile militants being trained in civilian paramilitary camps all over the USA, on the other hand. Their involvement is clear -- I agree with you and Larry to some extent. Our break, however, is not about their involvement, but about their LEADERSHIP. Apparently you wish to find the LEADERSHIP of the JFK murder inside the CIA high-command. I say that neither Garrison nor Mellen nor Hancock nor Simpich have provided sufficient evidence to warrant an accusation of the CIA for the murder of JFK. On the contrary, Garrison and Mellen identified a bunch of mercenaries. Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices. On this point the Warren Commission conclusion was mistaken -- that is, deliberately mistaken (because I believe the Warren Commission knew the real truth, but insisted on withholding it for 75 years). The CIA wasn't in charge -- but some CIA rogues jumped ship and joined violent types among civilians -- types with the John Birch Society philosophy that sitting US Presidents were in reality COMMUNISTS. That is where we should be looking, according to my theory. (7) As for the Jim Garrison tragedy -- he took a lot of heat from all levels of the US Government. He eventually blamed the CIA, but he was only guessing at that. I think the FBI spent more effort foiling Jim Garrison than the CIA did. The reason was that the FBI had been responsible for the Warren Report in the first place. According to my theory, J. Edgar Hoover conceived of the "Lone Nut" solution to the JFK murder one hour after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested. On that basis, Hoover commanded the entire FBI to begin falsifying all evidence of more than one shooter. That was a nightmare task for the FBI, but they did their best. They falsified all the evidence they got their hands on. JFK reseachers have documented this for a half-century now. But J. Edgar Hoover had a special reason for this -- it was National Security. If the American People found out that the right-wing had killed JFK in order to blame the Communists, then thousands of activists in the US left-wing in 1963 would have taken up weapons to attack the John Birch Society and their paramilitary arm, the Minutemen. I'm not the only one who thinks along these lines, Paul B., because here's a quotation from Professor David R. Wrone of the University of Wisconsin on the same topic: "There was almost an immediate concern among people that I know, that the JFK murder had been brought about by the right-wing. I know that in some communities where they had John Birch Societies, men went out with axes and chopped down the John Birch Society advertisements -- immediately." (D.R. Wrone, 2005) I feel confident that J. Edgar Hoover felt the same movement in 1963. Some people would have violently attacked the right-wing in 1963, and the right-wing had uncounted THOUSANDS of armed Minutemen ready to respond at a moments notice. We forget -- because it was a half-century ago -- how high the emotions ran in 1963. A Civil War in the USA was a likely result of the murder of JFK. Yet the Cold War was still raging. It could have truly exploded into something nobody could manage. J. Edgar Hoover, I have argued since last year, did the right thing. So, getting back to Jim Garrison -- it was the FBI who really opposed Jim Garrison from all sides. They spied on him, stole his records, tampered with his witnesses, and on and on -- all by the order of J. Edgar Hoover, who was certain that the FBI was doing the right thing for the country. Remember that in 1968 the Cold War was still raging! Hoover would not risk a Civil War in the USA. In his honest judgment, Jim Garrison had to be portrayed as another "mental case" in Hoover's long list of "mental cases." (8) So, Paul B., I maintain that my details are more solid than yours, and that my witnesses are more reliable than the sheer guesswork of this or that writer. I also maintain that when Lee Harvey Oswald shouted to the whole world that he was a PATSY, that this was tantamount to a confession that he had accomplices who had betrayed him. It was a CONFESSION at least in part. When I insist on the CONTEXT of his phase to be the whole summer of 1963 (rather than merely the single sentence preceding his phrase) I continue to maintain that this context supplies a more ACCURATE grasp of his phrase. (9) As for Gerry Patrick Hemming, he is a valuable source of evidence, according to A.J. Weberman, though Weberman knew better than anybody how Hemming could stretch the truth any old way he liked. One needs to learn to read between the lines with Hemming -- and with any witness, frankly. (10) When I used the word "hypnotize" to describe how Volkmar Schmidt convinced Lee Harvey Oswald to hate and despise Ex-General Walker -- I am not the first to use that term. Schmidt made a public show of his psychological techniques. He had grown up in a house of psychologists, and even as a young boy he learned many tricks of psychology and liked to show them off. Even George DM admits that "Schmidt" worked for HOURS on Oswald that night. (11) As for Michael and Ruth Paine, IMHO they are like George and Jeanne DM because they knew far more about the shooting at Ex-General Walker than they ever admitted. Like George DM they have carried this withhold on their conscience for a lifetime. That's my opinion of it. However, just because they had relatives who were in the US Government on the one hand, or in the Communist Party on the other hand -- none of that impresses me in the slightest. We've seen this from other "researchers" who waste our time with the RELATIVES of the people under scrutiny, and their in-laws, and their adopted children, and so on ad nauseum. Get over it. The persons of interest are the only ones of interest -- NOT THEIR RELATIVES. Neither Michael nor Ruth Paine were salaried, CIA Officers. Also, I find NOTHING suspect about Ruth Paine getting a job for Lee Oswald in the TSBD building. She had NO idea that JFK would be killed in Dealey Plaza, IMHO. Also, I doubt that the JFK Killers even decided on Dealey Plaza until two weeks before the murder. (They also contemplated the Dallas Trade Mart, as multiple sources have reported.) So, unless you can PROVE that the Kill-Team planned to use Dealey Plaza two months ahead of time, then there's no reason at all to suspect Ruth Paine of conspiring to kill JFK in some half-baked CIA-did-it theory. (12) The key to the murder of JFK -- despite 50 years and 400 books on the topic -- is Ex-General Edwin Walker. Very few people have explored this avenue, but in late 1963 and early 1964 he was very much discussed, and his name appears more than 500 times in the Warren Commission volumes. Edwin Walker GOT AWAY with orchestrating the abuse of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas during October 1963. I strongly suspect that Edwin Walker GOT AWAY with orchestrating the murder of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Today, only Harry Dean still survives from that era, and still continues to voice his 1965 claim -- he heard the words from the mouth of Edwin Walker himself, at a closed meeting of some John Birchers, to the effect that Lee Harvey Oswald, an FPCC officer in New Orleans -- was selected to be the PATSY for the murder of JFK in Dallas. In 1964, only one person said words to that effect -- Jack Ruby -- in his testimony to Earl Warren himself. After that, people have suspected EVERYBODY ELSE EXCEPT EDWIN WALKER, and have never solved the JFK murder. