Paul Trejo

Well, Harry, it appears as though the USA avoided the TRAP of allowing an extreme rightist organization like the LDS, along with its quasi-JBS Tea Party, to seize the US Presidency. They put up a ferocious fight, but ultimately the US Public rejected the extreme rightist opinion of reality and the future. Maybe the Republican Party will survive the Tea Party, and maybe not. What happened to the GOP, the party of Lincoln? How did the progressive party of 1860 become the reactionary party of 1990? We might ask the same about the Democratic Party, which started the 20th century as the reactionary party of the South, and which favored local grassroots racists like the KKK. (Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, for example, was an avid supporter of the KKK. They supported his rise to the Presidency on the basis that he kept Princeton University racially segregated before World War One.) How did this reactionary party become the progressive party of the USA? I think the switch occurred slowly, starting from the FDR White House, and completing with the LBJ White House. The official signal came when President Reagan switched from Democratic candidate to Republican candidate. Today the KKK, the JBS, the extreme right and the South generally will not join the Democratic party, but instead flock to the GOP and its Tea Party affiliates. There was a reversal of roles. Lincoln, I suspect, would no longer recognize the GOP of today. Somewhere in the middle of that orientation-switch between the GOP and the Dems (i.e. a double paradigm shift), JFK was slaughtered in public. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul B., I accept Harry Dean's claim that in mid-September 1963, ex-General Edwin Walker told a Southern California gathering of radical John BIrch Society oriented Minutemen (of which Harry Dean was one) that he had identified a Communist -- Lee Harvey Oswald -- to fill the role of unsuspecting patsy for their plot to kill JFK. They all had a great laugh at the irony of this announcement. Therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald was marked for assassination long before Jack Ruby pulled the trigger. The only question in my mind is whether Jack Ruby knew Walker personally, or whether Jack Ruby only accepted mafia-style cash payment for this up-close hit with a revolver. The erstwhile gigolo, William McEwan Duff, claimed that Jack Ruby visited Walker at Walker's home at 4011 Turtle Creek Blvd (in the Oak Lawn neighborhood of Dallas) at least once a month from December, 1962 until March 1963 -- i.e. in the months in which Duff himself lived at Walker's home rent-free. Duff claimed that Ruby was always accompanied by two men, one lighter, one darker, and that the lighter one, he believed, was a leader in the John Birch Society. But Duff later recanted his claim, and said he could not be absolutely certain. The only connection I have between Ruby and Walker, then, with regard to the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald, is that in the late 1950's Ruby was a gun-runner between Florida and Dallas to support Mafia interests in Cuba. In this regard, then, he met Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and Larry Howard who were also gun-runners between Florida and Dallas (though in the early 1960's). This was the common link. As long as Ruby took orders from his underworld employers, the mafia-style hit on Lee Harvey Oswald would never be stopped. It was just work as usual for the mafia. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Bill -- you're correct, Walker's home at 4011 Turtle Creek Blvd is not in "Oak Cliff" but in the "Oak Lawn" zone of Dallas (or between Oak Lawn and Highland Park). It was 'uptown' and not 'downtown'. However, my timeline shows that Oswald got his notice on 1 April 1963, and his last day at Jagger/Chiles/Stovall was 6 April 1963, which was four days before the Walker shooting (10 April 1963). Oswald started working at Jagger/Chiles/Stovall on 12 October 1962. Oswald his received his mail-order weapons on 25 March 1963. He had Marina take one single picture (as she firmly recalled) on 31 March 1963 and he probably used Jagger/Chiles/Stoval graphics to make 'Fotoshop' variations on his single picture - for the fun of it. Oswald was fired the very next day. It is possible that Oswald was fired precisely because he was abusing company photographic equipment as his own personal 'Fotoshop.' I don't think Oswald's working hours are detailed to the minute (although Priscilla McMillan thought so). Rather, Marina admitted that Oswald frequently came and went at his own pleasure. He did take evening classes at a local community college - but his attendance records are unavailable, to the best of my knowledge. As for Oswald' taking pictures of Walker's home, I date those photographs as follows: (i) In late January, 1963, Volkmar Schmidt uses advanced psychology on Oswald to transfer his anger over JFK and the Bay of Pigs from JFK to ex-General Edwin Walker and the riots of Ole Miss in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed -- only four months earlier. George De Mohrenshildt and Michael Paine looked on with approval that night; (ii) In February, 1963, Oswald purchased a rifle and a pistol through the mail; (iii) therefore Oswald could have been taking photographs of Walker's house as early as February, 1963. Yes - that would have been the same time that he held his job at Jagger/Chiles/Stovall, and fellow workers at that shop admitted that Oswald asked if employees ever used the company equipment for personal purposes. He was told they sometimes did, but never abused the privilege. Oswald took this as a green light, evidently, and he eventually came to abuse the privilege. So it remains possible that some of the Walker house photos were developed at Jagger/Chiles/Stovall. I personally don't care one way or the other if Oswald ever drank alcohol or not -- Marina says he didn't, but Oswald lied to Marina ten times a day. It makes little difference to my theory. As for the film, PRINCE JACK (1985), it appears that Netflix does not have it, and neither does Youtube. I cannot find it anywhere except for a blurb on IMDB, and a used VHS version for sale on amazon.com. It was definitely a low-budget "B" movie. Some of the actors are familiar: Lloyd Nolan plays Joseph Kennedy. Jim Backus plays Ted Dealey. Dana Andrews plays the Catholic Cardinal. Robert Guillarme plays MLK. Cameron Mitchell plays ex-General Edwin Walker. These are all supporting roles. The starring roles for JFK and RFK are played by two actors I never saw before 1985 or afterwards. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Paul B., I like your line of questioning. I also think that old story about Ruby's maudlin 'emotional' motive in killing Oswald was paper thin. Also, Ruby had a surprising number of bizarre connections. Because of Jack Ruby the HSCA spent millions investigating major Mafia figures like Johny Rosselli, Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante. But those Mafia connections were more melodramatic than plausible. The connections that interest me most about Ruby's life are those that circled around ex-General Edwin Walker. Now, I find insufficient evidence to conclude that Ruby ever met Walker. But I like your question: if Jack Ruby killed Oswald on orders from somebody, then who issued those orders? Because, as I believe that ex-General Edwin Walker was the coordinator of the Dallas ground-crew of the JFK assassination, then wouldn't that necessarily involve Jack Ruby receiving a direct order from Walker? It's an intriguing question - here's what I came up with: I currently believe that Walker knew of Jack Ruby's involvement, but Jack Ruby never met Walker. In other words, they never met, although Jack Ruby was a lower-level member of the ground crew, and reported up through a mutual associate. Who else was part of the ground crew? I believe that Gerry Patrick Hemming was a member of the ground-crew, and I base this on his own confession that he offered Lee Harvey Oswald a double price for his Manlicher-Carcano rifle if Oswald would bring it to the TSBD building on the morning of 22 November 1963. Even if Hemming played no other role in the JFK assassination, this simple act made him an accomplice. Who else worked with Hemming? Well, Loran Hall and Larry Howard were comrades in arms with Gerry Patrick Hemming, and all these men had visited the house of ex-General Edwin Walker at 4011 Turtle Creek Blvd. in Dallas during one or more days of 1963. According to Harry Dean, General Walker himself gave instructions to Guy Gabaldon, Loran Hall and Larry Howard in California to ensnare Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy for the JFK assassination. The connection with Ruby should become clear -- Hemming, Hall and Howard were (among other things) mercenary gun-runners between Florida and Dallas. Well, so was Jack Ruby. We also have an eye-witness account of Jack Ruby dropping off armed men at the grassy knoll on the early morning of 22 November 1963. If this is true, then this is solid evidence that Jack Ruby was a part of the ground crew as well. There's my scenario -- Walker knew that Ruby was involved, but Ruby never met Walker. No doubt, however, that Ruby heard about Walker, and that is why Ruby told Earl Warren that Edwin Walker was involved in the JFK assassination. (But Chief Justice Warren simply ignored that claim.) That is, we know that Jack Ruby suspected Walker of being a plotter against JFK, because that is