Paul Trejo

Craig, thanks for this quotation from the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) report of 1979. This report makes the claim that Malcolm Thomson reversed his opinion, and that John Pickard reversed his opinion. It does not provide direct quotations for these experts, but speaks for them; in any case I will waive that point for the moment. You have supplied official evidence, and I thank you for your contribution. I will note, however, that Robert Blakey, who took control of the HSCA in 1977, was very sensitive to the Backyard photographs, and he seemed to move heaven and earth to draw attention away from Lee Harvey Oswald and onto Mafia figures like Johnny Roselli, Charles Nicoletti, Sam Giancana, Santos Trafficante and Carlos Marcello. Mafia involvement in the JFK assassination seems to be Blakey's obsession, and regarding the Backyard photographs, Blakey said: If [the backyard photographs] are invalid, how they were produced poses far-reaching questions in the area of conspiracy, for they evince a degree of technical sophistication that would almost necessarily raise the possibility that [someone] conspired not only to kill the President, but to make Oswald a patsy.” (Robert Blakey, 1978) However, for the sake of argument, I will suspend my suspicions about these HSCA claims that Thomson and Pickard reversed their opinions, and I will assume, arguendo, that the HSCA was telling the truth about them. Given that, I am intrigued about using Adobe Photoshop to get my own hands on these photographs. To my naked eye, the head on CE-133A looks too big for its body when compared with CE-133B. But optical illusions can be tricky, so I want to quantify my observations. My main problem today is obtaining an appropriate reproduction of the photographs, CE-133A, 133A-DeMohrenschilt, CE-133B and 133C-Dees in digital format. When I go to the official Warren Commission Exhibits, for example, they offer only JPEG a couple inches long. What's the best online source for a reproduction of these photos, Craig? Thanks, --Paul Trejo

Daniel, I'm aware that Walker visited Byron de la Beckwith during his trial for the murder of Medgar Evers, the mentor of James Meredith. I'm also aware that Byron de la Beckwith was one of the most outspoken white-supremacists of his time. Nor did I ever cast doubt on John Dolva's assertion that -- at some level -- General Walker was a racist. I fully agreed that all of his associates were white-supremacists of one stripe or another. My only request to John -- and to anybody who can help -- was for a sentence from General Walker himself, whether in his published writings or in a recorded interview or speech, that was blatantly racist. It's a simple request. It matters for history. I have searched for more than a solid year and can't find one single sentence of white-supremacy in all the collected speeches of ex-General Edwin Walker. That surely doesn't mean that I doubt his committment to his comrades who were all white-supremacists. I'm looking for his own words. John Dolva, who is one of the most capable researchers I know about, could not locate such a sentence, either. That's valuable because that confirms my own findings. Nor is my intent to blur the lines of white-supremacy. My intent is to find psychological nuance in the subject under examination. Walker appears to have been a military leader but an intellectual dependent. To disprove this theory I will need some direct statements from the man himself about his beliefs about white-supremacy. If the nuances in my research are confusing now, I assure you they'll become crystal clear by the time I'm finished. Regards, --Paul Trejo

I'd also very much like to see such examples. --Paul

No, Craig, actually, I never read anywhere that Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ever agreed that CE-133A and CE-133B and its variations were legitimate. In fact, I've been hunting for this in Google, and in amazon.com, etc. since your latest post, and I can't find this reference. I'd appreciate a reference or a citation so that I could read Thompson's alleged retraction myself. It would make a significant difference in my opinion. I do have footage on video of Thompson examining the Backyard photographs and concluding that they're fake. I'd very much appreciate reading any retraction he might have made. Thanks, --Paul Trejo

You're mistaken, Craig. I'm interested only in the truth, as well as correcting any errors I might have made. It still seems perfectly obvious to me that the SIZE of the heads is identical -- and that the right-side of the head (from the viewer's perspective) doesn't change in the slightest -- from the hair to the ear to the chin. The shadows and retouches on the lips are easily explained. It seems to me that the proof is right before your eyes, and yet you are the one who denies it. If you have a point to make, why not resort to the English language? OK, Craig, now that's just plain wrong -- when did I even mention the background plate? What is clear to me is that the photo that George De Mohrenschildt had of Oswald -- the one signed on the back -- had a much larger background than CE-133A. I never said the backgrounds matched. You keep asking me to do the work -- but that's bizarre -- I don't have the equipment or the training to do photographic analysis. That's why I rely on experts like Malcom Thompson and John Pickard. That's perfectly legitimate. Finally, I'm not pushing any fantasy, I'm fishing for information. If you have something positive to say -- aside from insults and wisecracks, I'd be open to reading it. The findings of John Pickard are expert findings -- and you haven't explained (in English) why you reject his findings. So, why bother even responding here? Regards, --Paul Trejo

