Paul Trejo

Highly doubtful. After speaking with Priscilla Johnson i got a clear impression that she's wildly over-rated as a spy. Writers project wild fantasies onto her. Most of what Priscilla Johnson wrote can be gleaned directly from Warren Commission testimony. She didn't invent a thing. She was and remains staunchly conservative -- she would never contradict the US government as she knew it in 1964. She simply repeated the official line, and once that was done, she never wavered from it, for fear of contradicting herself. After the HSCA findings of 1979, all her conclusions about the Lone Nut gunman became obsolete. Since Priscilla Johnson did nothing more than repeat to the world in readable English exactly what Marina Oswald already told the world in the pages of her Warren Commission testimony, it is reaching to try to find anything clandestine or spooky in Priscilla Johnson's writings. Marina Oswald was and remains her own person. She told the truth to the Warren Commission (once she calmed down and took the oath). Many object to Marina Oswald's portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald, yet it is realistic -- believable -- and shows Lee to be a wife-beating commoner. This goes against the theories of some JFK researchers who wish to portray Lee Oswald as an innocent victim of the Establishment -- or perhaps even a whistle-blower. Not a chance. Lee wasn't innocent. And he was up to his neck in associations with Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Gerry Patrick Hemming, George De Mohrenshildt and ex-General Edwin Walker. Believable theories, IMHO, also connect Lee Harvey Oswald with Frank Sturgis, E. Howard Hunt, Antonio Veciana, David Atlee Philips, Eladio Del Valle, and many more of that ilk. Lee Harvey Oswald probably shot nobody on 11/22/1963 -- but he knew who did -- and he was also dumb enough to bring his rifle to work that day, when asked to do so by Gerry Patrick Hemming (courtesy A.J. Weberman). IMHO Lee Oswald had a chance to tell the world what happened -- but he was in the mud up to his neck -- and he firmly believed they would get away with it. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Where are these "reports"? Please provide the police reports that state Lee Oswald beat his wife. If you are going down the route of the Elsbeth complaints I'd prefer it you provide THE WHOLE STORY and not just the juicy bits that you think support your skewed characterisation of Lee Oswald. Tell everybody what happened once the complaint was made or do you not know so you are simply working from a place of complete ignorance? I know providing the WHOLE STORY that exists in the record is something you do not like doing, but for the sake of accuracy concerning the information on this forum, I want you to provide evidence for your absolutist statements regarding these police reports. I had a comment removed from one of my posts that was factual about you. Yet you think you can write complete and utter absurdities that are not backed up by the record unless you take the word of a proven xxxx along with the comments of her White Russian friends who are also proven liars. Where are the police reports? Lee, I'm surprised that you need to ask about these Dallas Police reports. They're more than 50 years old. It's surprising that you seem to have never seen them or even heard of them. You're kidding, right? Regards, --Paul

Dawn, although the English-as-a-Second-Language issue with regard to Marina Oswald's sworn testimony before the Warren Commission will always be interesting, it's not as though the Russian language is from outer space. If anybody wants to research her Russian language depositions, I believe they're readily available. Lots of Americans speak Russian, so it wouldn't be so hard to make a case. While poor English skill was certainly a problem for Marina -- who tried to teach herself English despite Lee Oswald's efforts to suppress her -- the more vital question, IMHO, is whether her negative stories about Lee remain plausible. Oswald was a wife-beater. We have police reports to that effect, as well as neighbors in Dallas who called the police on Lee. When Marina told the Warren Commission that Lee Harvey Oswald beat her -- this was not from some script that she was ordered to read. She told a truth that could be verified beyond the bruises on her body and face that would heal. Lee Oswald kept Marina in a closet, so to speak. He was interested in keeping Marina "barefoot and pregnant" as the saying goes. George De Mohrenschildt winced when he saw how Lee treated her. Lee hardly allowed her to say anything, for fear that people might consider her more interesting than him. This wasn't merely Marina's complaint -- George DM said the same thing. Here's the testimony: -------------------- Begin GDM testimony snippet 23 April 1964 ---------------------- . . . Mr. JENNER. You think Lee resented that, do you – that the interest was in Marina and not in Lee Oswald? Mr. DE MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes; definitely. Oh, that is an exceedingly important point, you know. Lee resented the interest that people would take in Marina. He wanted the interest concentrated on himself. Mr. JENNER. And did he exhibit that in your home and at other gatherings where you saw him? Did he interrupt so that the attention might be drawn to him and away from her? . . . Mr. DE MOHRENSCHILDT. ...I do not remember any particular case, but I always took him and considered him as an egocentric person. I do not remember any particular incident, but I knew that he wanted the attention to himself, always. Not in any particular case, but always. And he would rather disregard what Marina would say. And this is possibly the reason for his not wanting to – for Marina to learn English, so she would stay completely in the background. . . . -------------------- End GDM testimony snippet 23 April 1964 ---------------------- So, it wasn't that Marina's testimony against her husband Lee was scripted by somebody else -- it was open and honest and other people who knew Lee also knew that he was boorish. Yes, he had a tender side, and was kind to his own children. But he could also be selfish and cruel. I have seen no hard evidence that causes me to doubt Marina Oswald's testimony. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

One of the most important contributions that Harry Dean makes to JFK resaarch, IMHO, is that he highlights the revolutionary and subversive nature of the John Birch Society (JBS) in 1963. Jack Ruby named "the John BIrch Soicety and its leader in Dallas,General Walker" when asked by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren to get to the point of what he knew about the JFK assassination. In fact, ex-General Edwin Walker was a well-known leader of the JBS from 1960 to 1963, not only in Dallas but also in Augsburg, Germany. The Pentagon, along with JFK, dismissed Walker from his command over 10,000 troops in Germany in 1961 because (besides more serious misdemeanors) Walker's Pro-Blue program allegedly indoctrinated soldiers with JBS reading materials and JBS public speakers. The rightists of the time -- from Kent Courtney to Robert Welch to William F. Buckley Jr., -- decried the dismissal. What is wrong with teaching US soldiers about Anticommunism? Why is JFK attacking Anticommunists instead of Communists? That was the buzz in 1961. But it was a lie. It was incorrect to characterize the JBS as Anticommunist -- because the JBS was really Anti-USA. The way they confused the issue was this: they accused all USA Presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt forward, of