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well -- you're partly correct, Tommy -- I don't remember where I read that Nagell told Oswald that he would kill him if he took part in a Mexico City based plot to kill Fidel Castro -- but I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere. I can't remember where just now, and I'm moving this week, so my notes are in disarray -- so I'll get back to you on this. Until I can obtain that source, I'm willing to work with your wording: MAYBE Nagell told Oswald he would kill him if he succeeded in getting a Visa from Mexico to Cuba. MAYBE that's why Oswald told Marina he wanted to hi-jack an airplane to Cuba, and MAYBE that's why Oswald sat in his New Orleans kitchen and wept. Now, you say that scenario doesn't make sense -- but I'm arguing that Lee Harvey Oswald was an emotional young man (especially if we believe Marina's testimony that Lee started beating her when they lived in Dallas, where George Bouhe was paying lots of attention to her). An emotional young man might fantasize that if he hi-jacked an airplane to Cuba, with a handful of FPCC "street credentials" from New Orleans newspapers, that he might be welcomed with open arms by the Fidelistas. Youthful imagination has few boundaries. After all, we have Marina's testimony that he actually did tell her he wanted to hi-jack an airplane to Cuba. That's a pretty stupid desire, all by itself. To Lee Oswald's credit, he finally decided against the idea. As I say, he was under stress. So, my theory about Nagell threatening Oswald isn't far-fetched. Yet let's look at Richard Case Nagell again. His claims and evidence were important -- yet few JFK researchers know what to conclude about him. Jim Garrison decided against including Nagell among his witnesses, but still considered him a valuable source. It's interesting that regarding the JFK murder, Richard Case Nagell identified many of the same people that Jim Garrison identified in New Orleans in 1967, including Guy Banister and the Cuban Exiles associated with the mercenary paramilitary training camps near Lake Pontchartrain. At the same time, Nagell was a salaried CIA Officer -- yet Nagell NEVER accused the CIA of plotting to kill JFK. Instead, Nagell spoke about the "associates of David Ferrie" as central to the plot. I doubt that Nagell was totally aware of all details of the plot, and all its personnel -- he could see some facts, perhaps, but not others. For example, Nagell was probably unaware that there was a right-wing mole inside the CIA (i.e. David Morales) who was most likely working with right-wing civilians to exact revenge on JFK over the Bay of Pigs. Regards, --Paul Trejo

In my theory, Tommy, the reason Lee Harvey Oswald wanted to go to Cuba in 1963 was to take some part in the assassination of Fidel Castro. According to Marina Oswald, when he was planning to travel to Cuba in mid-1963, Lee Oswald even considered hi-jacking an airplane to get there. (Possibly this was because Richard Case Nagell threatened Oswald that if he succeeded in getting passage to Cuba from Mexico City, that Nagell would shoot him dead.) It was also during this period, according to Marina, that Oswald just sat in his kitchen in New Orleans, and wept. Yet it was also during this period that Lee Oswald was often up-tone, and bragged to Marina that he was going to become the "USA Prime Minister." (She knew there was no such office, and that he was teasing her.) But what could be the context? IMHO, the context was that Guy Banister, Clay Shaw and David Ferrie had promised Lee Oswald that if he was successful in his mission to assassinate Fidel Castro in Cuba, that his friends would help him escape from Cuba, and he would return to the USA to a "hero's welcome" including a fat reward, a parade and a chance to run for high office, or simply take a permanent, salaried job with the CIA. It seems to me that this was the bait. Clearly it was all a lie, and these men were lying to Lee Oswald by telling him that they were all CIA Officers -- including Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin and Fred Crisman. If so, then Lee Oswald obviously believed them. So, perhaps Lee Oswald was planning to shoot Fidel Castro himself (remember that he was 23 years old -- and somewhat naive) and escape in an airplane flown by David Ferrie. Remember, too, that Lee Oswald was checking out lots of 007 novels from the local library at this time. Again -- this was not a CIA operation -- it was a FAKE CIA operation. Again -- Lee Oswald was working with Guy Banister, Clay Shaw and David Ferrie at this time. Jim Garrison PROVED this beyond any reasonable doubt. Regards, --Paul Trejo

No, Tommy, I think that Oswald probably believed that his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle would probably be used in some petty crime in Dallas. Oswald's motive for bringing his rifle to the TSBD building was threefold: (1) Oswald believed that Gerry Patrick Hemming was his "friend" and that he could trust him with anything, and so he was only doing a personal favor for a "friend". (2) Oswald knew that Texans in Dallas brought their guns and rifles to the TSBD all the time -- for show and tell. It was no big deal. (We have several stories about this, including stories about a German Mauser and other weapons at the TSBD that day.) (3) Oswald needed the money. It was a side deal, IMHO, but it was also a team-building exercise. Gerry Patrick Hemming asked for a favor (for a friend) and Lee Harvey Oswald wanted to please him. That's my assessment so far. Regards, --Paul Trejo

I think this speaks to the issue of trust, Tommy. It seems to me that Lee Oswald could only become the PATSY of a plot to murder JFK if he trusted his framers fully, and truly believed that they were his friends, and that they were all going for the same gold. It seems reasonable to me that Lee Oswald believed he was part of Operation Mongoose, and that all of his accomplices were actually plotting to murder Fidel Castro. Remember that Lee Oswald let himself be framed as the officer of the New Orleans FPCC (a chapter which had only one member, Oswald himself) and then take that publicity with him to Mexico City and demand (foolishly) an Instant Visa into Cuba based on his alleged high-status in the FPCC. That took months to prepare. Why did Lee Oswald do it? Because, IMHO, he really and truly believed his framers when they told him that officers in the FPCC get "instant passage" in to Cuba. There's really no other satisfactory explanation for Lee Oswald making a complete fool of himself in Mexico City that day. We must conclude that Lee Oswald BELIEVED HIS FRAMERS. They were probably laughing their heads off at the time. Lee Oswald NEVER suspected that he was the Patsy for the JFK murder. It NEVER occurred to him until AFTER THE FACT. Then it was too late. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Once again, Paul B., these are all good questions. They move me to clarify my case more and more. I'll try to explain: (1) The files or "index cards" found in the Paine garage about local Cubans most likely belonged to Lee Oswald, and he probably got those files from Guy Banister, who kept such files by the hundreds. They were catalogued by the FBI, and "disappeared," which suggests to me that they were classified Top Secret -- and that is probably because they point to Guy Banister, while the FBI had orders from J. Edgar Hoover to DENY that Lee Oswald had any accomplices. So, in the year 2017 those "index cards" will probably show up. (2) I say that Lee Oswald was not a shooter, but that he was part of the plot. Here's how: Oswald was part of the plot because he knew his framers and he trusted them. He thought he was involved in a SEPARATE plot, namely, a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro. He probably thought he was part of Operation Mongoose -- because Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier and many rightist mercenaries in New Orleans were clearly involved in Operation Mongoose to assassinate Fidel Castro. Now, Paul B., your question is this -- if Oswald thought he was part of a DIFFERENT plot, then how could he be TRULY involved in a plot to kill JFK? The answer is that he was an UNWITTING part of the plot. He was the PATSY. Now the Patsy never knows he's the Patsy, otherwise he'd run away. So, his "friends" coaxed him to do various illegal acts -- and they lied to him and gave him different reasons for doing those acts -- BUT OSWALD STILL DID THOSE ACTS. Oswald knew his framers. Oswald cooperated with them all the way up to 11/22/1963. (3) You also ask, why did the JFK murderers have Oswald's rifle, and why did Oswald show no evidence of his having fired a rifle that day? My explanation is that it was precisely BECAUSE Lee Oswald trusted his framers that he himself put his own rifle into their hands. Gerry Patrick Hemming confessed to A.J. Weberman that he himself called Lee Oswald on 11/21/1963 from Miami (as I recall) and offered Lee Oswald double the market price of his Manlicher-Carcano rifle if only he would bring it to the TSBD building the next morning, and stash it up on the sixth floor. Lee Oswald thought he was selling his rifle to some anonymous criminal, most likely -- but hey, the price was right. So, Lee Oswald was PART of the plot -- but he played the part of the PATSY. He thought his framers were his "friends." That's the first issue. But wait, there's more. Clearly, Lee Oswald shot no rifle that day. He probably didn't even THINK about murdering JFK, although, like most rightists will tell you, and as Harry Dean has honestly admitted since 1965, the American right-wing in 1963 talked openly about murdering JFK every single day! He thought of this as normal, and as merely "letting off steam." So, Lee Oswald heard this talk from his associates, former Marines who were now mercenaries, and so forth. Even George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt said that Lee Oswald himself blamed JFK for failing to help the Cuban Exiles at the Bay of Pigs. It was a common viewpoint for any US Marine from 1961 through 1963. (4) So, Hemming got Oswald to bring his rifle to the TSBD building on 11/22/1963. I do NOT believe that Lee Oswald suspected that the rifle would be used to murder JFK. If he ever suspected that, he would NEVER have brought the rifle to work -- because he would have KNOWN it was a PATSY act. Since he brought it to work, he must have believed it was for some other petty crime. Probably Gerry Patrick Hemming offered Lee Oswald some other lie about the rifle, and as I say, Lee Oswald bought the lie and played along. So, you ask, Paul B., how could I say that Lee Oswald was part of the plot to kill JFK given the definition of the PATSY, that the PATSY never knows that he's the PATSY! Doesn't the Patsy have plausible denial of his own involvement? Shouldn't we treat a Patsy as an "innocent bystander?" I don't know what the courts would have decided if they learned the whole truth back in 1963 or 1964. But a Patsy can still be considered a part of the plot at some level -- because Lee Oswald brought his rifle to the party. Also, Lee Oswald ran from the scene of the crime, and evidently went to his rooming house to get his pistol. So, Lee Oswald knew that SOMETHING was up, but he wasn't sure what it was yet (as the Patsy is always the last to know). Yet because Oswald knew that SOMETHING was up on the morning that JFK was murdered, he now had a LEGAL obligation to rush to the Police to tell them everything he knew. That was his duty as an American citizen. JFK was murdered, and Oswald had information about it. In his failure to rush his information to the Dallas Police (and take his chances) Lee Harvey Oswald made himself an "accessory after the fact." So now, that's a double role in the JFK murder. (5) So, Paul B., I'm saying that Lee Oswald was only a part of the ground-crew to this extext -- he was the PATSY. That was his role in the ground-crew of the JFK murder. That was his part in the JFK murder. HOWEVER, after the crime occurred, Lee Oswald dug himself in deeper by refusing to come forward with his knowledge and information (which would have been the same information that Jim Garrison revealed in 1968). (6) Finally, I do believe Lee Oswald fired at General Walker (because he was "hypnotized" by Volkmar Schmidt to do so). I disbelieve that Lee Oswald fired at JFK. Further, Edwin Walker claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald fired at him on 10 April 1963 because he got information about it from a high source (although Walker kept changing his description of his source) on the very week of that shooting. This makes sense based on George De Mohrenshildt's confession that he helped Volkmar Schmidt bring Lee Oswald to hate General Walker. George DM and Lee Oswald would call him, "General Fokker" and laugh. George De Mohrenshildt was a major player in the shooting at General Walker. So was Volkmar Schmidt, but so were ALL of the engineers at the February 1963 party in Dallas who witnessed the "hypnosis" session that took HOURS. It was soon after that party that Oswald would buy his rifle through mail-order, and demand that Marina take ONE photograph of him with his weapons, and make several fake copies of that one photograph at his place of employment (Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall) and give one copy to George De Mohrenschildt (signed on the back) and one copy to Roscoe White (former fellow Marine now in the DPD) and send one copy to The Militant newspaper. (7) In conclusion, I don't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald would ever have shot JFK on his own. Ever. But he befriended dozens of people on the right-wing who hated JFK and talked about killing JFK every day. We know who these people were, since Jim Garrison did all the leg work back in 1966-1968. But if Oswald was a rightist, then why try to kill General Walker? We don't have any writings from Oswald that showed any great hatred for Walker. So, I rely on the WAFFLING by George De Mohrenshildt on this topic, as well as the STRAIGHT TALK from Volkmar Schmidt on this topic. Oswald was "convinced" by the liberals in Dallas to try to kill Walker. It seems to me that the one who really hated Ex-General Edwin Walker the most was George De Mohrenshildt. Now, Lee Oswald had few friends in Dallas, but he really liked George De Mohrenshildt -- a lot. I think that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill Ex-General Edwin Walker because he thought it would please George De Mohrenschildt. I believe De Mohrenschildt knew this at the time, and it haunted him all during his work in Haiti, and eventually caused him to commit suicide. So, Paul B., I trust this unravels many inconsistencies that you've encountered in my theory up to this point. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Yes, Tommy, that is one possible interpretation of Oswald's statement. The reason I like my interpretation is because of Oswald's word, PATSY. It strongly suggests a conspiracy. I break sharply with the Warren Commission conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald as a Lone Shooter "without any accomplices who are still at large." Lee Harvey Oswald had a wide circle of contacts, and Jim Garrison uncovered a sordid cast of charactrers in New Orleans with whom Oswald moved for months, earlier in 1963. You suppose that the context of Oswald's exclamation, "I'm a Patsy!" was simply the sentence which went before it. Yet the exact connection of the two phrases remains unclear -- maybe Oswald thought of some people who would frame him, or maybe he didn't. Yet the context should also include Lee Oswald's political connections -- and as Jim Garrison showed, there were MANY of them, and mostly on the extreme right-wing in New Orleans. So, Tommy -- my interpretation of the phrase, "I'm a Patsy!" includes the context of the findings of Jim Garrison -- while your interpretation doesn't. So I don't say that our interpretations are "equally possible" as you put it, because your interpretation is more abstract, and leaves out more information. If we include the context of the summer of 1963 in New Orleans in that statement, a clearer picture will appear, IMHO. Regards, --Paul Trejo