Peter, it's true that over the years I've come to defend LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, the FBI and the CIA more than I expected to. I don't believe Oswald was JFK's shooter -- although I do believe that Oswald was up to his neck in the JFK conspiracy. The missing piece is the General Walker shooting. To deal with this, I've found that most critics of the Warren Commission do a terrible job of trying to dismiss the Walker shooting -- i.e. they will develop elaborate, ridiculous CIA theories with fictitious plots going back to 1962 and even 1961. It's all bizarre invention, worthy of Rube Goldberg. The Backyard photographs were faked -- I do agree with that -- however, I think it was Lee Harvey Oswald himself who faked them when he worked at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall (and that was why he was fired from there in late March, 1963). When I affirm that Oswald was deeply involved in the JFK assassination, some theorists suspect that I'm a cover-up artist, or that I'm just trying to get back to the Warren Commission. But I'm not. The Warren Commission insisted on a Lone Nut shooter, and I reject that 100%. Still, the best eye-witness testimony we will ever possess in this case is from the Warren Commission (and from Mark Lane; yet Mark Lane was also a witness for the Warren Commission). (As for Blackbird -- it's not so hard. You won't need three full months if you analyze the chord progression.) Best regards, --Paul Trejo

That's OK, Peter, we can agree to disagree. It seems to me that perhaps most JFK theorists are content to identify some high-ranking citizens to blame for the JFK conspiracy, and leave it at that. It's too much work just to get to that point. As one JFK theorist wisely said -- "there's probably something wrong with knowing more about one day 50 years ago than about my own family." Nevertheless, the JFK conspiracy is perhaps the most engaging murder mystery in American history. Identifying the exact shooters is going to become increasingly possible as technology continues to computerize, digitize and become ever more micro. I will say this -- Joachim Joesten failed to identify the ground crew. He wrote several books on this topic precisely because his theory kept on changing, year after year. For example, the book under discussion, How Kennedy was Killed, was written on the eve of the Jim Garrison investigation, and Joesten was really hoping for a breakthrough from Jim Garrison. Nope. Nothing. Clay Shaw walked away a free man. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Peter, I liked your idea that the JFK assassination emerged from American dysfunction. That topic goes beyond Joachim Joesten. Attempting to blame individuals can only help us if we're aiming for the ground-crew (which we should). High-level people were only representatives of the truly guilty party -- the American Zeitgeist. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