being Communist! In that way they could attack the USA and claim that they were attacking Communism! By the way, the JBS still exists, and they still repeat these lies to this very day. (IMHO, the ultimate origins of the JBS will probably be found among the anti-England political forces in the USA which hoped that the USA would back Germany during WW2. If we had, they would argue, the USA would not avoided the long Cold War with the USSR.) By the way, General Walker was not censored for circulating JBS literature, as many writers report. I've read the US Army reports on Walker, and I can tell you that the reasons were very specific, and they specifically cleared the Pro-Blue reading list of any fault. Instead, there were two major errors that Walker made, according to the US Army: (1) Walker held a large meeting in which he told US troops and their wives that President Harry Truman was "definitely pink." He repeated the same for former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, and for Walter Cronkite; and (2) Walker used Kent Courtney's ACA Voting Index to try to control the votes of US troops in the 1960 election. (That was a violation of the military Hatch Act.) Walker evaded these truths in his speeches and interviews -- he continually repeated the JBS lie that he was dismissed for being an Anticommunist. What a lie. (This remains politically relevant today. The JBS is still active in rural America, and they still influence various Tea Parties around the USA. That is why we heard such bizarre talk about Communists and Marxists during the 2012 Presidential Election.) My point is that we must carefully weigh the combined testimony of Jack Ruby and Harry Dean. They both agree on one solid point -- that the JBS and General Walker were deeply involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. Insofar as the HSCA announced in 1979 that JFK was "probably killed as a result of a conspiracy," but were deliberately prevented from accessing classified files to identify the conspirators, it remains critical for JFK researchers to identify the conspirators. The evidence continues to mount to increasingly reveal that Jack Ruby and Harry Dean knew what they were talking about. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Either that or he's deliberately stirring up controversy in advance of the upcoming 50th anniversary of the unsolved murder of JFK to be observed in Dallas, Texas in November. Record book sales. Crazy like a fox. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Michael, it's been 50 years and all the people passionately studying the murder of JFK in all that time have arrived at no consensus. There are dozens of contradictory theories out there. Y'all haven't cracked the case. Why not admit it? Why not admit that it's time to try new avenues? The evidence should have steered JFK researchers to investigate ex-General Edwin Walker far more fully. But they didn't. It's been 50 years, and Walker died 20 years ago. Yet only now are historians beginning to stumble over what all these "people passionately studying the murder of President Kennedy for a good portion of their lives" have all overlooked. The main political connections of ex-General Walker were race segregation advocates. It is not a hoax to notice that. It is not a hoax to notice the common thread between Walker and Guy Banister, who was also a fanatic about race segregation. It is not a hoax to recognize that JFK was dead less than six months after his Civil Rights speech, after which violent acts against Civil Rights advocates sharply escalated. Why haven't the JFK researchers cracked the case after half a century? Could it be because they can't handle the truth? Regards, --Paul Trejo

Mark, what is the bottom line theory that Ed Epstein wishes to promote? If, as you say, he is an agent of disinformation, what false theory does he strive to vindicate? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul I think this is a massive jump and almost belongs on another thread - I have not studied the material related to Secret Service Complicity in any detail but - from the things I have seen, (mostly from James Fetzer), there is the stuff that happened after the first shots were fired (such a a limo stop) and the stuff before, such as the dog leg turn, stand-down, bubble dome removal etc. The stuff after the bullet can be argued to be down to (being kind) insufficient resources, equipment and training resulting in them getting it so wrong when under fire. The stuff before the bullet though - what evidence is there that the failings were unusual. Maybe standards slipped so low that those mistakes were being made regularly - did security take a marked dive when Kennedy became president or had it gotten lax well before then. When did security start to fail. Someone must have looked at this challenge as it seem a fairly obvious one and I would suspect there would be records; Manhole covers - check, windows - check, that kind of thing. Security was no doubt improved after the assassination, but that proves nothing. Lindsay, it's not a massive jump -- and after all, this is the KKK thread. If standards slipped so low for standard Presidential protection, then I feel confident in suspecting a conspiracy. Not necessarily a conspiracy involving everybody on the team, but a few key individuals in key places -- that would be the minimum required. Some say security started to fall when JFK began asking the Secret Service to procure girls for him. Others dispute that. But Presidential security isn't a new field of research -- the minimum standards were not upheld in Dallas. The crime evidence was shabbily handled in Dallas. The questioning of witnesses was shabbily handled. The protection of the key suspect was shabbily handled. The DPD had its hands in all of this. Furthermore, the DPD was responsible for sealing off the parking lot adjacent to the TSBD building. According to railroad man Lee Bowers, that was shabbily handled. Also, the DPD was notorious for its KKK connections. If there were secret KKK members in the FBI, CIA or Secret Service, then we have the requisite connections for a theory. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

If i were pressed for a guess today, I would say that the white-supremacist organizations in the South, led by two bitter losers, former FBI agent Guy Banister and resigned General Edwin Walker (the only US General to resign in the 20th century), could no longer tolerate the stress of the Civil Rights movement, and specifically JFK's Civil Rights speech of 11 June 1963. Both Banister and Walker were strongly tied to white-supremacist groups in the South, including the White Citizens' Council, the Citizens' Council Forum, the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission, the Louisiana State Sovereignty Commission, the Minutemen, the John Birch Society, and many others. The killing started the night of JFK's Civil Rights speech; with Medger Evers in Mississippi. Evers was the NAACP leader who supported James Meredith in being the first Black American to attend Ole Miss university in 1962, against the massive, violent protest of resigned General Edwin Walker. Walker led riots at Ole Miss in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed. I Then, on 15 September 1963, a Baptist Church in Birmingham Alabma was bombed, killing three Black children inside. These killings mark the entry of the KKK into the action. Although Cuban Exiles were invited to participate, they knew they were guests of the USA, and they needed a 'gringo' leader. Thus Guy Banister kept multiple squads of trained guerrillas at Lake Pontchartrain