These are all good questions, Paul B., which is why I have never reached a firm CONCLUSION in my theory. It remains a theory after several years, and I only argue for its plausibility. The problem with making any case, actually, is that people LIE. As Gregory House, MD says on the FOX program, House, "Everybody lies." Did Marina Oswald lie? We know she lied to the FBI before she took the oath, because she insisted at first that Lee Oswald "didn't shoot anybody -- he's good husband," but under oath she swore that he told her he tried to kill Ex-General Walker. Many JFK researchers say she lied under oath. I seem to be in a minority here because I accept her sworn testimony at the truth, even knowing she was under tremendous social pressure. Did George De Mohrenschildt lie? He was a rich playboy -- and we know he stretched the truth in many places, even in his sworn testimony and his written affidavit (or "book") for the HSCA. He consistently said, however, that Lee Oswald was framed. He didn't want to be implicated with Oswald in anything, but in fact he was totally implicated in the shooting at Ex-General Walker. So he presents a double story -- firstly that he looked down on Oswald, and pitied him, and secondly that he was Oswald's "friend." As readers we must pick and choose what to accept in the words of every witness. Do we believe Chief of the DPD Jesse Curry? Curry was driving the lead limo that led the JFK motorcade into Dealey Plaza. Curry insisted that Jack Ruby's armed presence in the DPD basement when Lee Oswald was walking out was an accident. Curry defended his DPD officers, saying that only a tiny handful knew Jack Ruby. Who do we believe in the Warren Commission volumes? The conclusion of the Warren Commission was that Lee Oswald was a Lone Shooter -- despite the fact that he had so many clear associations in New Orleans, and even Dallas. Michael Paine admitted that he spoke with Lee Oswald about Ex-General Edwin Walker, but swore that it was only a few remarks in passing -- never anything heavy. The strong tendency of Warren Commission witnesses was to distance themselves from Lee Oswald's shooting at Ex-General Walker -- when actually Volkmar Schmidt -- who was not called by the Commission in connection with the Walker shooting, has admitted to our own Bill Kelly that at an engineers party in Dallas he sort of hypnotized Oswald for hours to convince him to hate Ex-General Walker, just like all the wealthy, liberal engineers at the party. Schmidt is also on video admitting this, and George De Mohrenschildt speaks about it in his "book" to the HSCA. Who is lying and when? We American readers must be the judge. As a body we've long rejected the Lone Shooter conclusion of the Warren Commission -- yet in my view we must continually return to the Warren Commission TESTIMONIES in order to weed out the truth from the lies, and piece together the actual biography of Lee Harvey Oswald. I say it's a mistake -- it's throwing out the baby with the bath water -- to neglect the entire 26 volumes of the Warren Report, just because its CONCLUSIONS are known to be false. Who is lying, and when? That's the key question, actually, of the past half-century of research into the JFK murder. As for Harry Dean, I say he was MISTAKEN about the LDS connection with the JBS -- I don't say he was lying. A lie is a deliberate intention to deceive -- but a MISTAKE is simply a misunderstanding -- usually based on ambiguity or incomplete information. Also, if Harry ever said to anybody that he was an "undercover informant" for the FBI, then I maintain that this was a MISTAKE, not a lie. Harry Dean *did* provide information to the FBI -- by their own admission -- however, the term "Informant" to the FBI is a technical term surrounded by rules. Harry Dean *did* spy on his comrades in the FPCC and in the JBS, smiling to their faces, even though he was taking information about them to the FBI. Some would say that is "undercover," but again, to the FBI "undercover" is their special technical term. So, in generic terms -- to the laity -- Harry Dean might be thought of as an "undercover informant," but certainly not to the FBI. I think that if Harry Dean ever used those words to describe himself, it was based on a misunderstanding. So, as we weigh testimonies and claims and statements, we must use DISCRETION. And based on our personal sense of DISCRETION, that will lead us to a personal INTERPRETATION of events -- and that is where different readers will disagree. For example, Bill Simpich wrote this year that the *impersonation* of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City over a wire-tapped phone was done by some CIA insider "for the purpose of blackmailing the CIA." That's Bill Simpich's interpretation of the events. I disagree with that interpretation. The CIA would not be "blackmailed," in my opinion. The purpose of the *impersonators* was quite different, IMHO. So, yes, Paul B., I am presenting my own interpretation of events. I also look forward to reading other interpretations. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

On the contrary, Paul B., it's a PARTIAL CONFESSION on the part of Lee Harvey Oswald. He was confessing that he was part of a plot -- he unwittingly played the part of the PATSY. He was confessing that he KNEW the murderers of JFK. That's a lot. Too bad he didn't live to tell us more. Regards, --Paul Trejo

ANYWAY -- getting back to the theme of this thread, which is Joan Mellen's excellent book, Farewell to Justice (2005), my point is my claim that Joan Mellen jumps to a conclusion that the motley of mercenaries that she identified in New Orleans was enough evidence to blame the CIA for murdering JFK. Yet let's look at her evidence again. She names the same people that Jim Garrison named: Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, John Martino, Johnny Roselli, Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Thomas Edward Beckham and Lee Harvey Oswald. Now -- while it is true that all these people had interacted with the CIA in the past at some (usually low) level, she fails to emphasize that not a single one of them was a salaried CIA officer. I agree with Joan Mellen (and Jim Garrison) this far -- they definitely named some (but not all) of the key plotters of the murder of JFK. So we have a partial solution today, a half-century after the JFK murder. But I must disagree when she (and the modern JFK researchers who follow her) jumps to the conclusion that the JFK murder was therefore a CIA plot. Unfortunately, this "easy" answer of blaming the CIA diverts attention from the John Birch Society and Ex-General Edwin Walker -- two major forces in Dallas identified by Jack Ruby in his testimony to Earl Warren in 1964. In my view, Joan Mellen distracts attention away from the central role of a CIVILIAN plot. In my view, that civilian plot was centered in the philosophy that JFK was a Communist, because Washington DC was riddled with Communists, and because every US President from FDR forward was a Communist. This was the philosophy preached by the John Birch Society in 1963. Their activism provided sufficient ideological energy to mobilize wackos and CIA *rogues* to join forces with the ultra-right wing, to murder JFK. Harry Dean only offers a CONFIRMATION of my theory, based on independent research in the personal papers of Edwin Walker, a notorious member of the John Birch Society, and an emotional Dallas activist for anti-JFK causes. In the past year I've sharply divided the JFK Killer Team from the JFK Cover-up Team. The JFK Killer Team continued to argue, well into 1964, that the Communists killed JFK. Edwin Walker was one of the leaders of this propaganda. Billy James Hargis was another such propagandist. Carlos Bringuier was another. David Morales was another. John Martino was another. Johnny Roselli was another. Frank Sturgis was another. The key connection is that all of these people worked to frame Lee Harvey Oswald (or supported those who did). Yet the John Birch Society was the prime leader in that propaganda. Revilo P. Oliver was perhaps the most eloquent speaker and writer for the John Birch Society magazine, American Opinion, where he addressed the pressing question -- Why would a Communist kill another Communist? Even for many inside the John Birch Society, this argument foiled their entire cause. But Revilo P. Oliver in 1964 argued forcefully that Communists regularly killed each other in Purges, so therefore JFK was simply "Purged" by the Kremlin. It's a weak argument, IMHO, yet the right-wing rallied around this argument in 1964. So there were three theories in 1964: (1) the left-wing killed JFK; (2) the right-wing killed JFK; and (3) a Lone Nut killed JFK. Actually, argument #1 was the fiction used to frame Lee Harvey Oswald, with hopes to mobilize the USA for war against the COMMUNISTS. Actually, argument #2 was totally true -- but if known, it would probably have led to a Civil War inside the USA. So, argument #3 was designed by J. Edgar Hoover to prevent the other two arguments from gaining traction. The John Birch Society didn't have the last word, as history shows. Rather, history shows that the Warren Commission had the last word, and the Warren Commision COMPLETELY REJECTED the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices of any kind -- including accomplices in the Communist Party! The JFK Killer Team wanted a war with the Communists, particularly in Cuba. The JFK Cover-up Team REJECTED an invasion of Cuba based on the flimsy framing of Lee Harvey Oswald, so it promoted the Lone Shooter fiction -- and stated clearly that they would stick to this story even if it fell apart -- all because of National Security. The JFK Killer Team had the same story as the John Birch Society. This fact has not yet had its proper hearing inside the JFK research community. Jim Garrison completely missed it. Gaeton Fonzi completely missed it. Joan Mellen completely missed it. Therefore, the predominant theory in the JFK community appears to be that the CIA is to blame for the murder of JFK. However -- a major dimension has been missing for 50 years -- the dimension of Ex-General Edwin Walker. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Tommy, I thought that was fairly well known -- while under arrest in Dallas on 11/23/1963, and while the DPD was hurrying Lee Harvey Oswald into another private room, he shouted out to the press, I'M JUST A PATSY! Now, let's look at this word, "patsy." It's meaning in the context of a murder case is that the "patsy" belongs to a group of people which is guilty of the crime, but the "patsy" has been framed or set-up to take the blame for the crime. Near the end of his life, Lee Harvey Oswald SUDDENLY REALIZED that his friends and comrades-in-arms had BETRAYED him, and had lied to him for months. These "friends" were the guilty parties of the murder of JFK, and these "friends" had made Lee Harvey Oswald into their PATSY. Notice that the DPD hurried Lee Oswald out of the hallway when he shouted out these words. In my opinion (and in agreement with New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison) some elements of the DPD were also members of this plot. However, Lee Harvey Oswald did not know the DPD members of the plot. He only knew the New Orleans members of the plot (to the best of my knowledge) including Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Thomas Edward Beckham, Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Gerry Patrick Hemming. All these people were persons of interest to Jim Garrison. Yet Jim Garrison missed some -- some of the most important ones, namely, the ones in Dallas. These Dallas plotters of the JFK murder were unknown even to Lee Harvey Oswald! Yet not only did these "friends" of Lee Harvey Oswald deceive Oswald into acting like an FPCC officer, and becoming the PATSY of the JFK murder -- they also broke ranks later, as some of them confessed openly (e.g. Jack S. Martin, David Ferrie, Loran Hall, Gerry Patrick Hemming and Thomas Edward Beckham). If given more time, Lee Harvey Oswald would have named THE SAME PEOPLE THAT JIM GARRISON NAMED. That is why the plotters in Dallas had to ensure that Oswald did not live to testify. But to a tiny degree Oswald did testify, when he shouted out, I'M ONLY A PATSY! Regards, --Paul Trejo

It is well-reported throughout JFK research literature that H.L. Hunt was an open advocate of the John Birch Society, and a major donor -- which he could well-afford as a billionaire. I'm not inventing this stuff -- nor do I need to document and footnote every sentence I write. It's well-researched. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

First, Paul B., I want to thank you for your consistent, level-headed debates over the past year or so. You make good points and ask good questions, and even though we disagree, your dignity and respect always show through. So, thanks for that. OK, as for your first question, I totally DISBELIEVE that RFK set Oswald free at midnight on 10 April 1963 after the failed attempt to assassinate Edwin Walker in his Dallas home. That was part of the paranoia of Edwin Walker, and at least two psychiatrists found traces of paranoia in the language of Edwin Walker. As for your second question -- yes, the German newspaper published, one week after the assassination, an article claiming that Oswald had been arrested in Dallas on the night of the Walker shooting and then released. The German newspaper also blamed RFK for letting Oswald go. The answer is YES -- the German newspaper repeated Edwin Walker's paranoid story -- a story he told for the rest of his life. We have proof of this in his personal papers. I disagree with you, Paul B., when you say that "Walker's writings show a deranged mind." That is merely your personal opinion, and you aren't a licensed psychiatrist. Further, your opinion is biased based on your political orientation. Walker wasn't "deranged." Many Americans in 1963 thought like he did -- they called themselves the John Birch Society. There were countless thousands of these people all over the USA in 1963. An insane person