So, clearly we're not going to get rational debate from our photographic "experts" who don't have to explain anything to anybody. Fine -- so I will actively exclude those "experts" in my pursuit of information from others in this thread who do accept the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald's Backyard Photographs were altered. For those who do suspect that the Backyard photographs might have been faked, I would like to propose that Lee Harvey Oswald himself created those fakes, and he did so using equipment at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall (JCS). I believe this is exactly why Oswald was fired from JCS. The dates of the (alleged) fakes seems to match up exactly to the date of his firing. I once read that Oswald creeped out one of his co-workers at JCS by using his hand as a make-believe-gun, pointing his finger at his co-worker and whispering, 'pow!' That would not be exceptionally creepy as an act all by itself, but if this was combined with Oswald's being loose and free with his Backyard photos there at the workplace of JCS, that would be way too creepy to tolerate. I would like to ask the managers at JCS why Oswald was fired. I would like to look at Oswald's personnel file, and view any complaints about any obsession with guns. Remember - I'm not setting up a "lone nut" scenario here. While my theory does suggest that Oswald lacked discretion, that is tangental to my point, which is that we can explain alterations to the Backyard photographs without recourse to any CIA or FBI conspiracy. In my theory, Marina only needed to take one photograph (as she distinctly remembered she did). Oswald dressed all in black so that his "double" could easily dress the same way. Oswald planned the entire Backyard photograph controversy, IMHO, so that he could later have plausible deniability.. We know, also, that fragments from cardboard cutouts of the Backyard photographs were found at the DPD station. IMHO, they came from the managers at JCS, trying to be helpful in showing Oswald's darker side. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Yes, I agree, Peter, that the truth of the JFK assassination forces us to look at our American dysfunction. Yet awareness is the beginning of all change for the better -- so maybe this will all be worthwhile. The useful portrait by Joesten in this book (but not in all his books, IMHO) is the portrait of a nation that was divided against itself. To understand America in 1963 we must try to reconstruct a history before the Vietnam War. That is outside the memory of perhaps most baby-boomers. But if we can reconstruct it, we would find, IMHO, that the most divisive issue at that time was over the racial integration of public schools. In other words, the whole Civil Rights thing -- which we pretty much take for granted today -- was not at all taken for granted in 1963. Before James Meredith was allowed to attend Ole Miss University, not far from where he lived, America had to suffer through a race riot in late 1962, in which thousands of protesters clashed with thousands of federal troops, and hundreds were wounded and two were killed. In this capable book, An American Insurrection (2002), Willam Doyle described the hesitation of the National Guard, the Mississippi Highway Patrol, the State Troopers and even some Military men, to comply with JFK's orders. The problem was not always about the racial integration of a University -- the problem was often about whether the Federal Government had the moral right to occupy a State with troops to force it to comform to a Supreme Court Law which was under appeal. It was a question of States' Rights. Clearly there are still open issues with regard to American public schools today, including bussing, crime, birth control and a full host of issues that followed upon the heels of Brown v. The Board of Education (1954). Within weeks of this decision, a new phenomenon arose in the USA, namely, White Citizens' Councils. These were non-violent organizations, set-up coast to coast, that promised to oppose the Brown decision with every breath they took. They selected Senators, Governors, Congressmen, Military men and distinguished professional men all across America to speak to crowds of thousands on their behalf, and they flourished for nearly 20 years. This was not only a Southern movement. But in 1963, these issues were new and fresh, and there were many conservative men -- men in Government, and men in the Armed forces -- who were disturbed by them. Terri Williams claims that the KKK took on a new life when the Civil Rights movement came to Mississippi in the late 1950's. They were soon joined in 1961 by two youthful and well-endowed new groups -- the paramilitary Minutemen who vowed to defend the USA against Communist invaders (since they doubted JFK's loyalty), and the John Birch Society, who vowed to preserve Joseph McCarthy's dogma that all the Presidents of the USA since FDR were full-fledged Communists. Among this new wave of rightists in the USA we can find Guy Banister and ex-General Edwin Walker as leaders and speakers. The avid Anticommunism of J. Edgar Hoover remained opposed to the KKK and the John Birch Society, however, those distinctions were too complicated for lesser minds -- and many, many respectable and conservative gentlemen, even in positions of authority and local government, would join the John BIrch Society and even the Minutemen in 1963. Given these sentiments, we should not be too surprised, that after the brilliant "I Have A Dream" speech by Martin Luther King, Jr., following JFK's own Civil Rights speech, that the right-wing in America -- and especially in the South -- and perhaps especially in Dallas -- would be on the defensive. On the defensive in Dallas? This was proved when, only one month before JFK's trip to Dallas, UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson made the mistake of speaking in downtown Dallas. Had he not read the John Birch Society dictum; that the UN is Communist? What was he thinking? Heckled beyond toleration inside the auditorium, he was spat upon and battered outside the auditorium. We should not blame the city of Dallas so much -- things would have gone worse for Adlai if he had chosen Mississippi as his speaking venue. This was not the act of a few hot-heads. This was the act of a grass-roots movement of millions of Americans in 1963. Their leaders were well-known to the press. It was all too clear that the USA was divided against itself. So, when JFK chose, only four weeks later, to drive in an open car motorcade through Dallas, he would not be allowed to escape alive. Insofar as this was a grass-roots movement, we cannot be surprised to hear reports that the DPD supported this conspiracy, and that even some rogues within the Secret Service would cooperate. That is the way it goes with a true grass-roots movement. Joachim Joesten, writing from his apartment in Europe, was able to surmise these sociological nuances from the outside -- while we Americans were almost incapable of this sort of introspection and self-criticism. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Craig, the two photos that you capably superimposed in your animation, taken from CE-133A and CE-133B, are clear evidence that the SIZE of the head does not change between the two. Neither does the position of the ears. Neither does the position of the nose. The size of the body upon the photograph paper of CE-133A is a full 2cm smaller than the size of the body upon the photograph paper of CE-133B -- and yet the heads are the same SIZE? Why doesn't that register with you as a photographic impossibility? You are clearly capable as a photographic technician -- yet are you a qualified photography expert, capable of legally recognized expertize on photographic forensics like Thompson and Pickard? Also, your dismissals of Thompson and Pickard are hasty and flippant, without a scientific basis. Do you have any objective basis for your criticism? Regards, --Paul Trejo