and invited nearby Minutemen and KKK to participate. Ex-General Edwin Walker was linked to Guy Banister not only by the white-supremacy organizations listed above, but also by specific individuals in a Cuban raiding group named, Interpen, led by Gerry Patrick Hemming, and including Loran Hall and Larry Howard, to name a few. These people visited Ex-General Walker in his Dallas home. Further, as a leader of the radical right in Dallas, Walker had many contacts in the Dallas Police Department (DPD). William Turner (1973) reports that KKK membership was a plus in applying for police work at the DPD. Thus, the white-supremacist element from Louisiana and Mississippi had allies in Dallas. The final step was to arrange for the patsy. That was the main job of ex-General Walker, along with Loran Hall and Larry Howard (according to Harry Dean's eye-witness account) and was admitted by Gerry Patrick Hemming to A.J. Weberman (when Hemming admitted he offered Lee Harvey Oswald double the price for his Manlicher-Carcano rifle on the black market if he'd bring it to the TSBD building on 11/22/1963). The sheep-dipping of Oswald involved a number of steps -- framing Oswald as an FPCC officer in New Orleans in newspapers, radio and TV -- getting Oswald to Mexico to convince him of the propriety of the actions used to manipulate him (which allegedly involved Guy Gabaldon, according to Harry Dean's eye-witness account) -- and getting Oswald back to Dallas. Evidently, before the trip to Mexico, Loran Hall and Larry Howard (Leopoldo and Angelo) dropped by Sylvia Odio's home to seek funds -- not knowing that Odio had previously seen Oswald in Dallas making rightist speeches before Cuban Exiles. (Hall and Howard believed Oswald was at least a double-agent.) In any case -- Oswald was framed by both Guy Banister and ex-General Walker, and both Banister and Walker had access to many paramilitary resources among the KKK, the Minutemen, and Cuban Exiles. Racist elements in the DPD would come in handy. Ex-General Walker, who was a 'green beret' before the Green Berets were invented, was entirely capable of directing 10,000 men -- so to direct a few dozen men in this Dallas operation would have been as easy as pie for him. The FBI, CIA and Secret Service were caught by surprise by this (unless you count a few rogue agents who were secret members of white-supremacist groups and could offer internal support). Once it happened, though, the FBI and CIA immediately agreed that the truth could never come out during the Cold War -- because it would have led to Civil War and that would have been fatal to the USA during the Cold War. For National Security reasons, Lee Harvey Oswald had to take the fall. That's my best guess today. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Terri, this is pretty important -- it is akin to material evidence. Insofar as Guy Banister was so plugged in to the racist movement in the South, through the massive resistance to the Supreme Court Brown decision, as a continual player inside the White Citizens' Council, the Louisiana Un-American Activities Committee, the Lousiana State Sovereignty Commission, the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission, the John Birch Society, the Louisiana Minutemen, the Anticommunist League of the Caribbean, and supported countless Cuban Exile groups -- we must expect to find him around the KKK. When the White Citizens' Councils were first formed, they started with the idea of Mississippi Senator James Eastland that the NAACP was Communist. They tried to capitalize on the Red Scare of Joe McCarthy to pound down the Civil Rights movement. It worked well. Trouble is, for the South, you really couldn't tell if a person was really Anticommunist, or only pretending to be an Anticommunist as a way to keep the Blacks down. It didn't matter for Guy Banister -- he wanted to run for public office on the race segregation platform -- by his own admission. He lived in Louisiana, but he enjoyed getting support from Mississippi, too. So, it makes sense that he would circulate among the KKK in Mississippi -- and it also makes sense that he would circulate in Hinds County, where the KKK had a major foothold. All of this makes sense -- and now historians should confirm or deny it. Insofar as it is true, then the next step becomes vital -- the plausibility of your claim that Guy Banister spoke freely at those KKK rallies in Terry and Byram in 1963, and proposed or developed the idea that JFK's "bubble dome" would be removed for his trip through Dallas. Here is where I come to value your input, Terri. The KKK was so prevalent in your home town that when you went to high school, the kids at school were open and free about discussing the results of the KKK rally as they heard it from their parents' home conversation. You heard that the "bubble dome" would be removed from JFK's limo, and that's exactly what happened. That cannot be a coincidence or an accident, IMHO. It is virtual proof that the JFK assassination was discussed (and at least partially planned) at that KKK rally. Now, you speculate that the only way to ensure that this plan was carried out in Dallas would be for those KKK fathers to be members of "the CIA or FBI or military or something," perhaps the Secret Service, to control the placement of the "bubble dome". There are plenty of JFK researchers today who are willing to name the Secret Service as complicit in the JFK assassination -- but you are the only one, to the best my knowledge, who suggests that the FBI, CIA, military or Secret Service conspired with the KKK. There is a temptation to make that leap -- but I think a link is still missing. In my opinion, any members of the KKK (which remains a secret society) could never disclose their membership to the FBI, CIA or Secret Service, which are Federal institutions that follow specific guidelines. So, while the possibility remains that rogue elements of these institutions might have been secret members of the KKK, we must discount the conclusion that the KKK was more or less openly active inside these public institutions. Yet there is another alternative. There was one official, public institution that was wide open to the KKK -- they were not a Federal institution, they were a city institution -- I speak of the Dallas Police Department (DPD). According to William Turner (1973), it was impossible to become a police officer in the DPD in 1963 without being a member of the KKK, the Minutemen or the John Birch Society -- and preferably all three. Now -- here is the place to take hold. The KKK would have had a major voice in the back rooms of the DPD -- and if there were any secret members of the KKK inside the FBI, CIA or Secret Service, they would have followed the directions of their leaders in the DPD. This stands to reason, IMHO, because the DPD was involved in every aspect of the JFK assassination -- and especially in bungling the evidence and the witnesses and in the protection of the lone suspect. Yet was Guy Banister a major leader in Dallas? Or would Banister hand that task over to ex-General Edwin Walker? Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