lives in a private world -- but if a person agrees with another million people about some political belief or other -- that person is not insane, but merely politically partisan. To their political opponents they may seem insane -- but that is a POLITICAL opinion, and not a psychiatric opinion. I should add here that several OTHER psychiatrists who examined Walker said he was "normal." Thomas Szasz was one of them -- and he is world famous. In fact, when JFK and RFK put Walker into a mental ward following the Ole Miss riots of 29 September 1962, psychiatrist Thomas Szasz and the ACLU teamed up to protest this nightmare mixing of politics and psychiatry. Based on their protest, Walker was released from the mental ward in three days (instead of the 90 day observation period originally recommended). So -- your opinion about the sanity of Edwin Walker, dear Paul B., is only a political opinion. Nothing more. Now -- was Edwin Walker a reliable source of information? Some people said no, but many others said yes. H.L. Hunt, for example, thought of Edwin Walker as one of the most honest men he knew. However, the Episcopalian Bishop Duncan Gray of Oxford, Mississippi told me personally that Edwin Walker LIED to the Grand Jury in Oxford that acquitted him of his role in the Ole Miss riots in 1962. So, Paul B., you can't write off Edwin Walker as "unreliable" so quickly -- it's only a political opinion that lets you do so. Walker's story about Oswald being identified during the week of the 10 April 1963 shooting, however, is REALLY AND FACTUALLY TRUE. We know it is true based on the testimony of George De Mohrenschildt, and even others, in the Warren Commission volumes, and even in the HSCA volumes. Also, Dick Russell (TMWKTM) says that he interviewed Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin, who said that George De Mohrenshildt, their good pal, told them on Easter Sunday, 1963, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter at Ex-General Edwin Walker only four days before. Mrs. Voshinin said that she called the FBI the moment that George De Mohrenschildt left their home. If Dick Russell is right, then the FBI had this report on Easter Sunday -- and most likely somebody in a high place called Edwin Walker that very same day with this suspect's name. According to my theory, only a few days after Easter Sunday, 1963, Edwin Walker and Guy Banister would be setting up a plan to make Lee Harvey Oswald their PATSY in New Orleans. Oswald would be FOOLED into thinking he was working for the CIA and would promptly move to New Orleans to let himself be FRAMED as a Communist supporting Fidel Castro and the (non-existent) chapter of the FPCC in New Orleans. Oswald would be FRAMED in police reports, the newspaper, on radio and on TV. It was TOTAL SHEEP-DIP. The icing on the cake was the Mexico City incident, in which Oswald made a fool of himself attempting to get an Instant Visa to Cuba, based only on these newspaper clippings and his claim that he was a bona fide officer of the FPCC. What a joke. His handlers in New Orleans were probably laughing their heads off. But while Oswald was in Mexico City, a rogue CIA officer, David Morales, would expand this framing to link Oswald's name with the name of the KGB agent, Valery Kostikov -- using a wire-tapped line between the Cuban consulate and the USSR consulate in Mexico City. THE FRAMING WAS COMPLETE. After JFK was murdered, Lee Harvey Oswald was supposed to die IMMEDIATELY. But he was a survivor. He would have sung like a bird, too, if he had lived. But of course, he didn't. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, people who want nothing more than to blame the CIA for the murder of JFK don't need much hard evidence, obviously -- and even a school of business at a top University is grist for their mill. So, to clear up the implications of what Steve said -- yes, I do work for a top University, on staff as a computer specialist (I specialize in SQL database server administration -- something I've been involved with professionally for about 35 years or so) -- and no, I don't work for the CIA, or have any a part or role in the CIA at all. If other people work for the CIA -- anywhere in the world -- that's their business, and not mine, and I wish them well. No, I don't hate the CIA, and yes, I do admit that nobody's perfect. My own business is SQL server administration (both Microsoft SQL and Oracle SQL). Sometimes it seems to me that people who suspect the official CIA high-command of murdering JFK can be self-righteous and arrogant, and have no compunction against insulting somebody else who doesn't share their suspicions. I myself don't find enough evidence -- not even from Jim Garrison, Joan Mellen, Larry Hancock or Bill Simpich (whom I otherwise admire) -- to warrant such a conclusion. I repeat -- the characters that they uncovered (brilliantly) were almost all MERCENARIES and not CIA Officers at all! I repeat -- the characters that they uncovered REALLY DID MURDER JFK; I believe that. Many of these wackos did PRETEND to be CIA Officers. They were liars as well as murderers. Truly pathetic characters. In this number I include those who confessed: Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, John Martino, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Thomas Edward Beckham, Gerry Patrick Hemming, David Morales and Howard Hunt. I would also include those who partially confessed: Lee Harvey Oswald, Loran Hall and Joseph Milteer. I would also include those who never confessed but whose close association with those named above is documented beyond all doubt: Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, Ex-General Edwin Walker, and Guy Gabaldon. There are, of course, more. The theme above is that only TWO in that number were CIA Officers. So, get over it, you CIA-bashers. Most of the characters involved in the plot to kill JFK -- those named by top JFK researchers -- were clearly NOT official, salaried employees of the CIA. It is only GUESSING to propose that these lower-level knuckleheads were obedient servants of the two CIA rogues, and obeyed their orders faithfully. What a joke. Finally, Paul B., Larry Hancock said that he DISBELIEVED that Angleton participated in the JFK murder. Same with Edward Lansdale. This isn't misrepresenting Larry -- he surprised me when he said this on this very FORUM, and that's the truth. Also, it's my humble and honest opinion that Bill Simpich PROVED that the CIA was split in two on the topic of the *impersonation* of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City (as shown by their top-level mole-hunt). That's my opinion, and I believe it's correct, and I'll keep on saying it as long as I like -- it's a free country. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