Bump

Peter, FWIW, Robert and I agree on many points of the JFK controversy, and I'm grateful that he helped me become a member of this FORUM about fifteen months ago. Yet I continue to differ with Robert on the topic of the involvement of LBJ in the assassination of JFK. I read three books written in 2011 that attempt to blame LBJ, namely, Blood, Money & Power (416 pages) by Barr McClellan, also, LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination (658 pages) by Philip Nelson, as well as, LBJ and the Conspiracy to Kill Kennedy (344 pages) by Joe Farrell. All these books are flawed by melodrama, bias, one-sided logic and a substitution of shock value for evidence. IMHO these are made-for-money books of historical fiction. The template for all books that blame LBJ for killing JFK was written in 1991 by Craig Zirbel, namely, Texas Connection (323 pages). In my opinion this is still the best of the lot. Zirbel is biased, yes, but he is also openly emotional and does not pretend to be objective about his hatred for LBJ. Barr McLellan himself summarized things best when he said that LBJ knew nothing at all regarding the details of the JFK assassination, because he left everything to his lawyer, Edward Clark. Yet, allegations that Ed Clark orchestrated the JFK assassination amount to hearsay and rumor. But McLellan at least admits -- while blaming LBJ for the JFK assassination, that "LBJ knew nothing at all" about what was entailed. Some mastermind. The book by Craig Zirbel is an emotional outburst of the first caliber. It is worth reading for its entertainment value. As for proving a case against LBJ, it is even less effective than the Warren Commission case against Oswald. That said, I would like to return to Joesten's theory that the DPD was deeply involved in the crime itself. Would you care to comment about that? Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Craig, you've ignored the testimony of two expert photographers, the first, Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, worked for thirty years in the Forensic Science Laboratory and Photographic Unity in the British Police Force. Thompson was a legally qualified expert in photographic analysis. His job was to spot photographic fakes. Thompson immediately noticed in WC Exhibit 133-A that the area between Oswald's head and the wooden pillar behind him had been "re-touched" by an artist. That prompted Thompson to examine the photos in minute detail. He was the first to record that the chin on the exhibits is flat, while Oswald had a pointed chin. Thompson concluded about the photos, "they're fake." The second expert photographer I cited that you chose to ignore, is Major John Pickard, Commanding Officer of the Canadian Air Force Photographic Department. Pickard is another legally qualified expert in photographic analysis. Pickard is the one who noticed that the heads of CE-133A and CE-133B are exactly the same size, although the bodies on the paper are are almost a full inch (2 cm) different. That's a photographic impossibility. So, Pickard made two transparencies of the heads from the two photographs -- one blue and one red. Then he superimposed the two transparencies, and he noted that the heads matched up exactly. The SIZE of the head, the position of the eyes and ears -- all match EXACTLY -- that is 100%. Yet the bodies were standing in different positions, and in different distances to the camera. His expert conclusion was that the same picture of the head was pasted onto two different photographs. This is hard evidence from two forensic experts, Craig. Furthermore, the example that you presented (even though you tried not to show it) clearly showed that the SIZE of the two heads, as well as the position of the ears, eyes and nose, is 100% the same. Now, you tried to discount the names I offered (Thompson and Pickard) on the basis that they didn't testify in any U.S. Court of Law, and yet that's a cop-out. They are officials of another Government, and clearly the US Government would not invite them (or welcome them) to come here and contradict our own Government. It was a political omission, and not a scientific omission. The scientific evidence shows that CE-133A and CE-133B and E133C were all faked. What is your rationale for denying these facts? Regards, --Paul Trejo

