Paul Trejo

John, we do agree that Hoover spent more of his time chasing Communists than he spent chasing down Nazis. Well, to be balanced about it, the Nazi Party was utterly destroyed in Germany, and only the oddest crackpots in the USA dared to admit to Nazi views. The Communists, however, were among the victors of World War Two, and the USSR was extremely powerful in 1963 (while Germany was still digging itself out of rubble). So, it sort of makes sense for a Centrist agency like the FBI to spend more time chasing Communists than Nazis. It certainly does not mean that Hoover sympathized with Nazis, or the KKK or the JBS. We have documented proof of his opposition to these groups. It only means that he perceived a bigger threat from Communism in the 1960's. As for the FBI failure to keep the KKK from atrocious crimes, that sad fact has plagued the USA since the days of President Teddy Roosevelt. President Calvin Coolidge himself failed to pass anti-lynching laws. It is one of the features of USA society that we have a sizable percentage of white supremacists in our midst. Those numbers were extremely high during the Civil War, as one can plainly see, and they dropped sharply after the North won that War. The numbers rose again in the 1890's, but fell again in the 1910's. Those number rose again in the 1920's, but fell again in the 1930's. It is mainly in the Deep South that white supremacy still rages on. Current estimates from the Southern Poverty Law Center are that as much as 7% of the USA supports some order of white supremacy organization -- up from 5.5% before Obama became President. It is a sad feature of life in the USA that this is real -- but it is real. Still, it is not a pressing problem as it was during the Civil War when upwards of 50% of the USA bought into the white supremacy mythology. So, the reason that Hoover didn't battle the White Hate groups as much as the Communists, is because there was a smaller population of White Haters in the USA, compared to the Communist sympathizers in the 1960's. It stands to reason. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

That is not true. I DID try to tell the FBI about what happened to Junior, not to mention JFK and was LAUGHED AT BY THEM. That is not the pretty picture you are trying to paint of the FBI. They had to have been involved to have laughed at me for reporting a lynching. They were NOT in Mississippi to bring any manner of justice to the people who deserved it. I KNOW that it true. They LAUGHED at me for reporting a lynching and for telling them about Albert Lee Lewis. Not very respectable. The "trying to stop a civil war" theory doesn't hold up when the FBI would just laugh at people who reported lynchings. Seem like they were whole heartedly involved. They didn't even jot down Albert Lee Lewis' name. Just LAUGHED. I should clarify, Terri, that I wasn't referring to your efforts to find justice through the FBI. I respect your efforts, truly. The frustration that you encountered does seem to say a lot about the FBI and the KKK, however. If I want to avoid a cynical conclusion, I must convince myself that the FBI has attempted for over 100 years to prosecute KKK cases, and have had about a 99% failure rate. No matter how much time they spend trying to solve these cases, they come up with virtually no witnesses. After so many failures, a human being has a tendency to give up trying. Your case is an exception, so I want to reflect on it. You reported what you knew about a murder to the FBI, and they did not receive you in a professional manner as you expected. Your conclusion from their unwillingness to help you gave you the worst opinion -- you became convinced that they were partners with the KKK, otherwise, why would they refuse to pursue a lynching party? The history of lynching in the USA is sordid and depressing, because President Teddy Roosevelt tried to stop it, and he failed. President Calvin Coolidge tried to stop it, and he failed. As late as the 1940's, President FDR tried to stop it, and he had only limited success. Lynching was one of the main complaints of the NAACP -- it is a human rights violation. Yet the KKK, the WCC and even the John Birch Society in the 1960's all preached that the NAACP was a Communist organization controlled by Moscow. Millions of Americans believed them. In the 1960's lynching was against Federal Law, but you still needed somebody to complain to the police about it. In States where the Black American population was high, the KKK would be very active. Where the KKK was very active, many people belonged to the KKK and would not testify against their neighbors. Also, where the KKK was very active, those who did not belong to the KKK were generally terrified to testify against them, because so many policemen, lawyers and even judges were also members of the KKK. It was in the Deep South, for example, Mississippi, that the KKK influence was most strongly seen. Now, there are two possibilities for the FBI failure in your case, that I can see: (1) Knowing that the FBI's official position was that the KKK was not a patriotic organization, but a self-serving secret society that practiced atrocities with local protection, an FBI man was never allowed to become a member of the KKK. Some FBI agents might have secretly broken that rule, and were secret members of the KKK, without the knowledge of their fellow FBI agents or J. Edgar Hoover. (2) Knowing that the FBI could spend years trying to locate reliable witnesses in a lynching case in the Deep South, and still come up short on the court trial date, the FBI had given up trying, and had become cynical and pessimistic about the prospect of prosecuting lynching cases. Given your personal experience, Terri, it had to appear to you that the entire FBI was really in partnership with the KKK, and were deliberately letting them get away with it. Given that perception, then, it makes sense that you would lose all faith in the FBI and the US government. So, let me try one more time to see if we can do anything about this. What was the year that you reported the lynching of your friend Junior? Also, because there is no statute of limitations on murder, and because I personally still believe in the basic goodness of most of our police and FBI men and in our American dedication to justice, may I ask you to make out your report to the FBI one more time, please? I mean, at least you will find out more about the procedure, about why they didn't help you then, or why they won't help you now. There must be some *reason* behind it, other than the worst case -- that the FBI is a partner of the KKK. I would really like to know -- wouldn't you? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