I can empathize with that, Terri -- it must seem as though justice was more than twarted -- it must seem betrayed. Perhaps I'm an incurable optimist, but I prefer to put a slightly more hopeful spin on these events -- it's slowly getting better, I like to say. Of course, I can accept that there were plenty of racists inside the FBI, but actually those racists could not come out in the open. Like gay people in the 1960's, they had to stay in the closet. That's the big difference between racists before the Civil War and racists after World War Two -- racists today are usually too shy to come out in the open -- even David Duke will pull his punches if cameras are rolling. Racists today tend to be bold only when among their closest friends. Things were quite different in the early days of General Robert E. Lee. By the way -- to express the honor of General Robert E. Lee, after the Civil War, at an Episcopal service on Sunday, there was one Black believer in the Church who stepped up to take Communion. Many of the parishoners were stunned -- but General Robert E. Lee walked up and knelt beside him, and took Communion next to that Black believer. That's true nobility, IMHO. (That story is courtesy Bishop Duncan Gray, the man who to this day says that ex-General Edwin Walker lied to the Mississippi Grand Jury when Walker told them he was at Ole Miss to calm the violence.) Anyway -- getting back to the JFK assassination, my positive spin is that J. Edgar Hoover evaded the prosecution of the KKK not because he was a member, but because he knew it would lead to a revival of the Civil War -- and during the Cold War, that would have been fatal to the USA. So, in the interest of National Security, Hoover covered up the truth. Yet notice that this perspective still validates part of your claim, Terri -- it recognizes that racism is still a major force in the USA, and is not to be trifled with. White-supremacy is still large (i.e. even 10% of the USA is still about 40 million people -- which is as large as some nations.) White supremacy is still dangerous. It cannot come out in the open because most Americans won't put up with it -- but it still has a home in various counties throughout the USA. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Thanks, Terri, every little bit helps when poring through old newspaper microfiche. Let's see if I have this correct now -- your house is located in Terry, Mississippi -- not Byram. There were KKK rallies close to your house. You mentioned the 1950's -- and that makes sense because KKK activity greatly increased in Mississippi when the Supreme Court ruled on 17 May 1954 that US public schools must be racially integrated. (Mississippi successfully evaded that law 100% for eight years.) The KKK rally took place in a nearby field surrounded by woods. I appreciate your extra effort to narrow the date down to the first three weeks in August, 1963. That's a big help for me. This, however, would have been the rally in Terry that you recall -- and not the rally in Byram. Also, there were more rallies in previous months in both towns, if I understand you correctly. Also, Guy Banister possibly visited both towns. Also, Guy Banister donated the green truck to the marshal of Terry, MS at an earlier time in 1963. That's how I understand this today. Now -- what makes me hesitate is that you don't believe that "there would have been anything written up about it in the Clarion Ledger." You would know far better than I about your own home town. I recognize that the KKK was secretive about their affairs, but I was hopeful because the Clarion Ledger still had a reputation for being racially insensitive in the early 1960s. Some people in Mississippi apparently called the Clarion Ledger the Klan Ledgah, with that charming Southern accent. Yet maybe the Clarion Ledger will not be the most fruitful place for me to dig. Perhaps this is why you dropped the name of Mr. Mitchell. It seems reasonable that I should find a trustworthy, local source who'd be willing to talk about Mississippi history 50 years ago, as long as I don't sound like the FBI. Just to be clear -- a story about Banister's green truck would be a dramatic find, but not really necessary for my purposes. I only want to confirm one and only one allegation -- that Guy Banister (the man whom Jim Garrison linked closely with Lee Harvey Oswald) attended KKK rallies in Terry and Byram Mississippi in the middle part of 1963. That would be a historical find, IMHO. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Yet it must be emphasized that even though Harry Dean was personally invovled in the one plot that succeeded in killing JFK, nevertheless he was not the leader of the plot, nor was he accountable, because Harry Dean reported all his findings to the FBI as they occurred. This is critical. What can we make of this situation? Did the FBI then know the JFK plot was brewing, but did nothing to prevent it? Or was J. Edgar Hoover personally involved, as many have charged, and wanted it to proceed? There is another, more benign scenario, namely, that the FBI was so busy watching so many plots to kill JFK, that they didn't have the manpower to control them all. It is at least possible that this plot took the FBI by surprise. If so, then J. Edgar Hoover had to quickly decide -- on the very day of the JFK assassination -- what his response would be. One quick glance at the players involved would tell him that the radical rightists were to blame -- but would he prosecute them and risk a Civil War in the USA? The was also the worry of LBJ, sitting on the powder keg of the Cold War and the nuclear button. By all means, it was mandatory to bring calm to the USA -- and the truth would most likely bring Civil War. Therefore -- in the interest of National Security, the FBI, the CIA and the Johnson Administration had to conceal the truth for 75 years. This was decided on 22 November 1963 -- that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone nut assassin -- and the Warren Commission would simply have to repeat this formula with a straight face. There was no other way. And Harry Dean would simply have to accept this as his American Fate. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

I believe you, Terri. I also want to applaud John Dolva for consistently guiding JFK researchers toward the KKK and the USA white-supremacist movement as highly suspicious suspects over several years on this Forum. The KKK should have been suspects early on -- but they weren't. What can we say about this? We should also bear in mind that you offered the FBI information about lynchings and so on in your home town -- and the FBI did nothing. We should step back and look at American History in general here -- for example, President Woodrow Wilson was openly tolerant of the KKK. Also, when President Calvin Coolidge tried to pass anti-lynching laws through Congress, Congress shut him down! My assessment is this -- nobody wants to fight the Civil War all over again. Americans live in hope that the KKK will simply fade away. We prefer to live in a dream-world that the KKK doesn't exist anymore. What a self-deceit. The FBI does not want to fight the KKK -- simply because there are not enough G-men in the USA to take on the entire KKK all at once. I think that should be clear. People who speak about the KKK being only a back-woods phenomenon don't know its real history -- how much power it exerted over Presidential candidates George Wallace and even Barry Goldwater in the South. The FBI is frustrated by the futility; you can't prosecute a crime where you can't find two witnesses -- that's the ancient rule. Thus, regarding the KKK, the FBI's hands are regularly tied. One can try to make the case that the FBI prevented the KKK from growing even bigger than it is -- and perhaps that's true. Yet it is a far cry from that point to claim that the KKK no longer exists, or that the KKK no longer dominates various counties in the South -- counties in which the average Yankee even today is smart enough to stay out. You won't find me researching the KKK in Mississippi. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