Thanks for your input on this important topic, Robert. Joachim Joesten himself believed that the Dallas Police Department (DPD) was deeply involved in the crime itself, and not just the cover-up. (This is in chapter one of How Kennedy was Killed.) Joesten's suspicion of Curry went beyond his immediate claim that even from within the noisy motorcade surrounded by a shouting crowd, that Curry was certain the shots came from the TSBD (although years later he said on film that he "always thought that some shots might have come from the grassy knoll"). It was even more than that -- Joesten's first problem was that the area behind the grassy knoll picket fence was sealed off to the public by the DPD. The affirmation by dozens of eye-witnesses (as presented in the film, Rush to Judgment, by Mark Lane in 1967) that they heard shots from the picket fence at the grassy knoll included accounts that they saw a puff of smoke and a flash of light at the picket fence at the moment of the shooting. Lee Bowers, railroad man, saw three cars -- not DPD cars -- scouting out the area behind the picket fence, and one car dropped off two men; a slender younger man and a heavier older man. Virgil Hoffman, a deaf-mute, said he saw two men at the same point, also, and one of them shot a rifle at JFK, and then tossed the rifle to the other man, who disassembled it quickly, put it in a tool box, and they both walked away like mechanics. Joesten accepts this eye-witness testimony, but his problem isn't with these eye-witnesses, Joesten's problem is with the DPD itself. Why doesn't anybody talk about the DPD complicity in simply allowing these men to be there in the first place? For Joesten, for the DPD to allow anybody behind the grassy knoll with rifles, was exactly the same scenario as the DPD allowing Jack Ruby to be armed and present in the Police Station near to Lee Harvey Oswald, in an allegedly secure situation. If Joesten is right, then this is complicity in the assassination itself, and not just in the cover-up. Joachim Joesten goes even further than that -- he even suspected J.D. Tippit himself of being one of the shooters at JFK that day. Even though Joesten wrote this book in 1968, it is remarkable that these suspicions have only increased since its publication. For example, there is a bustling controversy over the so-called, "Badgeman", image of a shooter wearing a DPD badge behind the picket fence in the photograph taken by Mary Moorman. At least one photo analyst shows that the hairline of "Badgeman" matches the distinct hairline of J.D. Tippit. William Turner wrote in his 1971 book, Power on the Right, that nobody could join the DPD in the 1960's without being a member of the KKK, the Minutemen, the John BIrch Society or preferably all of these. Now, these were the groups that were the most outspoken in their belief that JFK was a Communist Traitor. Yet aside from this single chapter in Joesten's book, I am not aware of any detailed study on the complicity of the DPD, not only in the cover-up, but especially in the commission of the JFK assassination. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Perhaps we might return to the theme of this thread, namely, Joachim Joesten and his 1968 book, How Kennedy Was Killed. Insufficient attention has been paid, IMHO, to his opening criticism of the Dallas Police Department (DPD) in chapter one. According to Joesten, the DPD sealed off the area behind the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll at Dealey Plaza, and so anybody who traveled behind that fence would have been immediately known to them. The DPD was in chrage. The DPD was responsible. Railroad worker Lee Bowers saw two men standing behind the picket fence at the time that the JFK motorcade drove by, and he also saw a flash of light at the picket fence at that moment. Yet the Warren Commission didn't pursue the problem of how these two men bypassed the DPD blockade of that area. Did they sneak in? Or were they (like Jack Ruby would be later in the week) allowed to wander in? According to Joesten, Chief of Police Jesse Curry ordered a search of the TSBD building immediately after the assassination. Why? Because, Curry claimed, the sounds seemed to him to come from that building. Yet most observers (including the Secret Service men) thought the shots came from the grassy knoll. (Curry himself years later admitted that he suspected that as well.) The motorcade was loud, the crowd was loud -- why an immediate search of the TSBD building? Joesten suspected that Jesse Curry was following a script. Joesten also thought J.D. Tippit was involved -- and not an innocent bystander and victim. Tippit's actions suggest some underground activity to Joesten. Finally, Jack Ruby killed Oswald while literally surrounded by DPD officers. Jack Ruby was also armed and present the night before -- when Oswald was paraded before the press. I believe this question still has energy. I'd like to hear further opinions about the possible role of the DPD in the JFK assassination. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Bill, everything you say fits well -- except one doubt remains in my mind. Dick Russell (TMWKTM) wrote that George De Mohrenschildt, on Easter Sunday, 1963, told Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin about his suspicion of Lee Harvey Oswald's shooting at Walker. Mrs. Voshinin told Russell that she called the FBI immediately. Now -- I agree that Walker would refuse to tell the story the same way twice -- but if Dick Russell reported correctly, we seem to have the original source for Walker's confusion. I mean, isn't it FBI policy to warn the victim if they have a suspect in their files? If not -- there's another benign explanation. Because Walker had a loyal following in Dallas in 1963, somebody close to the FBI (or somebody close to Mr. and Mrs. Voshinin) called Walker that very same day and filled Walker in on the details. If that was the case, then we have Walker's original source. It was probably an insider close to the FBI -- that is why Walker would never identify the person, and thus the person's identity became hazier every year. In Walker's mind, IMHO, the story would have sounded like this: "The FBI got information that this Russia-defector Oswald was the man who shot at me four days ago! Did they arrest him? No! They let him walk the streets! Why? No doubt it's because RFK wants him to try to kill me again! Well, we'll just see about that!" Psychiatrists did find signs of paranoia and self-inflation in Walker's profile (as they told the Mississippi Grand Jury). That sort of thinking probably played a role in Walker's conclusions. Yet although Walker would change the identity of the "source" of his story year after year, the details of the story remained fairly intact for 30 years -- for the rest of his life. Do you have an opinion about Dick Russell's report on Mrs. Voshinin, Bill? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