OK, I finally figured out how to add photo images of Loran Hall to his 1963 speech for the John Birch Society. I uploaded the speech to YouTube. It is entitled, CUBA BETRAYED, and it is in two parts, as follows: LORAN HALL PART ONE: LORAN HALL PART TWO: Thanks to Harry Dean for contributing this artifact from his collection. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

John, I agree with you that Hoover leaned to the Right, but he was not a member of the Radical Right. Hoover deliberately sent FBI men to infiltrate the KKK, to undermine their growth. I believe that was a success. Also, Hoover made a study of the John Birch Society, and he concluded that they were not patriotic, because they accused recent and sitting Presidents of being Communists. Therefore, J. Edgar Hoover made a rule for the FBI -- no member of the FBI could join the John Birch Society. So, it's a matter of nuance -- it's a matter of degree, John. J. Edgar Hoover was rightist, but he was not Radical Right, IMHO. Hoover disliked JFK and MLK, but he didn't plot to overthrow the US government the way the John Birchers plotted. It is possible -- even plausible -- that Hoover looked the other way when he learned that there were JFK kill plots afoot. I'm still undecided about his ultimate role. However, at the end of the day, I'm confident that J. Edgar Hoover did not plot with the KKK or with the John Birch Society to kill JFK in Dallas on 11/22/1963. Hoover was rightist, but he wasn't *that* far to the right, compared with these rabid rightists. Also, even though I'm defending Hoover of complicity in the JFK plot -- I don't defend Hoover from all charges -- I also believe he was a blackmailer and was knee-deep in Mafia messes himself. Yet as with Lee Oswald -- just because he was guilty of crimes A, B and C, does not prove that he killed JFK. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