I highly recommend Harry Dean's manuscript because I believe one day it will be recognized to be one of the earliest authentic confessions of a true member of the JFK conspiracy. One of the most important aspects of Harry Dean's manuscript is his personal confession that he was personally involved in the plot to frame Oswald and kill JFK. It was the right thing to do, according to his comrades in arms, the John Birch Society, the Minutemen -- and Harry. The radical elements in the John Birch Society (ostensibly a white-collar group) along with the everyday elements of the Minutemen (a paramilitary group) would speak on a daily basis of the necessity of killing JFK. It was considered the patriotic thing to do. Yet for Harry Dean, who went along with the crowd, it was mostly a lot of talk and hot air. People liked to talk big -- he had heard this for two years. One day, at an exclusive, small meeting of the most radical and trusted elements of the Minutemen and the John Birch Society in Los Angeles, Harry sat down with Congressman John Rousselot, war hero Guy Gabaldon, his protoges Loran Hall and Larry Howard, and the talented liaison David Robbins. Harry further alleges that ex-General Edwin Walker attended that meeting, and he proudly announced that a Communist named Lee Harvey Oswald was sufficiently prepared to be made into the patsy of the Main Event. As Harry explains it, everybody at the meeting laughed and joked about the Communist who was going to take the fall for killing the Main Communist, JFK. Congressman Rousselot approved the idea, and then handed Guy Gabaldon a huge wad of cash to be the executive of this plan. His soldiers would be Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Harry Dean. David Robbins would be their liaison with the leaders -- Walker and Rousselot. Harry Dean played along -- as he had played along with dozens of other schemes in the John Birch Society, most of which came to nothing. So, when JFK was successfully killed, and when none other than Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested for the crime -- Harry's jaw dropped. It really happened! This is American History, IMHO. It may be another quarter century before Harry's account is accepted as genuine American History, but I'm convinced that the future is here today for those who take a good look. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Regarding Harold Weisberg, he was ahead of his time, as most researchers agree -- yet because he was so far out in front, he (like Jim Garrison) missed so much that was under his nose. For example, Weisberg supplies very little information about General Walker -- he doesn't dig deeply enough into the dynamics of Walker's involvement with both Lee Harvey Oswald and JFK throughout 1963. One great example is that a young man, Jack Martin, heard Weisberg and Shoerner speak at his university, and was so impressed that he brought them a gift -- it was his home movie (now called the Jack Martin film) in which the first part of the home movie was an exhibit of the holes in Walker's house from the 10 April 1963 shooting, and the second part of the movie was Oswald being arrested in New Orleans on 9 August 1963. The admitted genius, Harold Weisberg, simply did not see the connection between Walker and Oswald via this young Jack Martin. Weisberg asked Jack Martin for some background, and learned that Jack was a young soldier under General Walker in Augsburg, Germany in 1960-1961, and was fiercely loyal to Walker. After Walker was dismissed from his command on 17 April 1961 (same day as Bay of Pigs), Jack Martin missed the old man. After Jack Martin was honorably discharged, he returned to the USA and joined the Minutemen paramilitary group in Minnesota, and he obviously stayed in contact with General Walker -- and was invited to Walker's house in order to film Walker's bullet holes in the first part of that home movie. But Harold Weisberg was disinterested in all that -- the only thing that Weisberg and Schoerner wanted to investigate was the arrest of Oswald, and more specifically, all the faces of the people in the street at the time Oswald was arrested. They spent hours, days, weeks, trying to identify each face and the background of each face. In the end, they found nothing of great import in those faces, and they put the film on a shelf. It wasn't until I was reseaching General Walker last year, and I read Martin Shackelford's able description of the Jack Martin film, that it suddenly became clear that the Jack Martin film is a treasure because it materially links Walker with Oswald after the 10 April 1963 shooting and before the JFK assassination. Jack Martin knew Walker personally -- perhaps intimately. He was a guest in Walker's home. His film begins dramatically, with his taking an airplane trip to meet ex-General Edwin Walker. Then the bullet holes are carefully surveyed and catalogued. Then, we are transported to a park in New Orleans, on a lovely sunny day, observing the flowers and the statues -- but what's this? A commotion on Canal Street! Let's run over and see...well, it's Lee Harvey Oswald, handing out FPCC leaflets, and fighting with Carlos Bringuier, and the police arrive and haul them both away! Wow. Now let's get a close-up of one of the FPCC fliers on the sidewalk here. OK. Now let's pan up dramatically to the building tops for a classic ending. Does anybody else find this suspicious? This home-movie makes a material connection between the bullet holes in Walker's home with Lee Harvey Oswald, the Communist. It is a clear statement, IMHO, that a Communist was to blame for shooting at Walker. And this was the Communist. But how or why would Jack Martin select Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans? Jack didn't know Lee from Adam. Was it mere coincidence? I strongly doubt that. It makes far more sense to me that the young Jack Martin was instructed by ex-General Edwin Walker to film both the bullet holes in his home, and also the culprit who tried to kill him, Lee Harvey Oswald. We have evidence from General Walker's personal papers that he believed and repeated (for the rest of his life) that the authorities in Dallas arrested Oswald on the day of the shooting, and then set him free. How would Walker come to suspect that (even if it were partly true)? My theory says that somebody did tell Walker -- on Easter Sunday 1963 -- that Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter. Walker then immediately went into revenge mode, and coordinated with elements in New Orleans -- almost certainly starting with Guy Banister -- to sheep-dip Lee Harvey Oswald for a severe punishment. The Jack Martin film is the best material evidence I know about to support my theory. However, Harold Weisberg did not make that connection. Yet it was right under his nose. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Terri, I'm pursuing the Clarion Ledger angle. As it turns out, this is the biggest newspaper in all of Mississippi. Also, there are two editions -- statewide and metro. They did not always have the same articles. Should I try to focus on metro? To ease the load -- do you have any recollection of the exact month that this KKK rally took place? And if so, can you approximate the week? Did it happen close to the 4th of July, for example? Or some local holiday? Finally, you say it was down the street from you, so that would be in Byram, Mississippi, right? As for the fly-away condition of this thread, I fault those among your detractors who, unwilling to focus on the material evidence of possible KKK involvement in the JFK assassination, change the topic to your other claims on your blog -- knowing that it will muddy the waters here. You're doing a decent job at keeping things orderly -- but it's like herding cats. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Bernice, thanks for the Harold Weisberg memo -- it's a keepsake. As for that "man's name and his car being at Walker's house," here's the snippet from the memo: "What do you know of Charles F. Kilhr in Vol.22, p.586. His car at Walker's home sticks in the back of my mind but I can't recall what it is. Maybe it has something to db with his license plate number?" Now, in this memo Weisberg's mind is racing 150 miles an hour -- if he had slowed down and taken a deep breath he might have remembered that General Walker himself was asked about Charles F. Kilhr by Warren Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler in 1964. Here's a snippet of that testimony: ------------------------------- Begin 23 July 1964 testimony of Walker for Warren Commission ----------------- Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a document, a picture which is a copy of Commission Exhibit No. 5 and ask you if you recognize the scene portrayed in that picture? General WALKER. I recognize my house in this picture. Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize anything else? Specifically, I draw your attention to the automobile that is shown in there. General WALKER. I do not recognize the car. Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Charles Klihr? General WALKER. Would you spell it again? Mr. LIEBELER. I will spell it right in just a minute. K-l-i-h-r. 2046 Rosebud Street, Irving, Texas. Do you know that man? General WALKER. Not that spelling. I know a Charles Clyr. As I know the spelling, it is C-l-y-r. Mr. LIEBELER. Does he live out in Irving? General WALKER. I think he does. Mr. LIEBELER. Would you recognize his address? General WALKER. I wouldn’t recognize his address. I don’t recognize that address. That could or couldn’t be it. Mr. LIEBELER. How about that car, do you recognize that as his car? General WALKER. I don’t recognize that car. Mr. LIEBELER. This gentleman that we may be talking about, we may be talking about the same man, is a volunteer worker for you from time to time? General WALKER. If it is the one I am referring to, he is in and out quite often, right. He and his wife have helped me quite a bit. Mr. LIERELER. But you aren’t able to identify that car as being his? General WALKER. No; I am not. Mr. LIEBELER. Does that car appear to be a 1957 Chevrolet? Or aren’t you able to tell by looking? General WALKER. I am not able to tell. I am not very good on cars. ...<change of topic>... Mr. LIEBELER. Going back to the record on this Klihr, it does appear, in fact, to be K-l-i-h-r. General WALKER. Why don’t we ring the house and establish that that is correct. LA l-4415. (General Clyde Watts called on phone and confirmed it was K-l-i-h-r.) General WALKER. What is it? General WATTS. K-l-i-h-r. General WALKER. All right; ‘that is the original spelling you had? Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. General WALKER. OK; that is correct. It is Charles Klihr. Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Robert Allen Surrey? General WALKER. Yes, I do. Mr. LIEBELER. Has Mr. Surrey discussed with you the fact that on June 3, 1964, he was interviewed by an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and shown a picture, or a copy of a picture similar to Commission Exhibit No. 5, which showed this automobile behind your house with the license plate obliterated on it? Did he tell you he had been asked about that? General WALKER. He told me about a picture being shown to him of the back side of my house, and I believe he referred to it showing some automobile or automobiles being behind the house, but I don’t remember any reference to that car or the hole in it. There wasn’t any reference to that car, if that is a hole in the car. Mr. LIEBELER. I represent to you that Commission Exhibit No. 5 that we have here is a copy of an original photograph, which in fact had a hole torn in there right where the black part is on the car. The original picture itself has a hole right through there. General WALKER. Then it is not a hole in the car? Mr. LIEBELER. No; it is a hole in the original photograph, of which this thing I show you now is a copy. General WALKER. Oh, I see. Mr. LIEBELER. I thought exactly what you thought the tlrst time I looked at it; that that was a hole in the car. It is not. It is a hole in the picture. General WALKER. He referred to being shown pbotographs with the back of the premises and the car or something back there. Mr. LIEBELER. But you don’t remember him telling you that he was able to identify this as Charles Klihr’s car? General WALKER. No: I don’t remember that he identied the car. <end of questioning about Klihr> ------------------------------- End 23 July 1964 testimony of Walker for Warren Commission ----------------- Now, in my opinion, ex-General Walker is here playing cat-and-mouse with Liebeler, and Liebeler is eating out of Walker's hand. Walker demands to check the spelling of the name. "Let's call them up and ask them how they spell their name!" "OK!" And Walker plays cute: "Oh, that's a hole in the picture, and not a hole in the car itself?" And Liebeler fauns back, "I thought exactly the same thing you did!" I get an impression that Walker is playing "dumb old man" and Liebeler believes he should patronize this "dumb old man," but really it is Liebeler who is being patronized. Getting back to the facts at hand -- Charles Klihr and his wife were members of the "Friends of Walker" organization, and they volunteered their time to Walker's American Eagle Publishing Company from time to time. Marina Oswald remembered that photograph -- before there was a hole in the picture where the license plate used to be. This suggests that Oswald took this picture when he was scoping out Walker's back yard. Now, the modus operandi of the FBI is to protect the innocent by blacking out their names every chance they get. Yet Liebeler was told that the photo with the hole in it was the "original". Thus, IMHO, this is more evidence that the FBI regularly lied to the Warren Commission -- a fact that has already been well-established. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

It's a good question, David, and I've considered it before. It's similar to the question posed by Robert Morrow on this Forum last year, namely, why would Walker continue to needle the Government about the Warren Commission bullet for years after the event -- knowing that would continue to throw light on himself? Robert felt certain that nobody would do that. My answer to your question will be similar to my answer to Robert's question -- the question doesn't fully appreciate the chutzpah of ex-General Edwin Walker -- the only US General to resign in the 20th century. Edwin Walker -- as a Major General and as a citizen, was prone to dramatic acts. He was a great World War 2 hero -- highly decorated. Yet he never married, and to the best of our information in his personal papers, he never had a girlfriend. Yet, if he was gay, that was a court-martial offense in the US Army from 1931-1961, when he served. Think of the emotional strain on Walker if he was secretly gay and also a Major General in those days. We also know that after two years in General Douglas MacArthur's home town, Little Rock, Arkansas, keeping the peace for the Brown decision on behalf of President Eisenhower, Major General Edwin Walker fell in with Robert Welch and his infamous John Birch Society. Robert Welch taught his followers that FDR, Truman and Eisenhower were all