On the theory that the forces that killed JFK were entirely underground -- probably the Minutemen secret society -- I will raise the specter of Guy Banister here. Guy Banister was a key player in the Bay of Pigs -- I believe that is granted by all. After the failure of the Bay of Pigs, however, he became a bit-player in US politics. He would still show his face here and there, but his personal political preference seems to be the trend of Race Segregation. We often disregard Race Segregation politics today, but in 1962-1963 the politcs of Race Segregation were big news. White Citizen's Councils flourished all over the USA. In late 1962 there were millions who believed that JFK would back down from his bid to admit the Black student, James Meredith, in to the all-white Ole Miss University. There were official State departments in Mississippi and other States that financed Race Segregation politics with large budgets. The White Citizens' Councils, under their arm of the Citizens' Council Forum, would produce a 15-minute film almost every week, extolling what they called, "Racial Integrity". Guy Banister was a member. The slogan of this group was, "Race Mixing is Communist". This was an advance over the old-fashioned KKK slogan, "Race Mixing is Satanic". The same people in the South joined - but now they could include Northerners by the thousands. Of course, RFK would have nothing to do with this -- but when RFK needed Guy Banister's help at 544 Camp Street in organizing a ground-crew for Alpha-66, or Operation Mongoose, the old guard including Guy Banister were close at hand and ready to help. However, by this time, Guy Banister's loyalties were beginning to divide. The more extreme right-wing would begin to show disloyalty to the Supreme Court and the White House over the Race Segregation issue. Here's how Guy Banister's mind worked, IMHO: If Race Mixing is Communist, and if the JFK/RFK White House supported Race Mixing in our public schools, then it is logical that JFK/RFK are actually Communists, just as the John Birch Society had printed. Therefore, it was a lucky thing that Guy Banister had such a close access to RFK for Operation Mongoose and 544 Camp Street. Guy Banister -- and selected other rightists who were also men of action -- would find some way to get even with Fidel Castro. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

I would begin, Paul B., by saying that these are all the right questions. (1) I don't think we can separate the shooting at Walker and the killing of JFK, because Marina's testimony won't let us do that. To separate them would be to throw out her witness. Now, I know many people have done that, but after carefully reading all of her sworn testimony (and all of her pre-oath testimony when she was terrified of the FBI) I am convinced that Marina told the WC the truth -- and the whole truth -- as she knew it. The main trouble here is that Oswald lied to Marina constantly. We must always bear that in mind when we consider her testimony. (2) Volkmar Schmidt can only be relied upon for his eye-witness accounts, and not for his opinions about things he never saw. Schmidt, to the best of my knowledge, did not go out of his way to blame Oswald for killing JFK, but rather he wanted to disassociate himself as far as possible from the man who "officially" killed JFK. He didn't want to go down in history that way (or bring the TV cameras to his doorstep). So, he agreed with the Warren Commission provisionally, in his conservative manner. He himself had no further information than what he told -- he convinced Oswald to shoot Walker. But that is most important. (3) I largely agree with Schmidt's psychological assessment of Oswald, yet I believe that Oswald was innocent of actually shooting JFK. There is evidence that Oswald tried to wiggle out of that plot after the plotters overwhelmed him -- but it was too late. By shooting at ex-General Walker, Lee Harvey Oswald had sealed his fate. He was drafted as the patsy the very next weekend. The complexity here is to hold that Oswald was psychologically unstable and yet that he didn't kill JFK. We have a tendency to resort to Either/Or thinking -- Either Oswald was normal and innocent, Or abnormal and guilty -- and there is no middle term. But actually, it was entirely possible for Oswald to be both abnormal and innocent. That's my position. (4) Well -- sort of. I claim that Oswald didn't shoot JFK, yet I also claim that Oswald was deeply involved with the people who did shoot JFK. That is precisely how they were able to make Oswald their patsy. (5) Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenschildt both knew the truth about their own guilt in the Walker shooting. (Perhaps the Paines did, too.) It was their guilt that prevented them from coming forward with more evidence against Walker in the JFK assassination -- and so to that degree they were also pawns in the JFK conspiracy. (6) Oswald was unstable, and it isn't Volkmar Schmidt who proves it -- it was Marina, with her black eye and her bruises. Oswald would never admit that he was a wife-beater -- but he was. (7) Oswald didn't shoot JFK -- yet he was an accomplice and he knew exactly who did it, and he had a chance in the last two days of his life to tell the world the truth -- but he remained loyal to the conspirators, always hopeful that they would help him in the end. Even after he figured out that he was the Patsy, he still looked forward to his day in Court, and didn't suspect that Jack Ruby would end his life. (8) That's why Oswald could say -- with a straight face -- "No sir, I didn't shoot the President." He was telling the truth. (9) Clearly, Schmidt and DeMohrenschildt and the Paines were innocent of any plot to kill JFK. But they were compromised because of their guilt in trying to kill Edwin Walker. (10) General Walker's politics were on the right. JFK's politics were more to the left. Why would somebody who tried to kill Walker also try to kill JFK? That is a great question. Actually, the German newspaper, Deutsche Nationalzeitung, asked ex-General Walker that same question when he told them, only 18 hours after the JFK assassination that Lee Harvey Oswald was also his own shooter on 10 April 1963. (Walker laughed away the question, but it persisted. In early 1964, Revilo P. Oliver of the John Birch Society responded by saying that Communists frequently killed each other in their internal power struggles.) The answer is that the shooters were different in both cases -- the shooters were on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Oswald, though a Marine, had been brainwashed by left-leaning intellectuals: DeMohrenschildt, Schmidt and Paine. Thus, Oswald was too emotionally needy (despite his above-average IQ). (11) Still, the problem of Oswald, Walker and Schmidt is that they remain in bed together, politically, despite their wide differences. It was in this way that they all shared some degree of guilt in the assassination of JFK. (12) Finally, even if Oswald was also playing both sides against the middle -- in his amateur role as a double-agent -- taking money from the FBI here and there for information on leftwing or rightwing extremists, we must bear in mind that Oswald was not a professional agent, but a contract gopher. He was still a free agent, and he thought he was smarter than he was. The fake FPCC was obviously Guy Banister's idea. His fingerprints are all over that. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