John, one cannot really have it both ways. If the Radical Right is ultimately behind the death of JFK in their covert aims to overthrow the Establishment, then we cannot at the same time say that the Establishment was behind JFK's death. We can, obviously, posit that some rogue members of the Establishment were secretly members of the Radical Right, and they offered secret support here and there. I have always said that there were members of the FBI and CIA who "looked the other way" when they could have acted. Hoover's knowledge of Carlos Marcello's hit contract on JFK is a case in point, as Hoover evidently took no action at all. Yet that is not the same as saying that Hoover himself put out a contract on JFK. We know that several "assets" of the CIA were involved with Interpen, Hemming, Hall, Banister, Bringuier and Walker. Frank Sturgis was one -- and in fact Frank Sturgis boasted about his role in the JFK assassination. However, these "assets" were not official CIA employees. They did not act under CIA direction. They were loose cannons and they acted on their own initiatives. IMHO those CIA "assets" who had been directly involved in the Bay of Pigs disappointment were motivated to kill JFK -- and they openly said so. Again, Loran Hall made this point very plain in his various speeches to the John Birch Society. Although the FBI and the CIA were not as innocent as lambs in the death of JFK, it is a bizarre fantasy to imagine that the FBI and the CIA were "officially" involved in some conspiracy, e.g. going back to 1959 when Lee Harvey Oswald first went to the USSR, to kill JFK (who was not even President yet). It is equally bizarre, IMHO, to try to involve James Hosty without hard proof. Such behavior shows a weakness of logic. Getting back to De Mohrenschildt (since this is his thread) we must recognize plainly that he was involved in the CIA and that he was almost certainly "babysitting" Lee Harvey Oswald on behalf of the CIA. Yet it is futile to attempt to engage De Morhenschildt in the assassination of JFK. Bruce Campbell Adamson exhausted that possibility with scholarly precision. The role that George De Mohrenschildt plays in the life of Lee Harvey Oswald involves messing with Oswald's mind, and waking the raging bull, ex-General Edwin Walker. We have lots and lots of hard evidence supporting that scenario. The Warren Commission made that plain (although they should have dug deeper into Michael Paine and Volkmar Schmidt, IMHO). Aside from rogue assets here and there, I see no hard evidence of CIA involvement. Even Mark Lane's swan song, Plausible Denial (1991), only proves that E. Howard Hunt helped Frank Sturgis and party run some guns for anti-Castro forces sometime in November, 1963. That's simply not hard proof of CIA involvement in the JFK assassination -- and that was Mark Lane's very best work. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Lee, if you want a response to your errors about FBI Agent James Hosty, then, take your discussion to its appropriate thread. This is a thread about George De Mohrenschidlt. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Terri, I'll try to clarify my opinions further. The official CIA did not want to kill JFK -- even though some rogue individuals in the CIA, especially those whose hearts had been broken at the Bay of Pigs, openly stated they wanted JFK dead. We know which CIA officials said that -- and they were not the top leadership of the CIA, and they did not speak in an official capacity, but in a personal capacity. The Director of the CIA at that time, John McCone, was appointed by JFK. That's one point on my side. Also, the CIA published its rules and regulations -- and membership in the KKK, as well as in the John Birch Society, was not allowed for CIA officers. (Not that they checked carefully -- after all, membership in a secret society is always a secret). So, I have no doubt that there were some stray dogs among the CIA who were members of the extreme right, like the KKK and the JBS, and who wanted JFK to die for the Bay of Pigs -- but they didn't speak for the Director of the CIA. (The same can be said of the FBI). As for the FBI infiltration of the KKK, their purpose was to find crime, and also to undermine their growth. But by the Constitution itself, they could not outlaw them, because the KKK is, after all, protected by the Free Speech Amendment (and even defended by the ACLU). They are free to say whatever they like. It's actions that matter to the FBI -- not words. Insofar as there were atrocities committed by the KKK (which are a matter of record) history has shown that the secrecy of the KKK made it almost impossible to identify the culprits for prosecution. When people refuse to witness publicly, the FBI has no power at all. That was the problem then (and probably still remains so today). As for the Warren Commission -- they deceived the USA with their "Lone Nut" and "Magic Bullet" conclusions -- and it has hurt our country. However, that does not prove that they were covering for the killers of JFK -- there is another explanation. They could have been (in my humble opinion) trying to prevent a Civil War in this country. The KKK arose in the Deep South -- largely along the same State borders as the Confederate States in the Civil War during the Lincoln era. The anger was over the same issue -- the equality of Black Americans in modern society. The Supreme Court Brown decision had so enraged the white supremacists in the South (and also those in the North) that