Communists. (This is printed in the 1959 edition of Welch's Black Book (cf. Ernie Lazar)). As a direct result of this, General Walker submitted his resignation to the US Army in 1959 -- during the Eisenhower administration. He cited as his reason a "fifth column conspiracy," i.e. he was too bashful to tell Eisenhower the plain truth. Note that resignation from the Army is a hostile act -- it is not the same as retirement. Walker could have easily retired and then lived any way he wanted to live. But when an officer resigned from the Army, that officer foreited his pension. What a rash act! It's hard to fathom this -- he served for 28 years in the US Army and was highly decorated and rose to the rank of Major General -- and then he chose to be the only US General to resign in the 20th century -- and gave up his 28 year pension! That is not the act of a normal, rational person. That's my first suspicion with Walker. In his stay in Germany, he told his brother Frank that he was hounded by the Overseas Weekly and other locals from the very first weeks he arrived in Germany. His very words were that they "hate my guts." Here's the letter; notice the date: http://www.pet880.co...to_Frank_01.JPG He was hounded by the Overseas Weekly reporter assigned to the base, Siegfried Naujocks, who noticed that General Walker did not attend social functions at the base like other officers -- but went off on his own at night. Where did he go? Now, you and I don't care where he went -- that's his business. But this was the US Army in 1960 -- and we know very well that people cared very much. Naujocks did not report that Walker was meeting Nazi citizens (though he might have been meeting Gerhard Frey). Naujocks did not report that Walker was going to homosexual parties (though these were not uncommon in Germany after the war). Instead, Naujocks snooped around a story that Walker might have a brain tumor. Notice in that same letter to Frank Walker that Edwin Walker used the word 'blackmail' to describe his treatment. Anyway, after Walker quit the Army, he formed a fast relationship with segregationist Reverend Billy James Hargis -- who later in life lost his Church School in a scandal involving his homosexual activities. Walker came out of the Army strong -- he moved to nice neighborhood in Dallas (without any visible means of support) and he copyrighted six speeches. His speeches were received by large crowds that gave him multiple standing ovations. (To get an idea of his initial reception, one should see the reception received by the character played by Burt Lancaster in the 1964 movie, Seven Days in May, which was patterned after Walker.) He was a sight to behold. (All his copyrighted speeches are on my website at www.pet880.com, which is a work in progress.) He thought he could be Govenor of Texas at this time, and H.L. Hunt thought so too, so H.L. Hunt bankrolled Walker's campaign. In all of his speeches Walker promised his audiences that he would be vindicated by the upcoming Senate Subcommittee hearings in April, 1962, sponsored by rightist Senators Strom Thurmond and John Stennis. When those Senate hearings came and went, Walker was widely perceived as a big loser. He could preach to the choir, but he fumbled for words under cross-examination. (Two psychiatrists reviewing his performance in those hearings independently came to the conclusion that Walker showed signs of a persecution complex, and delusions of grandeur). Partly as a result of his pitiful showing at the Senate Subcommittee hearings in April 1962, Walker finished in last place in the race for Texas Governor in May 1962. Now Walker was completely out of the mainstream game. He could no longer give his full copyrighted speeches which promised his vindication within the Senate Subcommittee. His political dreams were dashed by his first bid for office. He quickly faded from national interest. Nevertheless, Walker's fame among the extreme right-wing underground in the South was at an all-time high. Walker still had an audience -- but now they included elements like White Citizens' Council interactions with the KKK. If that sounds a bit unstable -- wait until you see his next performance. When James Meredith chose to be the first Black American to attend Ole Miss University in Oxford, Mississippi in the fall of 1962, and Ross Barnett vowed to reject his application no matter what the Supreme Court said, and JFK vowed to send Federal troops to Ole Miss (in the same way that Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock) ex-General Edwin Walker promptly wrote an insulting open letter to JFK. Here is the letter: http://www.pet880.co...Open_Letter.JPG In addition, Walker went onto radio and newspaper and called for protesters, "ten thousand strong from every State in the Union" to join him in Mississippi to confront those Federal troops, and support Ross Barnett. Suddenly the FBI reported movements from many US States, especially Minutemen, KKK, paramilitary militia and more, sometimes with cars and trucks full of weapons, to join ex-General Walker in Mississippi. Here is some evidence: http://www.pet880.co...ker_on_TV_1.JPG Here is a video of the aftermath: This simply did not sound like rational behavior to JFK, RFK and their advisors, and they chose to remand Walker to an insane asylum. Now -- it remains possible that Walker's sanity really was on the shaky side. If that was really the case, David, then my answer to your question would be complete. Why expect an irrational person to act in a rational way? However, this is politics -- where the response to such questions is always: "you get your psychiatrists and we'll get ours." Walker and his cronies got their own psychiatrists, and in just a few days of bureacratic red tape, Walker was free to go. NEXT, Walker had to perjure himself to a Grand Jury to get himself acquitted in late January, 1963. I know this for a fact because of the eye-witness testimony of Duncan Gray -- then a Priest, and today a retired Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Oxford, Mississippi. Walker told the Grand Jury he never led a charge, but was on the Ole Miss campus to calm the students and rioters down. Duncan Gray told me personally (and other reporters) that Walker blatantly lied to the Grand Jury. Walker not only directed multiple charges against the Federal troops, but he also directed students to knock down and beat up Duncan Gray who was there to calm the students and rioters down. I'd personally accept the word of an Episcopalian Bishop over the word of a paranoid, BIrcher, ex-General any day. NEXT, Walker does not accept his victory quietly -- he and his attorneys Robert Morris and Clyde Watts devise a plan to sue every national newspaper that reprinted the AP story that Edwin Walker led a charge at Ole Miss. They tallied that they would make more than $30 million dollars from their lawsuits, if they one every single one. (That amounts to more than $300 million today, adjusted for inflation). Here is one tally of their lawsuits: http://www.pet880.co...Walker_v_AP.JPG Walker and his attorneys really got their hopes up. Walker would promise to support radical groups "in the future" when his money came in. They sued and sued for more than three solid years. Yet, IMHO, Walker himself, inwardly a man of honor, knew that this was all based on his perjury. NEXT Walker set up a coast to coast right-wing speaking tour with Billy James Hargis, called Operation Midnight Ride, billed as an Anticommunist crusade, but was actually a John Birch festival of accusing all US Presidents since FDR of being Communist. This is not normal right-wing behavior -- this is over