There's little point in putting together a sensible response. You're one of those unbending, blinkered folks that make up about 95% of all conspiracy theorists. You and your bigoted cohorts, flaming torches in hand, burn the Church of the Bleeding Obvious. Oh, I see, you don't have an orientation. :lol:

Well, that's right, John. The left-wing parties play a nearly insignificant role in the JFK assassination, except that they were slated to be the scape-goat for the entire plot. Discussion about the left-wing in the JFK assassination literature, beginning with the Warren Commission, tends to be superficial in the extreme. All the American press wants to hear is that it is all very boring -- we don't want to discuss any details. Just using the buzz-words were enough for most people -- and that is how Lee Harvey Oswald came to be associated with the American left-wing -- he used the buzz-words. These facts are useful though -- they demonstrate that the left-wing was not truly involved, and that therefore the right-wing was involved up to their necks. I agree that LaRouche was friendly with the FBI, and more than that, he hired an extreme right-wing racist as a political consultant, and at one point he began to spout nonsense about the so-called Holocaust Myth. LaRouche was an opportunist who hid his fealty to the right-wing fairly well. I'm sure he was an annoyance to the SWP -- and I called him a SWP 'leader' sarcastically. It is significant that Michael Paine's father was a Trotsky ideologist, and had a leadership role in a local Trotsky club -- a book club, basically. This means that Michael Paine was exposed at a young age -- by his own father -- to concepts and vocabulary that most people never hear. Michael Paine himself chose to avoid the Trotsky movement, and he sort of pitied his father, but at least he knew what he was talking about. In his WC testimony about Lee Harvey Oswald, Michael Paine expressed dismay that Oswald held simplistic, unsophisticated ideas. Paine would know. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul B., if Oswald was a follower of Trotsky, we would have clear evidence. He called himself a Marxist-Leninist, based on obviously shallow-reading. Speaking of Trotsky, however, it is interesting that Michael Paine's father was a so-called leader of the American Trotsky movement. Michael Paine's testimony about Oswald to the Warren Commission reminds us of George De Mohrenschildt's testimony to the Warren Commission -- it was largely insulting to Oswald. That is, Michael Paine probably knew a lot about Trotsky, since his father was a Trotsky leader. Yet Paine was unimpressed with Oswald, according to his WC testimony. Nor did Oswald ever ask Michael about his father. About George De Mohrenschildt, one problem I have with his booklet, I'm A Patsy! I'm A Patsy! is its mixture of truth and fiction. George knew very well that Volkmar Schmidt was German, but George pretended he forgot Volkmar's name and nationality, and recalled only that he was some Jewish fellow. Yet Volkmar Schmidt confirmed that George De Mohrenschildt, penniless in 1977, had only weeks beforehand begged Volkmar to move in with him. Volkmar declined as George was obviously unstable and Volkmar had to care for his own family. In his 1977 booklet, George pretends to be very close and tender towards Oswald. It is virtually the opposite of the picture he told to the Warren Commission under oath in 1964. The truth is somewhere in-between. George exploited Oswald and Marina for his own reasons, but he was always aware of Oswald's poverty and lack of formal education, and of his cruelty towards Marina. I do agree with you this far, Paul B., that George De Mohrenschildt himself had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. George was interested in the profits he could make in the status quo, i.e. a Haiti oil deal. We should try to remember that although George's booklet tries to portray Oswald as an innocent lamb, George is also trying to absolve hiimself of any guilt in corrupting Oswald with regard to General Walker -- so his booklet (which was not testimony under oath) is partly a self-serving fiction; it is valuable as evidence, but not necessarily as the unvarnished truth. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

You seem to have changed your mind. I'm no photographic expert, so can you explain why you would expect Lee's ears to move up or down the side of his head between photographs? By the way, Paul, Robert Groden is not a photographic expert. I'm not sure what he's an expert in. I believe he still rants on about the back-and-to-the-left headsnap to whoever will stop and listen, as if that proves a shot from the front, so he's definitely no physics expert either Paul. No, I didn't change my mind about the two WC exhibit photos -- I see the lips and shadows change on the two examples that Craig posted. But although the lips and shadows changed on Craig's examples, it is bizarre that the SIZE of the head, the distance between hair and chin, the ears and the eyes didn't change at all. That proves that even with Craig's alteration of the photos, he couldn't erase the identities. Look -- this photographic analysis has already been completed decades ago. Why are you guys in denial? What's your orientation? Regards, --Paul Trejo