they developed several new organizations to take a new approach to Civil Rights that the KKK had overlooked. The White Citiizens' Councils, the State Sovereignty Commission, the States Rights Parties, and the John Birch Society -- all these groups arose to "Impeach Earl Warren" and reverse the Brown decision -- and also to harrass the NAACP financially. Naturally the KKK supported this effort with all their might, as well. But the FBI and the CIA were officially supporters of the Law of the Land. Even if some FBI and CIA employees hated the idea of school integration, they were obliged by law and the rules of their employment to keep their mouths shut about it. So, Terri, even if some rogue FBI and CIA members took it upon themselves to "look the other way" when they saw the extreme right-wing make its moves in late 1963, that was not official. That's my main point. Also, I don't blame the entire Dallas Police Department -- however I agree with Jim Garrison that the JFK plot could never work without at least a few Dallas Policemen involved at key positions. I say this with some confidence because William Turner's book, "Power on the Right", showed that employment in the Dallas Police required membership in extremist rightwing groups like the Minutemen, the KKK and the JBS. This was a local culture -- it was considered normal. The Dallas Police were responsible for sealing off the grassy knoll. Was Roscoe White (a Dallas policeman at the time) at the Grassy Knoll with his 7.5 Mauser, as he told his son, Ricky White? We have evidence that Roscoe White was also a member of the KKK as well as the Texas Minutemen. As for Presidential security -- it is well-known that the Mayor of Dallas, Earl Cabell, was the brother of General Charles Cabell, formerly of the CIA, whom JFK fired after the Bay of Pigs. I don't say that's proof of his complicity, but it does contribute to the laxity of security in Dallas, IMHO. Dallas policeman Roger Craig stated that Chief of Police Jesse Curry told all plain clothes policemen in Dallas that day to "in no way" participate in the JFK security. That's most suspicious, IMHO. But that was entirely local. According to the Secret Service, they had zero agents in Dealey Plaza that day. They had hundreds of agents at the Trade Mart down the street -- for they had heard that a JFK assassination would be attempted there. I suspect, Terri, that you and I probably are close to agreement on the disposition of the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/1963. In any case -- who would investigate them? The Dallas Police Chief? But who would investigate him? Jesse Curry said only 25 (out of 1,200) police in Dallas even heard of Jack Ruby, yet waitresses at the Carousel Club very sharply disputed that claim. Again -- insofar as the KKK was active in Texas in 1963, even within the Dallas Police Department, I must agree with you that the DPD is suspicious in this crime. As for proof of a conspiracy -- I personally believe that the US government still has it in file -- and that in the year 2038 those files will be released, as Earl Warren said they would be. I believe they will show that a right-wing conspiracy involving the White Citizen Councils, the JBS and the KKK were at fault. However -- and this is the key point -- Earl Warren and the US government felt certain that if this truth had come out in 1963, there would have been a new Civil War. And that is why they covered it up. The people who killed JFK did not get their way. They failed to get the Brown decision reversed. They failed to get the USA to invade Cuba. They lost. The people who killed JFK were not the same people that covered up the JFK assassination. They were two opposite groups. Civil War was averted -- that was the National Security concern of the Warren Commission, the FBI and the CIA. That's how it appears to me today. Finally, we should remember the words of Loran Hall, who, according to Silvia Odio, was an accomplice of Lee Harvey Oswald. He told the National Enquirer on 3 September 1968 this about the JFK plotters: "They drew up a kill list. Martin Luther King was on it...They wanted, and still want, to see a revolution between the colored people and the whites. They want complete white supremacy and they needed open warfare so that they could head that white supremacy. Bobby Kennedy was on the kill list....Chief Justice Earl Warren was another they wanted to kill..." (Loran Hall, 1968) Although Loran Hall also said that CIA people aided them, he always had trouble identifying who was really a CIA employee and who was a volunteer -- like people in the Mafia. So, Hall's opinion about the CIA must be taken with a grain of salt. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Blah, blah, blah, Lee. You make no sense at all. Well I'm surprised you're not hard at work weaving it into your nonsensical "theory." Come back when you have a damn clue what I'm talking about you ignorant little man. My "obsession" was with your "police reports" and "neighbours phoning the police"-- both of which turned out to be complete crud. Made up. Out of thin air. You should be thanking me for fact checking your posts. At least now you have got one thing right. P.S. You can keep bumping your posts all you want. They'll attract as much positive attention as a Texas pan-handler with diarrhoea. Lee, kindly take your confused ramblings about this valid FBI report by James Hosty to its appropriate thread. This is a thread about George De Mohrenschidt. Regards, --Paul Trejo