the edge. This is tantamount to treason. No wonder JFK felt compelled to give his "flouride" speech in response to this nonsense. After nine weeks of non-stop speeches from Miami to Los Angeles, the tired men returned home, and the very next night Edwin Walker barely escaped assassination at the hands of a sniper in his Dallas living room. Just two days before, Robert Allen Surrey (leader of the American Nazi Party in Dallas, who held an office at Walker's home) had reported to the DPD that two men had been snooping around Walker's backyard. After the shooting, a neighbor boy sighted two men running into a car in a parking lot behind Walker's alley, and speeding away. To the end of his days, Walker was certain of two things: (1) that there were two shooters in that party; and (2) that JFK and RFK sent the shooters. Days before Marina Oswald told the FBI that Lee Harvey Oswald was Walker's shooter on 10 April 1963, Edwin Walker told a German rightwing newspaper, Deutsche Nationalzeitung, that Oswald was his shooter, and that Oswald had been sent by RFK. Here is a fragment of that newspaper story: http://www.pet880.co...Deutsche_NZ.jpg As I said, Walker stuck to that story to the end of his days. There are many examples, but I'll supply only one more, his very final example, about a year before he died: http://www.pet880.co...ld_arrested.pdf Was Walker paranoid? Did he suffer from delusions of grandeuer? Or was he simply a publicity hound? Did he love the spotlight above all else? My first answer to your question, David, is that Walker might have been mildly insane -- and this would be a reasonable answer to your question about why he might behave irrationally. My second answer to your question, however, is the real possibility that, given that Walker was legally sane, he was possibly also a life-long expert at deception, expert at keeping secrets (e.g. his secret gay lifestyle), and an expert at manipulation. Walker lied to the Mississippi Grand Jury, according to Bishop Duncan Gray -- does anybody then doubt Walker would lie to the Warren Commission? For nearly five years Walker broadcast in his speeches and on his lawn the standard John BIrch Society slogan: IMPEACH EARL WARREN! With such self-righteous animosity toward Earl Warren, does anybody believe that ex-General Edwin Walker would hesitate one minute from playing cat and mouse with Wesley Liebeler? Read his WC testimony again with that in mind -- and notice how Walker even turns the tables on Liebeler and begins to interrogate Liebeler! Walker toyed with the Warren Commission. (The entire wasted testimony of Warren Reynolds was engineered by ex-General Walker to deliberately waste their time -- that should now be intuitively obvious to the casual observer.) And that would be a fitting second answer to your question, David. Walker toyed with the Warren Commission and won. He enjoyed teasing them for years afterwards -- and teasing the HSCA as well. Either that -- or Walker was mad as a hatter -- or possibly a bit of both. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Daniel, anybody who is so cruel and insulting as to repeatedly call another member mentally unstable in a public Forum should be sued -- that's only common justice. I hope justice is swiftly done in this case, as I never want to read such cruelty on this Forum again. At the very least the culprit owes a public apology. Regards, --Paul Trejo P.S. I read your study of the biblical figure of John the Baptist, and IMHO you give far too much weight to Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack -- two of the most rutted sources out there.

Tom, I tried to set my FORUM profile to "ignore" your posts, yet because you're a "moderator" that isn't allowed by the FORUM software. Lucky me. Anyway -- my theory about ex-General Edwin Walker is supported by a growing cache of material evidence, including (1) Walker's resignation from the Army in 1959 when he joined the John Birch Society and heard that Eisenhower was a "Communist"; (2) Walker's dismissal from his command over 10,000 troops in Germany for calling President Truman a "Communist"; (3) Walker's deeper involvement with the race segregation elements in the South, like the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission, the White Citizens' Councils, the Lousiana White Education Commission, and so much more; (4) Walker's humilitation at the Senate Subcomittee in April 1962; (5) Walker's humiliation in losing his bid for Texas Governor which was financed by H.L. Hunt; (6) Walker's deeper involvement in the racist politics in the South, through Faubus, Ross Barnett, George Wallace, and Guy Banister; (7) Walker's open challenge to JFK at Ole Miss university on 30 September 1962 by eliciting thousands of violent "protestors" to Oxford, Mississippi and leading charges against thousands of Federal troops, causing riots in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed -- and then he lost; (8) Walker's humiliation by being sent to the Springfield, Illinois military insane asylum by JFK and RFK; (9) Walker's super-humiliation in having to perjure himself before a Mississippi Grand Jury in order to be acquitted [according to Bishop Duncan Gray]; (10) Walker's coast-to-coast speaking tour with segregationist Reverend Billy James Hargis in which he finally came out publicly as a personal racist; (11) Walker's narrow escape of being shot by a sniper at his house -- a sniper he presumed, to the end of his life was sent by JFK and RFK; (12) Walker's deeper descent into the rightist underground including Lake Pontchartrain, Interpen, Cuban Exiles and the plot to make Lee Harvey Oswald a patsy [according to Harry Dean]. This is still only a theory, but it's a new theory -- after 50 years of flailing by the JFK research community, repeating the same stale ideas over and over again -- without material evidence. Honestly -- we get tired of the same old stuff year after year. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Nice post, Lindsay. I'm going to pursue the Clarion Ledger as aggressively as I can. It's totally worth a pound. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Good for you, Terri. Such cantankerous talk deserves to be shut down quickly. Offering psychological help without a license might be illegal, for that matter. Perhaps a lawsuit is in order. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Actually, just ascribing guilt to Allen Dulles for the JFK murder -- without material evidence -- is no better than ascribing guilt to Lee Harvey Oswald on circumstantial evidence. We didn't accept it with Oswald -- why should we accept it with Dulles? Just because Dulles was rich and powerful? That's not a reason, that's a cheap shot. There is far more material evidence that links ex-General Edwin Walker to the JFK assassination -- and I can cite posts by John Dolva on this point -- the radical right wing had the motive, means and opportunity in Dallas -- and Walker was not just a member, he was a leader of the radical right in 1963. Walker's connections with Guy Banister (whom Jim Garrison linked to Lee Harvey Oswald quite well) links Walker with Oswald in the summer of 1963. This is material evidence, people. The only case anbody has against Dulles is pure subjective speculation. One can at the very best make the case that Dulles was a curious observer of the Dallas/New Orleans plot unfolding before his eyes, and that he did nothing to prevent it. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Terri, your eye-witness account conforms to common sense. It amazes me that you continue to receive so much flack about it. Best regards, --Paul Trejo