If I may interject here, Paul B., the proposition that Oswald was involved in the plot to kill ex-General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963 is not necessarily any proof that Oswald was the "lone nut" who shot JFK. While it is true that the Warren Commission spun the story in their own way, there are other interpretations of the same facts. Actually, what Volkmar Schmidt's testimony really proves is that Oswald never acted alone in anything -- not in the JFK assassination and not in the Walker shooting. Oswald always had accomplices. In Bill Kelly's interview, Volkmar Schmidt tacitly admitted that he was one of the accomplices of Oswald's shooting at Walker. We know there were more accomplices, too, since an eye-witness has two accomplices in one car, and possibly another accomplice in another car. On the previous day another witness saw two men spying on Walker's house and speeding away in car. (George De Mohrenschildt was himself an accomplice in the plot to kill Walker, although he refused to admit it directly. The Volkmar Schmidt story is proof of George's guilt, since George encouraged Volkmar. George De Mohrenschildt did object to people putting all the blame on Oswald -- and the implication, IMHO, is that George actually blamed ex-General Edwin Walker. (Jack Ruby also suspected ex-General Edwin Walker of leading the plot to kill JFK.) If Walker was the JFK-plot leader, then he brilliantly designed the plan to blame it all on Oswald. Harry Dean offers evidence that this is true. Walker's plot would have involved his pal, Guy Banister and their paramilitary Minutemen, to frame Oswald as a Communist in the media in August, 1963. If so, then Walker got this idea on Easter Sunday, 1963, after Mrs. Voshinin told the FBI what George De Mohrenschildt told her about Lee Harvey Oswald.) Oswald lied to Marina continually -- he lied to her when he said he shot at Walker alone, and that he took the bus and walked and ran and buried his rifle. Marina could only repeat the lies she heard -- she knew nothing else about that night (except that Oswald returned around midnight -- three hours after the shooting). Before that night she knew that Oswald was spending his time with photographs of Walker's house -- that she knew -- but he never told her why he took those pictures. My point is that Oswald had accomplices even on those trips taking photographs of Walker's house. So, Volkmar Schmidt's story doesn't confirm the Warren Commission conclusion of a lone nut -- on the contrary -- Schmidt contradicts the Warren Commission conclusion and confirms the HSCA conclusion that Oswald had accomplices. I currently suspect that Michael Paine and Ruth Paine were also among those accomplices. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Ian, I think I take your point. Lee Harvey Oswald was no dummy. I have always acknowledged that Oswald was a capable radar operator, and he was among a rare few who wanted to learn to speak Russian (while still a teenger). So, yes, he was smarter than average. But how far can we take this? He also had trouble spelling ordinary English words. Hey -- nobody's perfect. But things are not so one-sided -- things are not so Either/Or with Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was never a Communist. Period. We know this because he personally insisted that he wasn't -- many times. But could he fake being a Communist? That's a matter of opinion. The Communist Party USA never thought so. Nor the did Fair Play for Cuba Committee. They directly told Oswald to refrain from starting a FPCC branch in New Orleans. Oswald faked that FPCC branch. For what reason? He had no members in that branch. What was the reason he faked it? Many people thought Oswald faked being an FPCC officer very well. They were fooled by his arrest on Canal Street for fighting with his buddy, Carlos Bringuier. They were fooled by the radio spot he was given. They were fooled by the TV spot he was given with Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler (both fiercely right-wing Cuban Exiles), all arranged by Ed Butler. But that whole FPCC charade started in August 1963 and it ended in August 1963. After that, in September 1963, Oswald took all his newspaper clippings as "street credentials" to Mexico to try to convince the Cuban and USSR Consulates there to accept him as a genuine FPCC leader, so that he could enter Cuba immediately. The Consulates were not fooled. Oswald did not get his immediate passage to Cuba. Nor could he play it cool enough to wait even two weeks for an answer -- but he lost his temper -- an immature behavior. (The Cubans immediately perceived Oswald as a provacateur). So, it depends on who you ask. If you ask me, Oswald was a fake Communist, and it isn't very hard to fake something like that if you have an experienced coach (like Guy Banister, or Ed Butler). As for having the necessary scholarly background to read a classic like Das Kapital -- gimme a break. Half the people on this FORUM couldn't get past the first ten pages -- and some of them are professional technicians. Oswald was such a fake that it amazes me that he ever fooled anybody. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>