BUMP

Getting back to the theme of this thread...Ed Epstein's tale of George De Mohrenschildt's last day... George De Mohrenschildt probably blew his own brains out on that fateful day -- it probably wasn't suicide. My reasoning is that he left a suicide note, which the HSCA published in full -- it is the booklet that George wrote entitled, I'm A Patsy! I'm A Patsy! Reading that document with historical nuance explains much about George De Mohrenschildt's thinking. He recounts the problem of ex-General Ediwn Walker (the only US President to resign in the 20th century). He says that he and "somebody" -- he still withheld the name of this person until the very last day of his life -- worked on Oswald with psychological methods to convert Oswald from a blustering Marine who condemned JFK for the Bay of Pigs, into a liberal who hated the racist, segregationist ex-General Walker. It did not take long for researchers to learn the name of that mystery person -- it was Volkmar Schmidt (no relation to Larrie or Robbie Schmidt). Volkmar Schmidt has already told his side of the story to many researchers, including our own William Kelley. It was at a party in February, 1963. Ex-General Walker had just been acquitted of all charges for his role in fomenting the race riots at Ole Miss University in which hundreds had been wounded and two were killed. Liberals were livid. Volkmar Schmidt, surrounded by many at this party, plied his psychological craft on Lee Oswald for hours -- until Oswald channeled his resentment against JFK into resentment against Walker. The experiment was a success, and the liberal attendees were satisfied and impressed. Party over? Not quite. Only weeks later Oswald began dramatizing his newfound political orientation. He purchased a rifle and a pistol, and he took photographs of Walker's house, and he took photographs of himself with his new 'fascist hunter' weapons. George De Mohrenshildt, in is final confession, admits that he and Lee Oswald began calling General Walker "General Fokker" and laughed and laughed. For some odd reason, George could not bring himself to admit within the pages of, I'm A Patsy! I'm A Patsy!, to name Volkmar Schmidt in that connection. He lied -- actually -- when he wrote that the psychologist in question "might have been Jewish." Jewish?!? George De Mohrenschildt hadn't forgotten his good friend Volkmar Schmidt. Only weeks earlier than his alleged suicide George begged Volkmar to move in with him and his family. Volkmar declined because George had become a mere shell of his former self, and appeared dangerous to Schmidt. Yet George was lucid enough in his final testament to remember that he and Lee Harvey Oswald had referred to Volkmar Schmidt as "Messer Schmidt" and they would laugh together. There was a bittersweet memory about all of this in the pages of his last writing. But there was also a sense of withholding -- specifically about the ex-General Walker affair. This was the moment when everything spun out of control for the dapper George De Mohrenschildt. The day that Oswald (allegedly) shot at Walker, on 10 April 1963, George's heart sank. He had broken Oswald. He and his wife. Jeanne, looked at each other -- could it be Lee Oswald? They nervously devised a plan. Late at night before Easter Sunday, they took a toy bunny to the Oswald's as a pretext to search their house for a rifle with a scope on it. They found it. They never saw the Oswald's again. (However, on Easter Sunday, George did tell his friends, Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin of his suspicions, and Mrs. Voshinin called the FBI as soon as he left their house, TMWKTM). Everything fell to pieces for George after that. Although the CIA had set up George with a sweet oil exploration deal in Haiti, the Haiti government would gradually lose interest in George after the JFK assassination. He lost that deal, which would have earned George a substantial fortune. George died penniless. Lee Harvey Oswald had been his downfall as well. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

BUMP

Blah, blah, blah, Lee. You make no sense at all. In any case, I've moved your obsession with this FBI report to your thread, "Neighbors Phoned the Police on LHO". That way we can get this thread back on its own track. Regards, --Paul Trejo

No, Lee, you haven't shown that here. The FBI report by James Hosty reported that Lee Harvey Oswald was a wife-beater. That is a matter of official record, and it's an important element in the JFK assassination. You refuse to acknowledge the historical fact. Certainly there are larger issues in the JFK assassination than Oswald's reported wife-beating -- but you haven't identified them. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Harry Dean recently shared with me three vinyl LP artifacts that he collected during his period of membership in the John Birch Society in 1962-1963 in Southern California. (1) A recording of a Loran Hall speech to the John Birch Society in Southern California, entitled, "Cuba Betrayed." In it he attacks what he calls the "three K-brothers" (meaning JFK-MLK-RFK) and he justifies his plea for funds on the claim that Communists control Washington DC. That was the standard JBS line. It is interesting that Loran Hall also admits (as Harry Dean also admitted) that he supported Fidel Castro in 1959. (2) A recording of Billy James Hargis, who bought the rights from Bill Stuckey to re-release his interview of Lee Harvey Oswald, but then Hargis overlaid his own voice over Stuckey's voice. In this way the listener hears Billy James Hargis interviewing Lee Harvey Oswald -- very dramatic. The record is entitled, "The President's Assassin Speaks". It is another feeble attempt to make Lee Harvey Oswald appear to be a genuine officer of the FPCC. Hargis also calls for the USA to invade Cuba immediately. (In my theory, Billy James Hargis was a confidante of ex-General Edwin Walker, and knew everything that Walker was up to.) (3) A recording of Congressman John Rousselot and his attacks on Martin Luther King and the NAACP, charging them with Communist conspiracy. It is entitled, "The Third Color -- Red." This speech firmly ties the Southern California Congressmen with the ideology of the White Citizens' Council, so active in the South. The speech also aligns Rousselot with the Mississippi and Louisiana State Sovereignty Commissions, and with various States Rights Parties -- all of which were organized after 1954 to oppose the Supreme Court Brown decision to racially integrate US public schools. Rousselot argues passionately to roll back Brown -- not on the honest basis of white supremacy, but with the dishonest strategy of charging Washington DC with Communism. The reality of 1963 comes burning back in our ears as we listen to the screeching screed of these zealots of the reactionary right. The weakness of their fanaticism is that anything and everything that disagrees with them is simply called, Communist. I thank Harry Dean for sharing these artifacts. (As soon as I learn how to add video to these sound tracks, I'll upload them to Youtube.) It was not because of backwards-thinking men like these that the USSR finally fell, but despite them. Now that Hall, Hargis and Rousselot are gone, the USA celebrates MLK day every year. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