There's lots more about Walker's obsession with Lee Harvey Oswald, which he held for the rest of his life. Here's something else: in April of 1967 (the four year anniversary of the 10 April 1963 shooting) Walker wrote an article for his monthly newsletter (which he did for his organization, FRIENDS OF WALKER). In this article, entitled, "Oswald -- A Known Criminal," our resigned Major General Edwin Walker criticizes RFK for hiring William Manchester to write the book, "Death of a President," because, as Walker said, it was a statement that the Warren Commission was defective. The article reeks with hatred toward RFK. Also, Walker claims that the Warren Commission volumes were rushed to Moscow -- because Earl Warren was a COMMUNIST. Here's a quotation from the article: "The President was assassinated by a known criminal. The President was assassinated by the man who attempted to assassinate a former Major General of the United States Armed Forces...a conclusion without equivocation or question." The article goes on to insist that there were two shooters -- not one. Also, Walker again claims that Lee Oswald was physically arrested and then set free on that same night, on orders from Washington. Walker also names Michael Paine in the context of this incident. It's interesting reading, I think, so I'll post the link for interested readers. Here it is: http://www.pet880.com/images/19670404_EAW_Oswald_released.pdf Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, you asked for ONE EXAMPLE and I gave you three. Then you nit-pick each one and try to erase them from the board. The FACT is that the John Birch Society was part of the narrative that Harry Dean took to the FBI -- and it is part of the narrative that the FBI mentions in their own memoranda about Harry Dean. It's there in black and white. It isn't known today, a half-century later, that Loran Hall and Guy Gabaldon were two very popular speakers in the John Birch Society -- but it was well-known among people in 1963 who followed the John Birch Society. I also included that memo from the FBI *defending* this member of both the JBS and the Minutemen in the context of criticizing Harry Dean. It seems to me that there is a subtext in that FBI memo which tends to give the John Birch Society a hall pass in the context of the Cold War. Hoover was a stalwart Anti-communist -- although he also criticized the Birchers for the disloyalty in their preaching that FDR, Truman and Ike were all COMMUNISTS. Yet, if he had to choose between a JBS member and an FPCC member, it is fairly clear that Hoover would side with the JBS. This subtext is mild, but still apparent in that FBI memo of 04/17/1967. There is a clear undercurrent of John Birch Society narrative in these three memos (and you asked for only one). Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Getting back to the theme of this thread -- Joan Mellen's excellent book, Farewell to Justice, may be justly criticized, IMHO, for jumping to the conclusion that the motley of mercenaries that she identified in New Orleans was sufficient evidence for a CIA plot against JFK. What the evidence shows at the street level is that these people she names (following Jim Garrison), people like Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, John Martino, Johnny Roselli, Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Thomas Edward Beckham and Lee Harvey Oswald -- because they had interacted with the CIA in the past at some (usually low) level, must be regarded as CIA pawns forever. If (and only if) this was really true, then we might conclude that the CIA was behind the plot to murder JFK, because I fully agree with Joan Mellen that this motley crew was directly responsible for the murder of JFK. But if there is any flaw in this argument -- and the flaws are many -- then the conclusions of Joan Mellen cannot hold regarding the role of the CIA in the murder of JFK. I'm not trying to absolve the CIA from any guilt at all in the murder of JFK -- what I'm trying to do is to focus clearly enough to identify the non-CIA plotters. I want to show that, at best, some CIA *rogues* joined a larger plot outside of the CIA -- a civilian plot. IMHO, that civilian plot was centered in the philosophy that JFK was a Communist, because Washington DC was riddled with Communists, and because every US President from FDR forward was a Communist. This was the philosophy preached by the John Birch Society in 1963. Their activism provided the ideological energy to mobilize wackos and CIA *rogues* to join forces to murder JFK. Harry Dean forms only one small part of my theory. The claims of Harry Dean (since 1965) offer a CONFIRMATION of what I've found since 2007, namely, independent research in the personal papers of Edwin Walker, a notorious member of the John Birch Society, and a hot-headed activist for anti-JFK causes. In my 2014 theory, I sharply divide the JFK Killer Team from the JFK Cover-up Team. The JFK Killer Team continued to argue, well into 1964, that the Communists killed JFK. Edwin Walker was one of the leaders of this propaganda. Billy James Hargis was another such propagandist. Carlos Bringuier was another. David Morales was another. John Martino was another. Johnny Roselli was another. Frank Sturgis was another. THE KEY CONNECTION IS THAT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WORKED TO FRAME LEE HARVEY OSWALD, OR SUPPORTED THOSE WHO DID. Yet the John Birch Society was the prime leader in that probaganda. Revilo P. Oliver was perhaps the most eloquent speaker and writer for the John Birch Society magazine, American Opinion, where he addressed the pressing question -- WHY WOULD A COMMUNIST KILL ANOTHER COMMUNIST? Even for many inside the John Birch Society, this argument foiled their entire cause. But Revilo P. Oliver in 1964 argued forcefully that Communists regularly killed each other in Purges, so therefore JFK was simply "Purged" by the Kremlin. It's a weak argument, IMHO, yet the right-wing rallied around this argument in 1964. So there were three theories in 1964: (1) the left-wing killed JFK; (2) the right-wing killed JFK; and (3) a Lone Nut killed JFK. Actually, argument #1 was the fiction used to frame Lee Harvey Oswald, with hopes to mobilize the USA for war on Cuba. Actually, argument #2 was totally true -- but if known, it would probably have led to a Civil War inside the USA. So, argument #3 was designed by J. Edgar Hoover to prevent the other two arguments from gaining traction. The John Birch Society didn't have the last word, as history shows. Rather, history shows that the Warren Commission had the last word, and the Warren Commision COMPLETELY REJECTED the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices of any kind -- including accomplices in the Communist Party! The JFK Killer Team wanted a war with the Communists, particularly in Cuba. The JFK Cover-up Team wanted to focus on anything else besides Cuba for a change, and promoted the Lone Shooter fiction -- and stated clearly that they would stick to this story even if it fell apart -- all because of National Security. The JFK Killer Team had the same story as the John Birch Society. This fact has not yet had its proper hearing inside the JFK research community. If I'm correct, then of course Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen both -- despite their groundbreaking discoveries in other aspects of this case -- must be regarded as mistaken when they attempt to blame the CIA high-command for the murder of JFK. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

OK, Ernie, I refer you to the 12/05/1964 letter from Harry Dean to the FBI, which includes Harry's extended report about Loran Hall and Guy Gabaldon (both well-known speakers in the John Birch Society) outlining their possible connection with the murder of JFK. Also with regard to Harry Dean, I can refer to the 04/17/1967 letter from Hoover himself to the Chicago SAC, enclosing a letter from a member of the John Birch Society and the Minutemen, who was "cooperative" with the LAX office -- who was trying to claim that the Russian dude labeled as Lee Harvey Oswald in the Warren Commission volumes was really Harry Dean. Beyond that, I can also refer you to the 04/01/1977 memo from the LAX FBI to a newspaper reporter, James Horwitz, who interviewed Harry Dean about the John Birch Society's role in the murder of JFK, urging Horwitz to correct his error of naming Harry Dean as an FBI "undercover operative." These few examples (among others that are still pending FOIA release) already suggest that the John Birch Society was part of the message that Harry Dean took to the FBI over the years -- although the FBI refused to accept it. This is what Harry Dean has been claiming since 1965. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