The answer, Lee, is no, I was somewhat mistaken. I'd remembered an FBI report in which James Hosty interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald's landlord, and the landlord reported that the neighbors complained to him, the landlord, about Lee Harvey Oswald beating Marina. The neighbor exclaimed to the landlord, "I think he's killing her this time!" The FBI agent, James Hosty, took the report from the landlord, and not from the neighbors. When I remembered this official, Federal police report, it slipped my mind that the neighbors had told the landlord, and not the local police. So -- I was partly mistaken but also partly correct -- there is an official -- FBI report -- about Lee Harvey Oswald beating his wife. Yet somehow I don't expect you to accept anything that disagrees with your fixed ideas on the topic. Regards, --Paul Trejo

BUMP

Actually, Lee, this official FBI report includes complaints from neighbors -- if you actually read it. Secondly, FBI agents qualify as policemen -- Federal policemen. You say, Lee, that this FBI report by James Hosty is "worthless." Well, that's your opinion, but it only shows how biased you are. Here is a perfectly valid Federal police report about complaints regarding Lee Harvey Oswald beating his wife -- and you simply respond, "worthless!" Such a response fails the test of objective argumentation. Regards, --Paul Trejo

As for making anything up -- far from it. I provided the official FBI report as I promised. That's an official document, Lee, and if you can't accept that, then -- well, actually, I'm not surprised, given your results. As for insulting people here -- that's not something I do; that's obviously something you bother with. As for JFK research -- I have a theory and not a fantasy. I can't say the same thing about one-sided thinkers. Regards, --Paul

Lee, just because I greatly admire the work of Jim Root does not mean that I agree with everything he ever wrote. That should be obvious to the objective reader. Jim Root traced General Walker far better than Chris Cravens -- who's dissertation scholars have found to be the best (and perhaps only) scholarly work on Walker to date. That's why Jim Root's work is the best. Still -- that doesn't make Jim Root infallible -- except to one-sided thinkers, evidently. Regards, --Paul

Martin, just because Jim Garrison was a genius does not mean that he was correct in every sentence he ever made. Mozart was a genius -- but not everything he wrote was a masterpiece. We're all human. Jim Garrson was brilliant and courageous because he showed material evidence to the world that Lee Harvey Oswald hung out with Militant Right individuals (Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier) and not with Communists. That simple fact -- as correct and as brilliant as it shines -- has still not been accepted by all readers of the JFK literature. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Jim, your research into ex-General Edwin Walker surpasses anything I've ever found in academia. The best published work we possess on Walker -- to the very best of my knowledge -- is Chris Cravens' 1993 dissertation, Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas 1960-1966. But that dissertation, I've concluded, was a whitewash that maintained silence about Walker's violently active role and alarming connections in segregation politics on the one hand, and his proven guilt in starting the race riot at Ole Miss in 1962 in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed. That's why I hope you'll publish your work on Walker in the near future. Walker will turn out to have played a key role in the JFK assassination, I strongly suspect. You find Intelligence connections for Walker -- and that's valuable and tells more about Walker than most accounts. He is too often regarded as "crazy" because JFK and RFK detained him in an insane asylum for seven days. That's a superficial treatment of this US General. I appreciate your intelligent treatment of Walker. Your theory and mine agree on a critical point -- we both firmly believe that Walker immedietly knew who was involved in the JFK conspiracy. When you said Walker communicated with the German newspaper, surely you meant to write the Deutsche NationalZeitung, and not the Overseas Weekly. (The OW hated Walker's guts.) You and I also agree that Walker was obsessed about distancing himself from Lee Harvey Oswald -- knowing that it was possible to find a real, historical connection between them. Thus Walker, about 18 hours after the death of JFK, called the Deutsche NationalZeitung with his claim that Oswald was his shooter as well. We only disagree on the nature of that statement. I say the statement was true, and that Walker was boasting, knowing that this linkage would take him off the suspect list. You say the statement was false, and that Walker was conniving, but for the same reason. If (and only if) I'm correct, then Walker's call to the Deutsche NationalZeitung was tantamount to his confession of an active and leading role in the JFK assassination. If (and only if) you're correct, then Walker's call expressed some vague, hidden feelings about his knowledge of the plotters. There is so much effort to blame the CIA for the JFK murder, and if sufficient evidence to prove this ever surfaces, then Walker's links to US Intelligence will take center stage, IMHO, and the value of your work will skyrocket. But if such evidence continues to evade JFK researchers, then IMHO we should continue to keep digging around the case of Edwin Walker, and explore the possibility of Walker's direct involvement Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Martin, I'm glad you have resumed posting. Your contributions here have always had value. You and Lee have done a good job pointing out some of the weaknesses inherent in so many of Paul's posts. On another thread, I found it extremely tedious to have a dialogue with Paul for reasons not dissimilar to what you and Lee have encountered on this thread. Here's the link to that HSCA report: http://educationforu...04 Thank you, Michael. I had to chuckle to myself when I followed that link to a post of me asking for the report and you providing it! Must be getting forgetful in my old age. Martin and Michael - that list of alleged "contradictions" of Marina Oswald is the most superficial nonsense I can imagine on the topic. Sometimes Lee was clean and tidy -- sometimes Lee was sloppy. Sometimes Lee wanted to be rid of Marina -- sometimes Lee clung hard to Marina. Sometimes Lee gave Marina small sums of money -- sometimes Lee have her no money at all. Depending on the context of the questioning, one hears Marina answering truthfully (in her broken English) the questions at hand. But the so-called contradictions collected by John Armstrong (as shown in that hyperlink) takes a scholastic approach of Either/Or -- either Lee was tidy or he was sloppy. He can't be both! So, Marina is a xxxx! It is one of the weakest papers I've ever read on this topic. It has all the force of a wet noodle. Pitiful. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Michael, you ask what I mean by hard proof. It comes from valid material evidence, traditionally defined as empirical evidence and sworn testimony. Just because you prefer to ignore the sworn testimony of George de Mohrenschildt, Marina Oswald and Loran Hall, does not make their testimony any less valid. It is part of the body of truth upon which honest researchers will build -- unless you happen to have proof that it is incorrect -- which you don't; otherwise you'd produce that proof, which you don't. The Warren Commission preferred to evade questioning of some witnesses -- many of whom heard one or more shots from the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza -- and so just because Harry Dean and Gerry Patrick Hemming were not called upon to offer their sworn testimony to the WC, that does not mean that their eye-witness accounts are off the table. When those accounts match the accounts of the sworn testimony we possess, then they can be proposed as confirmative evidence. So, that answers your question, Michael, regarding what I mean by hard proof. The question is aptly returned to you, Michael -- what do you mean by hard proof? Because so far I've seen from you and your kind only guesswork amassed over decades that the CIA did it. Guesswork based on hunches. Also, the word "theory" does