What I mean, Ernie, is that the John Birch Society is composed entirely of people who respect capitalism and money, and who generally regard wealthy people as virtuous people. Now imagine a billionaire like H.L. Hunt or Clint Murchison entering their roles. Now imagine H.L. Hunt holding a John Birch Society meeting at his home. Is there any wonder that Robert Welch would name Dallas, Texas as a Regional Headquarters of the John Birch Society? It isn't difficult to connect these dots. A couple of oil billionaires from Dallas begin funding the John Birch Society as conspicuous donors. They advocate the JBS in social gatherings among the jet-set in Dallas. If one wished to go to dinner with H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, it helped to be up-to-date on the latest JBS magazines and books -- and it really helped to be a member of their local chapters. One can imagine the social climbers in Dallas -- professional men and women in City Hall, perhaps -- competing for the seats closest to Hunt and Murchison at these social events -- and at these JBS meetings. As for my source that they were JBS members -- H.L. Hunt himself made no secret of it -- but I can also refer to my private interviews with Larry Schmidt, who was in Dallas in 1962-1963, and who attended the same John Birch Society meetings as attorney Robert Morris, his mentor. Morris was Schmidt's source about the right-wing in Dallas. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

Yes, Paul B., your memory is correct on that point. Walker said this at many times, in many venues. The German newspaper was only the first of a long chain of such statements. Another such statement was made by the National Enquirer on 17 May 1964, shortly before Edwin Walker was scheduled to appear before the Warren Commission. The source is probably Edwin Walker himself. This sensational story is similar to the story in the German newspaper, with a twist -- here Edwin Walker opines that Jack Ruby was the "second man" involved in the 10 April 1964 shooting at 1411 Turtle Creek Boulevard in Dallas. This enabled the National Enquirer of 17 May 1964 to include the photographs of BOTH Jack Ruby AND Lee Harvey Oswald on its front pages, for extra sensationalism. The FBI then investigated the National Enquirer to find its sources, Here is a link to part of that FBI document: http://www.pet880.com/images/19640505_FBI_on_Natl_Enq_1.jpg Best regards, --Paul Trejo

OK, Paul B., you don't agree with me -- but I'll respond to your two points. (1) David Morales and Howard Hunt -- the only two CIA Officers who "confessed" to participation in the JFK murder -- were nevertheless not Directors or Assistant Directors. Nor were they even as high as Ted Shackley or William Harvey in authority. They were CIA Officers. They had a few subordinates -- and they had a budget with which to hire mercenaries, that is, "operatives" from among the Cuban Exile community and their hangers-on. They were CIA Officers -- I grant you that. And they were certainly above the level of Non-CIA folks like Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, John Martino, Loran Hall, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Larry Howard, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Fred Crisman, Jack S. Martin and Thomas Edward Beckley. But is that really saying very much? Frank Sturgis was a loose cannon. Loran Hall was arrested for drug trafficking more than once. Hemming was also arrested in questionable circumstances. David Ferrie and Jack S. Martin were competing to become Bishops in a mail order Church. Clay Shaw was more interested in the night-life of New Orleans than in anything else. So, compared with this motley of rag-tag mercenaries, I must admit that David Morales and Howard Hunt seem elevated. However, compared with Allen Dulles, John McCone, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey, George Joannides or Ted Shackley -- who were Directors, Assistant Directors and top-level Executives in the CIA -- can we really claim that David Morales, this expert in foreign political assassinations, was comparable to the CIA high-command? I don't think so. Howard Hunt -- can we compare him to Allen Dulles? No way. Howard Hunt's peak had already passed by 1963, and his next major accomplishment in life was the Watergate burglary. Can this man be conflated with the CIA high-command? I don't think so. They worked for the CIA high-command, but they were not themselves part of the CIA high-command. This was well demonstrated by Bill Simpich, who proved that the CIA high-command started a mole-hunt for whoever *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City on 28 September 1963 -- knowing full well that only a CIA Officer had the inside knowledge to accomplish such an act. But the CIA high-command did not KNOW who that was. According to Bill Simpich, CIA Officer David Morales was flying beneath their radar -- PROVING THAT HE WAS NOT ONE OF THEM IN SPIRIT OR IN TRUTH. Morales had turned ROGUE. (2) When I implied that Larry Hancock "absolved" James Jesus Angleton, Richard Helms and Allen Dulles of the murder of JFK, I meant only that Larry Hancock -- who is a worthy researcher -- does not himself believe that these three participated in the JFK murder. He said as much in this very FORUM, and that is now common knowledge. In this same sense Larry Hancock even "absolved" Edward Lansdale, one of my key suspects named by Fletcher Prouty. This wasn't meant to say that PROOF has been found of their innocence -- only that one leader among the JFK research community finds insufficient evidence to include them in his own suspect list. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

General Walker identified Lee Harvey Oswald as his 10 April 1963 shooter the very week of the shooting. This was Walker's story to the German newspaper, but also to the National Enquirer one month before his Warren Commission hearings, and several times after that. One of the rarely cited aspects of the Warren Report is in volume one, when the new "business manager" of Marina Oswald, namely, James Herbert Martin, was asked to testify. It's interesting because he said that while he was "guarding" Marina he was visited by a man named "Morris" who wanted to ask Marina some questions on behalf of General Edwin Walker. What questions? asked Martin. Morris replied that Walker wants to know more about the shooters of 10 April 1963, because Walker is very worried that the second shooter is still at large. Martin refused to let Morris ask any questions of Marina -- and insisted that Marina has already told everything she knows about the Walker case to the FBI and the Warren Commission, and that's the end of it. But notice the sub-text there. Edwin Walker sent a third-party (possibly his Oxford attorney, Robert Morris) to learn more about his April shooting. Walker was obsessed with this shooting for the rest of his life. So it shouldn't surprise anybody to learn that he talks about the April shooting in speech after speech, and in memo after memo, for the rest of his life. I'll show more evidence about this in future posts. Best regards, --Paul Trejo