not seem to occur to you as your group plies its hunches. As for hard proof about Guy Banister's role in framing Oswald, we have Jim Garrison's enormous body of work. The address of 544 Camp Street physically stamped on Oswald's fake FPCC handbills is hard evidence. Jim Garrison was a genius. As for hard proof about ex-General Walker's role, I am among the first to explore this possibility. Jim Root did some great work in the past on this -- perhaps more than anybody else -- although his book is still unpublished, to the best of my knowledge. Only on this Forum can we find items from Jim Root's long research. Yet I don't operate only on hunches. I search for material connections. Along with John Dolva I've found connections between Guy Banister and ex-General Edwin Walker in organizations and individuals they knew in common, including members of the Louisiana State Sovereignty Commission, the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission, various White Citizens' Council groups in the South, Leander Perez, Louis Pennington Davis, Jr. and mote. This evidence is confirmed by eye-witness accounts from Gerry Patrick Hemming, who claims to have seen ex-General Walker at the Lake Pontchartrain paramilitary training camp run by Guy Banister, and claims to have visited Walker's Dallas home multiple times in 1963, accompanied by Loran Hall and other members of Interpen. As for the ridiculous implication that John McCone ordered JFK's murder, it is tacit in any bogus claim that "the CIA did it." When that common blanket statement is heard, it immediately implicates the 1963 CIA Director John McCone -- and that is quite obvious. Certainly, Angleton, Dulles, Helms and Phillips weren't "low-level CIA piece-workers," rather, they were high-level CIA employees. However, if somebody wishes to implicate these people in the murder of JFK, then I demand to see empirical proofs and not just wild speculation and personal hunches. As for the KKK involvement in the murder of JFK, of course it could never be official. There are multiple reasons for this. First, the KKK is a secret society, so its own internal rules would publicly deny any involvement. Secondly, I maintain that the murder of JFK was itself unoffical because my current theory absolves the CIA and the FBI from official participation in the JFK murder plot. I only find the CIA and FBI officially involved in the cover-up. In my theory, based on empirical evidence, Guy Banister and ex-General Edwin Walker were the senior operatives of the plot to make Lee Harvey Oswald into the patsy of the JFK assassination. There may have been dozens of viable plots to kill JFK, but at the end of the day we know one fact with reasonable certainty -- the plot that made Lee Harvey Oswald into the patsy was the plot that succeeded. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Terri, although perhaps most JFK readers believe the CIA was involved -- I am among the minority who demand to see hard proof before I come to a conclusion. John McClone, Director of the CIA in 1963, was appointed by JFK, and it still seems unlikely to me that he would order JFK killed. So, like the HSCA hinted, even if some low-level CIA piece-workers were involved, that is different from official CIA involvement. We do know, however, that low-level CIA piece-workers like to brag about working for the CIA. Loran Hall and his sons, for example, were busted in 1989 for running a meth lab. The story the sons gave the police was that they were working for the CIA, making money for the Contras. Loran Hall laid out that defense often, I've heard. Another example is Johnny Roselli and his Mafia boys -- because William Harvey was dumb enough to hire them to help him kill Fidel Castro, they continually named the CIA as an excuse everytime they were busted for some crime or other. The CIA finally gave up on them, but it took a long time. Also, Terri, in my opinion, the JFK killers didn't actually get away it it -- well, not 100%. What they wanted to accomplish first and foremost, was to fool the USA into invading Cuba, and taking Cuba back from the Communists by sheer force. That failed. Their second cherised goal was to Impeach Earl Warren and then immeidately reverse the Brown decision (of public school integration). They lost both of their top two goals. Also, they had to show the world their yellow side -- they cut and ran and didn't have the manly courage to stand up before the world and claim credit for the JFK killing -- like every normal assassin has always done in US History. Instead, they slunk back into the shadows like the hidden cowards they truly were. The same happened with the MLK and RFK murders. Actually, the same happened in 1963 -- twice. First, when Byron De La Beckwith murdered Medgar Evers by shooting him in the back at midnight. He got away with it in 1964, even after a re-trial. Second, the Alabama 16th Street Church bombing the following September that killed four Black girls saw zero indictments at all throughout the 1960's. I do agree with you, Terri, that the CIA helped to cover up the truth about the JFK assassination -- because the evidence is overwhelming. However, that does not necessarily mean that the CIA was hiding its friends. To put the most optimistic spin on it, I continue to maintain that the CIA, the FBI, the Warren Commission and the White House all covered up the JFK assassination -- knowing full well who did it -- in order to prevent another Civil War (and then World War Three which would have followed). This theory also supports some of your claims, Terri, i.e. when you claim that KKK power in the 1960's (just as today) was far greater than anyone likes to admit. I would have to agree. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

OK, as promised, I found the official public report about Lee Oswald beating Marina so loudly that his neighbors on Elsbeth street complained. It is actually an FBI report -- an interview with the landlords, Mr. and Mrs. Tobias. Here are the links: http://www.aarclibra...Vol17_0399b.htm http://www.aarclibra...Vol17_0400a.htm Best regards, --Paul Trejo