exactly what he told Earl Warren. Your question then, is fitting -- why would Ruby kill Oswald knowing that Walker was behind the plot? We are also aware from Harry Dean that Walker intended above all that Lee Harvey Oswald would take the full blame for the killing of JFK. Knowing that Walker was behind the plot, Jack Ruby went straight ahead and killed Lee Harvey Oswald. This suggests that either Jack Ruby was paid to do this hit, or that he knew General Walker very well. Yet we have no external evidence to connect Walker and Ruby directly or personally -- therefore my theory will hold that Walker knew much about Ruby, because his ground-crew, starting with Hemming, Hall and Howard, were in close control of Jack Ruby who was working for money and also because of his respect for Hemming, Hall and Howard and any comrades in arms who had personally been to Cuba and personally fought against Castro. For this, Jack Ruby never needed to actually meet General Walker. That's my theory until I get more evidence. You also asked if Ruby have any reason to protect Walker. I doubt it, otherwise why would Ruby tell Earl Warren that Walker was the ringleader of the JFK assassination? That is, Ruby was intent on protecting his friends, his anti-Castro comrades in arms. But it is precisely because Ruby never met Walker that Ruby felt no compulsion to protect Walker -- Walker was a name on paper, or a public speaker on a stage, and not a personal friend. This means that Ruby killed Oswald on orders from a middle-man; somebody he had already known, and somebody he respected. About those orders that Oswald had to be killed -- Ruby probably received those orders a few weeks before the JFK assassination -- and probably the whole ground-crew got those same orders. You also asked if Ruby killed Oswald because Oswald could have implicated Ruby in the assassination. I doubt that -- with Harry Dean's statement we surmise that Oswald was a marked man as early as mid-September 1963, and very likely many weeks earlier than that. Lee Harvey Oswald may have been a marked man as early as 14 April 1963 (but no earlier than that, according to my theory). It is indeed proven -- several times -- that Walker believed that Oswald was his shooter on 10 April 1963, and Walker also believed that RFK was behind Oswald 100%. Now, you wonder if Oswald's sojourn into New Orleans shortly after that shooting proves that Oswald was investigating something. I doubt that strongly. By allowing himself to be hypnotized (so to speak) to shoot at ex-General Edwin Walker, our Lee Harvey Oswald proved himself to be a man of ordinary intellect and character. He had high ambitions but little talent. He was a mercenary. He may have done odd jobs spying for the FBI (as he had a Minolta camera in his possessions) but he was never a full-time employee -- he probably did dirtly work on a contract basis, for very little money. (Yet he probably claimed it on his tax returns, so the Warren Commission has sealed Oswald's tax returns for 1962.) His decision to travel to New Orleans was not his own, IMHO -- he was drafted by the forces of the Cuban Exile training camp at Lake Pontcharttrain. Gerry Patrick Hemming claims to have seen Oswald there. In the summer of 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald worked very hard to get himself into the newspapers as an FPCC officer -- and he succeeded in getting in the newspapers, and also the radio and also on television on multiple occasions in New Orleans -- as an FPCC officer. Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler -- two experts in war propaganda, were beside Oswald all the time in this sheep dipping scenario (as Jim Garrison put it). Then, Oswald took all these newspaper clippings with him to Mexico City, to convince the consulates there that he was an FPCC officer, and this he expected would win him quick and simple entrance into Cuba. He was a dismal failure in Mexico. Why was the CIA so keen to keep Oswald's Mexico period a secret? Simply because Oswald was part of Operation Mongoose -- one of many plots to kill Fidel Castro. In any case, Oswald was a dismal failure in Mexico, and he was then deemed useless in the effort to kill Castro (which would have won him a pardon from Walker and his Minutemen forces). Now he became the property of Loran Hall and Larry Howard, whose only job now was to manipulate Oswald into moving back to Dallas and awaiting further instructions. As for your speculation about Oswald's street theater as his own misdirection to investigate the Minutemen, I doubt that, too. Oswald did not organize the cameras that took his picture on Canal Street in August, 1963. Ed Butler organized those cameras. Ed Butler organized the arrest and publicity after the arrest. Ed Butler organized the police report, and the newspaper coverage, and the radio program afterwards. Carlos Bringuier not only fought with Oswald on Canal Street, but he joined Oswald on TV -- both wearing suits -- to pose for the cameras and claim that Oswald was a member of the FPCC. Ed Butler was also involved in the broadcasted debates. They were not fooled by Oswald -- they were callilng the shots. It is not that Oswald was up to something with the Cuban Exile community in New Orleans, rather, the Cuban Exile community was up to something with Oswald. I am one of those theorists who thinks that "Oswald was being played by someone, creating bonafides" for his phony pro-Castro street creds. You would then ask "who Oswald thought he was playing." In my opinion (and I am partly relying on Ron Lewis and his 1993 book, Flashback: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald), Oswald was told point blank that since he tried to kill ex-General Walker, that he was under paramilitary arrest, and he would have to obey orders to the letter to save his life. His first task was to kill Castro by faking credentials as an FPCC officer to get into Cuba easily. If he was successful, he would be a national hero and could one day become "Prime Minister of the USA" as he told Marina. But if he was unsuccessful, then he would be drafted into a ground-crew to kill JFK. So Oswald was not an innocent lamb. He knew exactly who he was dealing with, and he knew the risks he was taking -- but he was under paramilitary arrest, and that was a life-sentence. Anyway, I agree with you, Paul B., in that Oswald was no racist. That was not his motivation. His motivation nevertheless was not lofty. He was in it to save his skin. He had no idea that he was the patsy. If he ever had that inkling, he would have sung like a bird to the DPD. The DPD would have been Oswald's best friends at the time. But he didn't trust the Establishment, Oswald trusted the paramilitary group he ran with -- and he knew their guilt, and he knew part of his role in their plan, and he kept silence in order to protect them. Therefore, Oswald, even as a patsy, was also a knowing and willing part of the ground-crew that killed JFK. He was an accomplice. Anyway, that's my theory. There are lots of official documents that support my theory. I'm always open to additional evidence. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Thanks, David, for reminding us about William McEwan Duff. Duff was a young, live-in gigolo at Walker's home address from 12/1962 through 3/1963 and who was arrested and subjected to lie detectors over the attempted assassination of Walker on 10 April 1963 at his home. Duff was so upset by his treatment he later told the FBI that Jack Ruby was a frequent visitor at General Walker's house. He later recanted that claim. But it is a puzzle why Duff would even make such a claim in the first place (whether he was lying or not). He must of known that such a claim was the same as linking ex-General Walker with Jack Ruby would make Walker a suspect in the JFK assassination. Duff must have also known that many citizens and newsmen had already raised that connection in the hours after the JFK assassination. Duff could not have known at that time, either, that Jack Ruby had told Chief Justice Earl Warren that Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society were the main plotters of the JFK murder. So, if not to link Walker with the JFK murder, why else would Duff link Walker with Jack Ruby? The only benign answer I can think of is that Duff (perhaps bisexual) had a homosexual relationship with Walker, who was (almost certainly) a lifelong homosexual. It is widely held that Jack Ruby was a homosexual. Is it possible that Walker actually resigned from the Army because he was homosexual and afraid of being discovered? Is it possible that Walker actually resigned from the Army in order to "do as a civilian what he could not do in uniform," namely, live more openly as a homosexual? In other words, if Duff was not trying to send a message to the FBI that Walker was involved in the JFK murder (with or through Jack Ruby) then he might have been expressing anger against Walker for the mal-treatment he received at the hands of Walker's secretary Julia Knecht, and Walker's business partner, Robert Allen Surrey, and Walker's attorney, Clyde Watts, who ultimately arrested Duff and attached him to a lie detector. In other words, Duff might simply have been trying to expose Walker as a homosexual. But that would only work if his audience knew that Jack Ruby was a homosexual. So, it's a long shot, but it is mildly possible. If so, Duff found out promptly that the FBI could not care less about that. In any case, Duff soon dropped the claim. Without his testimony, we have no further witnesses that I know about. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul, I appreciate that the HSCA researched thoroughly enough to admit in 1979 that Oswald did not act alone. I think their negative conclusions are sound, according to the evidence they dug up, namely, that the ballistics, medical and acoustics evidence demands at least one more shooter -- and thus guarantees a conspiracy. I was disappointed with the HSCA, however, in their complete failure to revive any investigation about ex-General Edwin Walker. By contrast, the name of Edwin Walker appears more than 700 times in the Warren Commission volumes. Virtually all of the major witnesses were asked about Walker. Walker himself testified for them -- and he danced circles around their attorneys with countless acts of perjury (because Walker had utterly despised Chief Justice Earl Warren for many years). I appreciate that you can remember the mood in NYC in the minutes after the JFK shooting. The same suspicions were heard from newsmen and citizens in other cities, too, including Dallas. Walker was suspect number one. The HSCA said explicitly that although some individuals that defected from the CIA or from Cuban Exile militant groups or from th Mafia might have been Oswald's accomplices, they found no evidence that those organized instituations as such were involved. So, even if we can name Frank Sturgis or Gerry Patrick Hemming as two of the rogues from among the 1959 Cuban mercenaries who were also CIA pawns in the field, this does not necessarily implicate the CIA leadership in the slightest. Dallas was deadly for JFK, and it was a tragic miscalculation on his part to have underestimated his enemies there. Also, Paul, I like your linkage of the radical right in Dallas with the Southern nostalgia that sought to link the East Coast "Yankee" politicians with the Communist menace, because that agrees with my theory that the John Birch Society is basically equating all "Yankees" with Communists. It is as simple-minded as that. Though the JBS had a few interesting writers, underneath they were basically the KKK with suits and ties (as Harry Truman once said). Also, the need to avoid a direct conflict with the radical right in the South goes back to the memories of the Civil War -- where the USA suffered the most losses in US History, and where we obtained peace by leaving the matter of Civil Rights for future generations. I also agree with your implication (if I understand you correctly) that the John Birch Society of the 1960's forms the platform of the Tea Party of the current generation (which may be why we heard absurd charges of Communism and Marxism bandied about by the Tea Party this last election season; Joe McCarthy lives on). Every President since JFK has to specially account for the fact that the personality of the South makes up about half of our loosely united USA. It's our American duty and challenge to get along with the South without losing sight of the Yankee genius. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Paul, I don't know of any firm evidence that they knew each other personally, although I vaguely recall a rumor that was never substantiated. What scholars do know is that Jack Ruby, when being interviewed by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, named "General Walker" and the "John Birch Society" as the main plotters of the JFK assassination. This information is common knowledge within the pages of the Warren Commission volumes. This does not mean or even suggest that Jack Ruby knew ex-General Edwin Walker personally -- it only suggests that Jack Ruby read the Dallas Morning News (and perhaps the Dallas Times Herald) on a regular basis. Edwin Walker was in the news several times in the previous 12 months before the JFK assassination. Because Walker lived in Dallas, Jack Ruby would be interested in him in that regard, as well. Jack Ruby was known as a busybody and a snoopy character around Dallas (cf. Seth Kantor). He would sneak his way into every major event in town, if he could get away with it. (For example, he was often seen in the Dallas Police station when Oswald was arrested, posing as a newspaper man, and so on.) Therefore, it seems to me that Jack Ruby probably followed the many news stories about Walker in Dallas (far more than would appear in the national news), and he might even try to meet him -- just because Jack Ruby wanted to be in the limelight for everything. If you find any convincing evidence, Paul, that Jack Ruby ever met Edwin Walker personally, won't you please share it with the FORUM at this thread? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Since this is the Edwin Walker thread, this is the place to tell y'all about an old "B" movie that I only heard about this month, entitled, PRINCE JACK (1983). It is a full-length movie about the JFK administration, told from a refreshing point of view. It was a flop at the box office -- it possibly broke even. But in many ways it is superior to the movie JFK, because (1) Oliver Stone's movie really should have been called, "The Jim Garrison Story," as it only portrays JFK getting killed; and (2) PRINCE JACK contains several references to ex-General Edwin Walker including: (i) Walker's tour in Germany in which he educated the Troops with his Pro-Blue indoctrination program leaning toward the John Birch Society; (ii) Walker's resignation from the Army; (iii) Walker's leadership at the race riots of Ole Miss on 30 September 1962 to prevent the first black student there, James Meredith, from attending college; (iv) The Kennedy decision to detain ex-General Edwin Walker in an insane asylum for 90 days, instead of taking him to court; (v) The rage of Walker for having been detained in an insane asylum (even though his lawyers got him out in under 5 days); (vi) The pot-shot at ex-General Edwin Walker at his home on 10 April 1963. (vii) Walker's expressed belief that the Kennedys were behind that April shooting. All of these facts are true and correct history -- and they have never been portrayed in any other motion picture (to the best of my knowledge). Nor did any of these facts ever appear in any book before the year 1983. I found this movie (VHS) on amazon.com and I purchased it for under $6. I recommend the movie to JFK history buffs. I admit that it's a low-budget "B" movie, yet I'd sure like to know the sources that screenwriter Bert Lovitt had before his eyes when he wrote this script. They sure weren't the Jim Garrison archives, since Garrison never traveled down the Walker road. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Bill, I apologize for taking so long to reply to your excellent question. Yes, Larrie Schmidt told me that he knew Robert Allen Surrey in the following context: (1) Larrie met Surrey in the context of John Birch Society activites following a party given by Robert Morris, the attorney of ex-General Edwin Walker. (2) Larrie's brother, Robbie Schmidt, had recently been honorably discharged from the US Army in 1963, and was looking for a job. Robbie's job in the Army was acting as an Aide to a US General. Larrie mentioned this to a friend during or around a John Birch Society gathering. (3) This friend told Robert Allen Surrey about Larrie's brother, Robbie. (4) Robert Allen Surrey, at that time, was a conitnual associate of ex-General Edwin Walker, and basically created the American Eagle Publishing Company (AEPC) inside ex-General Walker's home at 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard in Dallas. The booklets and other materials sold through the mail were mailed from Walker's home. Walker used one of the bedrooms in his spacious house as a warehouse for the printed matter. (5) Robert Allen Surrey was the President of AEPC, but he took no salary. He also had his offices there at 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard, along with Walker's long-time volunteer secretary, Julia Knecht. When Walker was away on long trips (with segregationist Reverend Billy James Hargis) Robert Allen Surrey and Julia Knecht would still remain at the home office. (6) At a certain time in 1963 (Larrie could not remember the month, but he was certain it was after April 10th, when somebody took a pot-shot at Walker at his home) Robert Allen Surrey called Larrie and told him that ex-General Walker was looking for a General's Aide to work for room and board and a small stipend. (6.1) The Aide's main duties would be to drive the ex-General around town, and also use the ex-General's car to run errands, pick up visitors from Love Field, and the like. Surrey had heard about Robbie Schmidt, and asked Larrie if Robbie might be interested. (7) Larrie Schmidt called Robbie that same day and told him the good news -- he found Robbie a job. (8) Robbie Schmidt came to Dallas right away, and began working for ex-General Walker right way. Aside from room and board, his monthly stipend was perhaps $20. (9) Larrie Schmidt told CUSA that he personally installed Robbie Schmidt as Walker's chauffeur for the purpose of "spying" on ex-General Walker (and he also told this to LIFE magazine in 1965). (10) Actually, Larrie told me, Robbie never spied on Walker, nor would he do so under his military ethics. Robbie was not interested in politics in the slightest. He liked his job, he liked living at Walker's house, and he was comfortable in this Army type of environment. (11) Such exaggeration (or BS) was common with Larrie, the advertising copy writer, in his letters to CUSA. Bernie Weissman's WC testimony is my evidence in this regard. (12) After that moment, as Larrie told me, he saw Robert Allen Surrey at several social/political functions, typically for the John Birch Society throughout 1963. They were on friendly terms all year, until the JFK assassination. . (13) When I told Larrie that Robert Allen Surrey was also a publisher for the American Nazi Party (ANP) he acted surprised. Larrie told me that Surrey never mentioned that to him, ever. Nor did Surrey tell anybody that Larrie knew, or Larrie would have heard of it through the grapevine. Surrey probably kept it very secret, because most convervatives, like Larrie, tended to despise Nazis. (14) So, according to Larrie Schmidt in 2012, he had no idea that his regular associate, Robert Allen Surrey, was a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party. Aside from small talk, they only talked about John Birch Society activities. Larrie never asked Surrey about ex-General Edwin Walker. (15) Robbie Schmidt never volunteered any interesting information about ex-General Walker. At least, that's what Larrie was willing to tell me. (16) After the JFK assassination, when the right-wing abandoned CUSA en masse, Larrie Schmidt never saw Robert Allen Surrey again -- to the best of my knowledge. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Bill, the plethora of detail about the life of George De Mohrenschildt (DM) bears some interest. Perhaps nobody has delved more into the life and connections of Geroge DM than Bruce Adams, a well-known JFK researcher. Many of us have purchased his CD set about George DM and spent hours and days reviewing its contents. We can fairly well establish, IMHO, that George DM was an opportunist. If he could have retrieved his Russian land inheritance by supporting the Nazi SS he would have done so. If he could have improved his fortunes by an oil exploration contract in Haiti, he would have done so. By my reading George DM supported CIA activities against Cuba by taking photographs of Communist installations. He probably did this on his well-known walking trip from Texas to Guatamala. So we can fairly well establish, IMHO, that George DM made his contacts with the clandestine Anticommunists of his day. He liked Lee Harvey Oswald, so he said. His own children had little interest in politics, but Oswald loved to offer his opinion about politics to somebody who was well-read. Oswald also owned an expensive spy camera among his effects according to the Warren Commision -- yet he was quite poor, so where did he get it the money for it? It is possible he got it from George DM. IMHO, however, George DM plays a minor role in the JFK assassination -- his main job was to babysit Lee Harvey Oswald, in exchange for a Haiti oil contract (as I see it). Yet George DM botched his baby-sitting job. He could not keep his hands to himself; he had to interfere. Lee Harvey Oswald, a die-hard Marine like his brother, held the opinion that JFK betrayed the Cuban Exiles (and the free world) at the Bay of Pigs, and if the Cuban Exiles had any guts they would have killed JFK themselves. We know this from testimony from George DM and also from your own interview of Volkmar Schmidt in 1995. (BTW, Volkmar Schmidt died this year, on May 13th.) George DM and Volkmar Schmidt toyed with the mind of Lee Harvey Oswald, as carefully described by Schmidt himself in your 1995 interview. Schmidt's intent was to transfer Oswald's anger against JFK into anger against ex-General Edwin Walker. He used an advanced psychiatric technique that he learned as a child (because his parents were professional psychologists, I understand). Anyway, it apparently worked, and Lee Oswald purchased guns after that psychological session, and began to take photographs of Walker's house. Oswald had Marina take one photograph of him with his guns (to the best of her recollection) and Oswald then used the advanced photographic resources at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall in Dallas to make "Foto-shop" style variations on that one photograph, for plausible deniability (IMHO). One of these photographs he gave to George DM, and on the back was written in Russian, "Lee Oswald, Hunter of Fascists, ha ha". After Lee Harvey Oswald (and at least one other person with a car) took a pot-shot at Walker and missed on 10 April 1963, George DM and his wife Jeanne were disturbed, and they suspected Oswald. This was a major breach of George DM's agreement with the CIA to babysit Oswld. Three days later they visited Oswald and Marina at 10PM, and found the gun with the scope, and then promptly left, never to see the Oswalds again. On the next day, Easter Sunday 14 April 1963, George DM told his friends Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin about his suspicions but he did not tell the Dallas police. Then George and Jeane DM flew to Haiti and that was the end of their participation in the JFK assassination, IMHO. Mrs. Igor Voshinin told the FBI that very day, she testified. The FBI would have no choice, IMHO, than to inform ex-General Edwin Walker to beware of Lee Harvey Oswald, due to this report. If that is the case - then the patsification of Lee Harvey Oswald begins on this date, Easter Sunday, 1963. There are a few connections between Walker and Lee Harvey Oswald, the selected patsy, between April 1963 and September 1963, but they are controversial and not yet confirmed. Then, in mid-September 1963, Harry Dean witnessed as ex-General Edwin Walker told a gathering of John Birch Society members, Minutemen and Cuban Exiles that the patsy has been made ready - and his name was Lee Harvey Oswald. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

I agree with you, Len, however, the conclusions that George DM wrote when he was down and out (i.e. "Lee Oswald was a patsy") were the same conclusions that George DM wrote when he was happy and healthy. He even told the Warren Commission that he doubted that Lee Oswald was the killer of JFK, way back in 1964. So, he never changed his opinion on this topic -- even though he did change his fortunes dramatically. If somebody who was plugged into the social network of the wealthy folks of Dallas and Texas as George DM continued to insist that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy in the killing of JFK, then I think it is a fair to suppose that he had some idea about who the actual responsible parties were. George DM suffered a moral failure (not a mental failure) when he chose to withhold evidence from the Dallas police that Lee Harvey Oswald was at least one of the shooters at ex-General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963. It also seems to me that George DM suffered a second moral failure in failing to divulge Volkmar Schmidt's name in his booklet, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy! Finally, it remains entirely possible that George DM suffered a third moral failure by withholding his speculations about who the real JFK plotters actually were. He was protecting (I will guess here) the Texas right-wing movers and shakers. Or perhaps he was afraid of them -- we may never know. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Bill, I think I know what you're hesitation is about -- the Jewish angle could be played several ways in politics. For example, Jack Ruby was upset that a Jewish man's name was on that harsh advertisement, and it is possible (and Bernie Weissman believed this) that Jack Ruby was out to kill Bernie Weissman for this scandal upon all Jews. I agree with you that it was no accident that the real controllers wanted Bernie Weissman's name on the ad, including a totally fictional, "American Fact Finding Committee." It was planned fairly carefully. It is likely that the planner knew that a Jewish name would cause side-arguments and detours to contribute to the chaos. Larrie Schmidt told LIFE magazine (1965) the reason that he was told -- that this way nobody could accuse the right-wing of being anti-Semitic; that the right-wing also had Jews in their ranks, that not all Jews were liberals, and that a Jewish man could be valuable to the right-wing. That, of course, is one possible spin on the topic. Yet I don't know anybody who considers Jack Ruby to be a liberal intellectual -- and he wanted to shoot Bernie Weissman for running the black-bordered ad. Clearly there was more than one possible political spin on this. My opinion, however, is simply that the John Birch Society (JBS) wanted to cover their tracks as much as possible. They never wanted any part of this black-bordered ad to be traced to the JBS. Having the CUSA take credit for the ad was risky because it was well known in Dallas that Larrie Schmidt was the leader of CUSA, and Larrie Schmidt was fairly well known in rightist circles in Dallas. So, to put Larrie's name, and CUSA on the ad (which was closer to the truth) would have been too risky for the JBS Why all the subterfuge, you ask? I believe it was a continuation of the general trend of the events -- it was all set up to hide the fact that the JBS was the ultimate sponsor of the black-bordered ad. Weissman and Schmidt and Grinnan were at the ground level, working with the DMN clerk, carrying money and paying bills -- but they did not use their own words and they did not use their own money. Nor were they paid for this (as far as I know) but it was all volunteer work. They were acting on "orders from above." And one of the most persistent demands from these "orders from above" was that the identity of the commanders would be kept secret. The Warren Commission through the FBI was able to learn who the three financiers were for the black-bordered ad (by grilling Joe Grinnan for hours). However, Grinnan could not tell the FBI who proposed the all-important words of the black-bordered ad, because he himself was not permitted to know. He himself could only guess. That's my take on it. I'm open to other information. The JBS leadership (including H.L. Hunt, Robert Morris and ex-General Edwin Walker) were the commanders, IMHO. Probably they communited through the financiers to get messages to Grinnan. They strove to keep their identities secret, and so the more subterfuge the better. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Bill, if you mean that Bernie Weissman was hung out to dry, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I advised Larrie Schmidt to allow me to help him write his memoirs, and to give this work the title, Dear Bernie Weissman, I'm Sorry. I opined that such a work could be ready in time for the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination coming up, and we could possibly have a good market for the book. He declined. (As an advocate of Mitt Romney for President, his slogan was evidently, "No apologies.") Your question is interesting. Yet after hearing Larrie Scmidt's full story over several months, I'm convinced that CUSA was little more than a teen-age boys club of naive yet ambitious young men who thought they could parlay their support for Barry Goldwater into real political power and riches. It was a pipe dream and they had no great sophistication of any kind. I'm convinced of this not by Larrie Schmidt's persuasive charm as a professional advertising copy writer, but from the material events, e.g. his alleged followers really did not follow him, but tolerated his egoistic antics, until it became clear that they might actually make some money from this guy. Note, for example, that Bernie Weissman did not join Larrie Schmidt in Dallas until only a couple of weeks before the JFK assassination. Bernie testified to the Warren Commission that he basically thought Larrie was full of hot air -- until Adlai Stevenson really was heckled, spit on and assaulted with a placard in Dallas on 24 October 1963. Weissman mistakenly believed that Larrie Schmidt was the mastermind of that political skirmish, and for the first time became convinced that Larrie was really going to be somebody big and important. That's why he and Bill Burley moved to Dallas (that and because they were scraping by as encyclopedia salesmen). But when Weissman got to Dallas, he was again disappointed. For one thing, Larrie was not a major player in Dallas -- quite the contrary. Larry Jones and his fiance had recently moved out of Dallas after only a few months there, in disappointment over Larrie's promises. Larrie's brother (besides Larrie himself) was the only one with a steady job, and his brother was a mere chauffer for ex-General Edwin Walker, paid with room and board and a small stipend. Everybody else had to fend for themselves, so to speak. No, Weissman quickly realized that the John Birch Society had taken charge over Larrie Schmidt, through its various leaders in Dallas, including Robert Morris (Walker's attorney), ex-General Edwin Walker himself, and at the higher and more unapproachable end of the spectrum, H.L. Hunt and his two sons. Weissman is also clear about where the ideas came from for the black-bordered ad. The John Birch Society (JBS) paid for and dictated every single sentence and every single revision of that ad, with the exception of one revision for one sentence that Bernie himself insisted upon, and perhaps one revision by Larrie Schmidt. Even though Larrie Schmidt boasted that the CUSA would one day take over the John BIrch Society even as he had personally taken over the NIC (which was already going bankrupt) and the YAF (which was actually a pending deal, under Robert Morris), the JBS leaders secretly held this as a running joke. For the JBS, the boys of CUSA were errand boys. That's how they were treated, and that's how history finds them on 22 November 1963. As for the fictitious sponsor organization (TAFFC) that was also a JBS mandate. As for Grinnan, he was a middle-man -- he did not contribute money (but he did collect and deliver money) and he did not contribute ideas (but he did collect and relay revisions) for the black-bordered ad. He was a messenger -- another errand boy. I should also point out that Bernie Weissman finally gave his consent to use his name for the black-bordered ad -- at the very last minute. The JBS dictated that one of the CUSA boys must sign his name to it, and Larrie Schmidt did not want to be that person -- although if Weissman had flatly refused, Larrie Schmidt would have been obliged to sign it. As it turned out, after the assassination occurred, Larrie Schmidt did his best to distance himself from Bernie Weissman, and I have the impression that he never saw Weissman again in his life. In that sense, Bernie was indeed hung out to dry. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Tommy, let's discuss a bit more about the possibility that Loran Hall was not Sylvia Odio's visitor on Wednesday 24 September 1963. We have one major reason to doubt Hall as the visitor, namely, that Sylvia Odio could not (or would not) identify Hall from photographs. That bothers me -- but I accept it conditionally because: (1) the FBI quickly picked up Loran Hall for questioning after hearing Sylvia's story; and (2) Loran Hall at first admitted that he and Larry Howard did actually visit Sylvia Odio on or about that date. IMHO, those two facts outweigh the fact that Sylvia Odio couldn't identify Hall or Howard from photographs. First, it is very plausible that Sylvia Odio was terrified by these two men, whom she called, "greasy," and in fact they could be ferociously violent when the situation called for it. (I can easily imagine either man, or both, calling Sylvia Odio at night -- they did have her number -- and making threats to protect themselves from identification.) If that was the case, then naturally Sylvia Odio would hesitate to name them unless she received explicit and repeated assurances from the WC that she would be protected -- she got no such assurance. Yet that is not hard proof -- that is only a surmise. Furthermore, there is another bit of evidence on the side of Sylvia Odio's testimony, namely, Claudia Furiati (ZR-Rifle, 1994), citing Fabian Escalante, a former Cuban General for Castro who was tracking the right-wing in Texas (through the likes of Nico Crespi, and possibly Kiki Ferrer). Furiati wrote that the Sampol brothers fit Odio's physical description more precisely, and furthermore, their "war names" actually were "Leopoldo" and "Angel". Furiati offered very little further evidence, except to say that the Sampol brothers (like Hall and Howard) participated in many guerrilla raids on Casto's Cuba. The Sampol brothers, she wrote, were also connected with Santos Trafficante, and smuggled heroin for him. So, that would be two bits of evidence against Hall and Howard being "Leopoldo" and "Angel". But we already had two bits of evidence to say that Hall and Howard were "Leopoldo" and "Angel". Even score. Can we tip the balance one way or the other? I think we can. In my theory, ex-General Edwin Walker plays a more central role in the JFK-assassination than any theory I've ever read. (The closest anybody came to my theory was Dick Russell in his 2003, TMWKTM, and he backed away after two interviews of Walker...which I believe were tepid interviews.) Yet the evidence mounts that Walker knew about Lee Harvey Oswald throughout the spring, summer and fall of 1963, as he increasingly made deals with Cuban Exiles along with the Minutemen and their paramilitary training camps in New Orleans. Dick Russell reported that H.L. Hunt's butler told him that he overheard H.L. Hunt and ex-General Walker discussing Lee Harvey Oswald sometime before the JFK assassination. The key to the JFK conspiracy is that it must include Lee Harvey Oswald. There were probably hundreds of plots against JFK. JFK had many powerful enemies in the USA. But the one and only plot that actually succeeded was the one that included Lee Harvey Oswald. OK - back to Howard and Hall. We find that Howard and Hall are fairly close to the description of the Sampol brothers, but Howard and Hall were also connected with ex-General Walker -- while the Sampol brothers (to the best of my knowledge) weren't. Further, Claudia Furiati has nothing to say about ex-General Walker -- and that weakens her case in my book. She does not care much about the ground-crew -- she is obsessed with Washington power, i.e. the CIA. Also, she knew that Operation Mongoose was led by Major General Edward Lansdale, but she didn't know that Operation Mongoose was RFK's brainchild, and that RFK tracked Operation Mongoose on an obsessive, almost daily basis, conferring with Lansdale very closely. She should have known that. Further, Furiati held some odd notion that Lee Harvey Oswald was some important person in US intelligence -- like a 007 figure. Rather, Oswald was always struggling to get a permanent job in US intelligence, and nobody wanted to hire him permanently -- he was just one more expendible contractor (like perhaps most CIA operatives). Finally, Claudia Furiati is so keen on naming Cuban Exiles as conspirators working for the CIA that she clumsily forced Lee Harvey Oswald into the picture without any clear rhyme or reason (like most researchers who focus on the CIA). Yet there is a truly dramatic human dimension to Oswald's story -- something that is not captured by Norman Mailer or Priscilla McMillan or Don DeLillo; namely, the dimension of a "wannabe double agent." For Claudia Furiati, Oswald remains an abstract place-holder in her CIA-and-Cuban-Exile litany. Howard Dean's story offers a more viable portrait -- he offers us a motive for Hall and Howard to be with Oswald, to drive Oswald around, to listen to his story, to pretend they were on his side, and to convince Oswald to be exactly where their bosses wanted Oswald to be. Also, Hall and Howard were closely related to ex-General Edwin Walker through Gerry Patrick Hemming. Hemming, in turn, confessed to A.J. Weberman that it was he, Hemming, who convinced Oswald to bring his rifle to the TSBD building on the day of the JFK assassination. So -- Claudia Furiati loses at least one of her points, while Harry Dean picks up at least one more point. The scales tip in favor of Hall and Howard; so, I still accept that Loran Hall and Larry Howard were "Leopoldo" and "Angel". I'm open to other information, of course -- yet I wish to see how any new proposal is also related closely to Oswald and Walker and Hemming in some material way. Our current suspects are clearly related. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Tommy, I can't comment on Bernardo De Torres because I'm not aware of that thread, yet. As for Roger Craig, I used a secondary source for Craig's account -- and the secondary sources are full of variations, so I should have known better. Let's hear it from Craig's own words: It can be found on http://www.ratical.o.../JFK/WTKaP.html and here's an applicable paragraph: "I had several meetings with Jim Garrison. He showed me numerous pictures taken in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. Among them was a picture of a Latin male. I recognized him as being the same man I had seen driving the Rambler station wagon in which I had seen Oswald leave the Book Depository area. I was surprised and I asked Jim who the man was. Jim did not know but he did say this man was arrested in Dealey Plaza immediately after the assassination but was released by Dallas Police because he could not speak English!" (Roger Craig, 1971) Now, this is different from the story I cited, which claimed that this "dark-skinned" man, who was driving the Rambler, was also seen by Craig exiting the front door, was stopped by the DPD who then let him go because he claimed he could not speak English. So, Roger Craig's story was modified by that writer -- and by many other writers. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Admittedly the sentences above are among the weaker parts of my theory. Harry Dean reported that he attended a meeting in which WW2 hero Guy Gabaldon was given a briefcase full of money by high-ranking leaders of the JBS, including ex-General Edwin Walker, to guide Loran Hall and Lawrence Howard in a plot to keep Lee Harvey Oswald in a position where he could be easily manipulated. That is empirical evidence for Harry -- he was there. However, Harry admits that he can only surmise that Loran Hall and Larry Howard were "Leopoldo" and "Angel". There were so many plots to kill JFK -- and so many rich rightists throwing money at all these plots -- that it is difficult to know where one ends and the other begins. It remains possible that the Guy Gabaldon plot failed -- but other people in other plots were grafted onto the original Walker plot. It is entirely possible that Sylvia Odio's two visitors, "Leonardo" and "Angel" were two other Latinos than Loran Hall and Larry Howard, and this would not necessarily contradict Harry Dean's statement at all -- after all, Harry didn't claim to be at Sylvio Odio's doorstep on Wednesday 24 September 1963. That is, any two rightist Latinos could have replaced Loran Hall and Larry Howard at Sylvia Odio's doorstep, as far as I can tell, and then driven Oswald to Mexico. The ground-crew probably consisted of a hundred people - not just a dozen. None of this contradicts Harry Dean's account. I say this because: (1) Sylvia Odio did not (or would not) identify photographs of Loran Hall and Larry Howard as "Leopoldo" and "Angel"; and (2) Claudia Furiati said that two Cuban Exiles, the Sampol brothers, were probably Sylvia's visitors that day. I don't know the actual facts -- but I just want to say that whoever "Leopoldo" and "Angel" turn out to be, Harry Dean's account still stands, as it stands in a class by itself. I will add that two Warren Commission witnesses said that they saw two men in the 6th floor of the TSBD building at noon on 22 November 1963, where one was lighter-skinned and the other was darker-skinned. That description matches descriptions for "Leonoardo" and "Angel," as well. Later, as many of us know, DPD cop Roger Craig saw a dark-skinned Latino leave the TSBD building after the shooting, and then in a Green Rambler, saw the same dark-skinned man (along with a lighter-skinned man) pick up Lee Harvey Oswald minutes later. For his troubles, Roger Craig was shot, bombed and died a violent death. Where these two men "Leopoldo" and "Angel"? If so, were they Hall and Howard, or the Sampol brothers? We don't know yet -- and still Harry Dean's account retains the ring of truth. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

David, that's a very interesting article that names some of my prime suspects. It's well known that I am tracing the activities of Edwin Walker from 1961-1963, so I would like to ask further about three segments of your report: What is your source for your statement that Colonel Arch Roberts was the "architect" of Edwin Walker's "Pro-Blue" propaganda program in the Army? I ask because both Peter Dale Scott and William Turner both claim that Reverend Billy James Hargis was the one who helped Walker design the Pro-Blue program. Now, Billy James Hargis was also a rabid anti-Semite and a shouting segregationist, so he belongs to the same right-wing extremist camp; however in the interest of accuracy -- as well as personal associations -- we can place Walker and Hargis together for months at a time in 1962 and 1963. I am working on research to place them together for months at a time in 1960 and 1961 as well. Walker's turn from US Army General to rightist public speaker seems to involve his close, personal relationship with Reverend Billy James Hargis. It is extremely interesting for my research that Colonel Gale, a Southern California MM member, leader and possibly backer, was friendly with General Walker and stayed in Walker's house in July, 1963. I am working on research to trace Walker's activities after his 10 April 1963 shooting by two men (one of whom was allegedly Lee Harvey Oswald). By placing Walker close to both the CDL and the MM via Gale at Walker's own home in Dallas, I would have a gold mine to work with. I know that Gerry Patrick Hemming is hard to dig -- but could there possibly be any more detail? Notice the agreement between Hemming's statement here and Harry Dean's statement that Walker was involved with the Minutemen in Southern California, as well as the JBS there. Loran Hall's admission that he not only visited Walker in the summer of 1963, but that he also heard talk about Lee Oswald in June of 1963 is very interesting as well. Here we can place Hemming and Hall with Walker in the middle of 1963, all hearing about countless plans from haters all across the USA to kill JFK. One of those possibly hundreds of plans would eventually work -- the one that involved Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet as far as I can tell, the source for this seems to be this 1 September 1968 National Enquirer article in which Loran Hall separates himself and all his friends from any involvement in the JFK assassination: http://www.pet880.com/images/19680903_Natl_Enquirer_NB.pdf While there are lots of interesting facts in this article, there seems to be a lot of fabrication in it as well. Do we have confirmation of any of these names, places and dates? Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Tommy, Your posting of 20 names from Larry Howard's personal address book is intriguing: ----------------------------------------------------- Begin list ----------------------------------- Pedro Diaz Lanz Frank Fiorini [sturgis] Frank Fernandez of Dallas Lester Logue Clint Wheat William Gale Larry Laborde Enrique Molina Rivera -- "who Hemming and Howard claimed was a Castro agent" Alexander Rorke Richard Butler Rolando Masferrer Rojas (and Masferrer's brother, Kiki Ferrer) Robert K. Brown Dr. Grennan [Dr. Stanley Drennan] Eddie Field -- "right winger and friend of John Lechner" Roy Hargraves Nico Crespi Dr. Robert Morris Tony Varona Renee Valdez Edgar Eugene Bradley ----------------------------------------------- End List ------------------------- Of course, everybody recognizes Frank Sturgis of Watergate fame. A few more might recognize the name of Dr. Robert Morris, who was a staff writer for Joe McCarthy, a stalwart leader in the John Birch Society, and a high-powered attorney who represented ex-General Edwin Walker to get him acquitted by a Mississippi Grand Jury for his role in the deadly Ole Miss riots of 1962 (and who also sued many American newspapers over several years for printing harsh truths about ex-General Edwin Walker). But I wonder how many will recognize the name of Tony Varona, who was named by Fabian Escalante as the man mostly likely to have led a squad against JFK in Dallas. (Source: Claudia Furiati, ZR-Rifle: The Plot to Kill Kennedy and Castro, 1995). This is Larry Howard's personal address book -- and he was the low man on the totem pole, as far as I can tell. This looks like a good place to dig. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Tommy, I'm convinced by your identification of Nico Crespi as "Antonio Crespi Larralde," a former captain in Castro's army, who emigrated to the USA on or about November 1960, who was probably a Castro agent sent here to act as a "double agent" to infiltrate the rightist movement in the USA. Your logic, that Gerry Patrick Hemming told Weberman that "Naico Crespi" was probably a Castro agent, gives us a hard match. Insofar as Loran Hall said that Kiki Ferrer lived in Sylvia Odio's apartment complex, and he introduced Hall to Silvia Odio, but Sylvia Odio insisted she never heard of this person -- however, she did say that the Masferrer family did live in the same apartment complex -- this, IMHO, suggests a match. So, again, I'm convinced by your identification of Kiki Ferrer with "Rodolfo Masferrer". What we see in Larry Howard's address book is possibly a partial listing of the ground-crew of the JFK assassination. They consist largely of Cuban Exiles in the right-wing anti-Castro movement, and their USA supporters. Some of those 20 names in Larry Howard's address book jumped out at me: Frank Sturgis (before the Watergate break-in) was in that address book. Also, Robert Morris, the high-powered attorney of ex-General Edwin Walker, was in that address book. So was Nico Crespi. A thorough investigation of the Cuban Exile connections of Lee Harvey Oswald -- that's what was missing from the Warren Commission investigation, from Jim Garrison's investigation, and from the House Select Committee on Asssassinations (HSCA) investigation. The Cuban Exile connection was the thread that Mrs. Connell handed to the Warren Commission in 1963 (one week after the JFK assassination) when she gave them Sylvia Odio's name and address. But either the WC was too ignorant to follow up this lead, or they knew exactly where it led, and they were tasked with suppressing this line of inquiry. I suspect the latter motive. Without the Cuban Exile connection, I am not surprised that after 49 years of effort, JFK researchers have not been able to crack this case. The clues are there -- but the connections are still to be made. I appreciate your two connections in this thread. I believe they will snowball into bigger connections in the near future. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Tommy, I'd like to focus for a while on your effort to reconcile Harry Dean's account with the account by Richard Case Nagell (presumably as told to Dick Russell in his book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (2003). You are intrigued by Nagell's statement that Oswald was involved, "up to his ears," in the JFK assassination. It is very difficult to say that this statement is false or true, because the statement is very vague. "Involved up to his ears" uses a metaphor in place of details. I agree that Oswald was involved in the JFK assassination. But what does it mean -- up to his ears? Richard Case Nagell, a "double agent," had become accustomed to speaking in vague terms. It is precisely because Nagell's affirmation is so vague that I find it very easy to reconcile Nagell's statement with Harry Dean's account. Allow me to briefly review Harry Dean's account along with some generally accepted historical facts to illustrate what I mean: 1. As the 1960's opened, the right-wing in the USA believed that the Civil Rights movement was Communist, and that this included Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren's decision on "Brown v. the Board of Education" in 1957, which led to Eisenhower's use of federal troops to enroll six black children into the high school at Little Rock Arkansas in 1959. This led to the founding of the JBS and its first and most enduring bumper sticker and billboard: "Impeach Earl Warren" 2. In 1960 the JBS broadcast that the UN was a Communist Front, and that every US President since FDR had been a secret Communist. 3. Three days before ex-General Walker staged a race riot of thousands at Ole Miss U. in Oxford, Mississippi on 10 September 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis was getting all the US headlines. When Walker sent his hostile, "open letter" to JFK, the content of that letter was more about Cuba than about racial segregation in Mississippi. http://www.pet880.co...Open_Letter.JPG 4. As 1962 came to a close, the right-wing had gone further underground in response to their humiliating loss at Ole Miss, as black student James Meredith attended classes there every day. Harry Dean had already met Loran Hall and Larry Howard, and possibly through them Harry was invited to join the Minutemen (MM) organization. 5. According to Harry, the MM organization was an armed citizen militia, and their main activity was to attend military training camps with their own weapons. They were fiercely anti-Communist, but more importantly for this thread, they were fiercely anti-JFK. 6. According to Harry, most MM members were also members of the John Birch Society (JBS) or at least fellow-travelers. They bought the idea of Joe McCarthy that there were secret Communists inside the US Government, and they were happy that Robert Welch and the JBS took over the leadership of this viewpoint after Joe McCarthy died. Most MM members believed that JFK was a communist. 7. The Cuban Missile Crisis sent matters whirling. Just as people in my neighorhood began building bomb-shelters in their back yards, the MM members increased their paramilitary drills to resist an attack of Communists on US shores. 8. According to Harry Dean, MM members continually talked about killing Castro, and also about killing JFK (because the Bay of Pigs fiasco "proved" to many of them that JFK was a Communist). In other words, a secret Communist was a traitor, and every good patriot wishes to execute every traitor. 9. As I understand his account, Harry Dean first heard of Lee Harvey Oswald on or about mid-September 1963 at a JBS meeting with ex-General Walker, Congressman John Rousselot, WW2 hero Guy Gabaldon, Loran Hall and Larry Howard. At that meeting ex-General Walker announced that their plot had finally identified the perfect patsy -- a Communist named Lee Harvey Oswald. 10. Harry thought that was poetic justice, and the whole group at that meeting had a good laugh about it. He then witnessed as Guy Gabaldon accepted a large cache of cash to facilitate his role in the plot. That, according to Harry, was the last time he heard the name of Lee Harvey Oswald until the afternoon of 22 November 1963, when he heard the name on TV. Now -- these facts stand along with other facts, according to my theory, as follows: A: On 10 April 1963, the right-wing speaker and "double agent" Lee Harvey Oswald joined one other shooter to try to assassinate ex-General Edwin Walker at his home in Dallas, Texas. B: Oswald had been influenced in this decision by the psychological techniques of Volkmar Schmidt, a friend of George De Mohrenshildt, at a party in which Michael Paine and his wife, Ruth Paine, also attended and observed. (Schmidt, as he later confessed and as De Mohrenshildt later told the HSCA, had attempted to transfer Oswald's bitterness at JFK over the Bay of Pigs in 1961 onto ex-General Edwin Walker for his race riot at Ole Miss in 1962.) C: Four days after the shooting, George De Mohrenshildt told his friends, Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin, that he strongly suspected Oswald as "the shooter" and Mrs. Voshinin immediately told the FBI. The FBI (as I surmise) immediately told ex-General Edwin Walker. (Oswald had not been picked up for questioning, to the best of my knowledge, although Walker always believed that Oswald had been picked up). D: Ex-General Walker chose to exact paramilitary justice. E. Walker was sure that Oswald had been picked up for questioning, but was then set free by RFK himself, so that Oswald could try to kill Walker again (in revenge for the Ole Miss riots and for being quickly acquitted by a Mississippi Grand Jury). But ex-General Walker was also a member of the MM, and so was his associate in New Orleans, Guy Banister. F: Guy Banister had an associate, David Ferrie, who had known Lee Harvey Oswald since his youth. In my theory, Ferrie offered Oswald a lucrative mercenary job if he would immediately move to New Orleans. Only seven days after the Walker shooting, Lee Harvey Oswald decided to move to New Orleans. Fourteen days after the Walker shooting, Oswald moved in with his aunt Lillian Murret in New Orleans. G: While in New Orleans, Oswald's main personal associates (which we find in the newspapers, in radio recordings and on TV video tape) were Cuban Exiles by the names of Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler. H: Carlos Bringuier and especially Ed Butler were propaganda specialists for the rightist Cuban Exile cause. They were very friendly with the MM and they shared training camp expenses with them. I: During August, 1963, Oswald was patsified -- he was sheep-dipped -- he was made to appear in the newspaper, raido and TV to be an officer of the FPCC. Many people to this very day believe this propaganda skillfully created by Ed Butler. J: Richard Case Nagell at this point learned of this plot -- Oswald was going to try to use his newspaper clippings to convince the Consulates in Mexico that he was indeed an officer in the FPCC (and FPCC officers always got passage into Cuba at a moment's notice). Once in Cuba, Oswald had orders to kill Castro. Nagell warned Oswald that if he succeeded in getting passage to Cuba, that he would personally kill Oswald. K: When the sheep-dip was over, Oswald was joined by Loran Hall and Larry Howard for a trip to Mexico to get passage to Cuba to kill Castro. If he failed that mission, then they were to take Oswald to meet Guy Gabaldon, who was going to pose as a CIA officer, and offer Oswald a secret "double agent" project. L: On their way to Mexico, they decided to stop in Dallas to meet Sylvia Odio -- perhaps for contacts in hopes of identifying alternative passage to Cuba, in case Oswald's current strategy failed. Sylvia Odio was no help to them. They went to Mexico. M: Oswald's main mission failed -- he was unable to use his newspaper clippings to convince the Consulates that he was indeed an officer in the FPCC. N. We may presume that Oswald met Guy Gabaldon, accepted some money and then traveled back to Dallas. The rest, as they say, is history. But my point is, Tommy, that if we correlate the data of Harry Dean with my hypothesis, there is no contradiction, and actually there is an obvious interleaving of the bullet points. In other words, the composite story reconciles Harry Dean and Richard Case Nagell smoothly. What do you think? Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Thanks, Tommy. Actually, I couldn't remember the names of Antonio Crespi Larralde or WIlliam McEwan Duff, so I myself entered in the stub of 'Filibuster' until I could quickly look up the correct names. I corrected the text within minutes, and it was late at night, and I thought nobody was online. Yet you evidently read my post while I was in the middle of editing it. As you can see, it is currently correct. Apparently you agreed with my logic so far. What this history suggests to me is that Leopoldo (Loran Hall), Angel (Larry Howard), Sylvia Odio, Lee Harvey Oswald, Nico Crespi, Niki Ferrer, Gerry Patrick Hemming and ex-General Edwin Walker -- and let us not forget Harry Dean -- were all involved at some level in the assassination of JFK. As for Harry Dean, his role was to pretend to support the plot; he had to avoid being caught spying for the FBI. Harry Dean says that he told the FBI this same account in September, 1963, and they never responded, and promptly cut him off. Being a double-agent is apparently a thankless role. There has been some skepticism about Harry Dean's claims, yet I myself find them entirely credible. By the way, Harry Dean's claims go beyond that single meeting. Harry claims that he met Loran Hall and Larry Howard in late 1962 in connection with anti-Castro propaganda, and that after meeting them Harry was invited to become a member of the Southern California Minutemen. He joined, and this increased his value in the eyes of the most radical members of the JBS. This plausibly explains why he was invited to this top-secret meeting led by Congressman John Rousselot and ex-General Edwin Walker. My question to you, Tommy, is this: what is your current perception of the claims of Harry Dean? Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Tommy, thanks for the feedback. You might agree with me that Gerry Patrick Hemming's interviews can be difficult to follow as he sometimes begins a "free association" -- unable to stick to a single point because there are so many connections and associations that pique his memory in every new sentence. He often rambles and becomes impatient with interviewers who try to force him to stay on point. As for Nico Crespi, we seem to know very little about him, but your theory about him in your thread appears sound, namely, he was none other than Antonio Crespi Larralde, a captain in Castro's army who moved to the USA to spy on the Cuban Exiles here. This matches with Hemming's suspicion that Nico Crespi was a Castro spy. Also, he evidently lived in the same apartment complex as Sylvia Odio. That's a match, so I'm willing to go with that for now. It's interesting that Sylvia Odio herself was very much in the thick of the action between the Cuban Exile counter-revolutionaries and the Cuban Reds. From a wealthy family, she had to join countless Cubans in a voyage to the USA to escape the madness of a Communist takeover of Cuba. In the process her family was badly hurt, her father was imprisoned by Castro, and her husband divorced her, leaving her to raise several children by herself. It wasn't just this stress -- but in the USA she was: (1) continually pulled upon by the Cuban Exiles trying to organize a rebellion to get Cuba back from the Communists; and (2) continually spied upon by Castro's people; and (3) being blackmailed by Castro himself because he could do anything he wanted to Sylvia's father. No wonder she started having fainting spells. That's a tremendous amount of stress for any normal person. But the Warren Commission used the fact that she saw a psychiatrist to discount her testimony -- perhaps the most important testimony in all their volumes, that could have led to Oswald's ground-crew accomplices. So the USA also betrayed Sylvia Odio. She simply ran out of luck when Cuba fell to the Communists. My main point is that Nico Crespi lived down the way from Sylvia Odio. Insofar as he was really a spy for Castro, then it seems reasonable that one of his duties would be to keep an eye on Sylvia Odio -- to spy on her. Furthermore, Nico Crespi was a "double agent", that is, to spy on right-wingers in the USA, like Loran Hall, Larry Howard (Leopoldo and Angel) and Gerry Patrick Hemming, he had to pretend to be one of them. The impression I get from Hemming's interviews with Weberman is that Hemming suspected Nico Crespi of being a Castro spy, but he did not tell Loran Hall or Larry Howard of this -- because they did not even know that Hemming knew about Nico Crespi. Loran Hall further testified that Nico Crespi's associate, Kiki Ferrer was the one who told him about Sylvia Odio. Yet Sylvia Odio said that she never heard of Kiki Ferrer, although she knew that the Masferrer family lived in her neighborhood. So, again, we appear to have another match. Why would Crespi/Ferrer tell Leonardo/Angel to visit Sylvia Odio? There were several plausible reasons based on our premises so far: (i) to keep the pressure on Sylvia Odio so that she knew she was being watched; (ii) to get further information about Sylvia Odio from right-wingers naive enough to give them (Crespi/Ferrer) information; (iii) to convince Leonardo/Angel that they were Cuban Exile counter-revolutionaries on their side; and (iv) to become friends with Leonardo/Angel to get more information about right-wing plans to attack Castro's Cuba. There are probably more reasons. So, this seems to pan out so far. Now, what does all this have to do with the JFK assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald directly? Plenty. The personal link who puts it all together is Gerry Patrick Hemming. He knew every single one of these players, evidently. Hemming also knew ex-General Edwin Walker. When Hemming was asked by Weberman point blank, "who shot at Walker" (on 10 April 1963) Hemming replied flippantly, "One of the faggots who lived with him." It is now fairly well-known that ex-General Edwin Walker (who never married) was a homosexual before he went into the Army in the 1930's until he left in the 1960's. In those days a homosexual had to live in the closet in civilian society, but in the Army it was worse - it was a court-martial offense. Yet Walker rose to the level of two-star General; therefore, ex-General Edwin Walker (the only US General to resign in the 20th century) was accustomed to living a secret life -- accustomed to lying for a living. Yet Hemming's flippant remark (as well as his notorious fund-raising letter to Walker) shows that Hemming did not know as much about ex-General Walker as he believed. Although the police also arrested and interviewed one of the young gay or bisexual men who lived with ex-General Walker from December, 1962 to February 1963, namely, William MacEwan Duff, a long investigation only proved that this man was innocent of the charge of shooting at Walker. (Walker told the Warren Commission that Duff was welcome back in his home anytime.) Hemming evidently did not follow the case very closely. Also, both Walker and his live-in publisher, Robert Allen Surrey, were convinced that Walker had two shooters on 10 April 1963. Actually, Hemming seems to know Lee Harvey Oswald better than he knew ex-General Walker. I appreciate that you found (in Weberman, not in this FORUM) the interview from Gerry Patrick Hemming about Lee Harvey Oswald, the TSBD Building, and Oswald's Manlicher-Carcano rifle. It's in NODULE 23 by Weberman, and I'll just quote from that sectoin here: ---------------------- Begin Excerpt from Nodule 23 by Weberman -------------------------- OSWALD brought his disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano with him to the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of November 22, 1963, because he had been instructed to do so. HEMMING had fired the weapon on the weekend before the assassination, and told Oswald that he liked it a lot and would purchase it for him on next Friday. HEMMING: "Just offer him double the value of his gun. It wouldn't make anyone nervous. A crime like this hadn't occurred since McKinley, it wouldn't have been uppermost in his mind about the President, or any other kind of bullxxxx." OSWALD entered the Texas School Book Depository carrying the package, and went up to the sixth floor. He hid the package between some book cartons. HEMMING had assured OSWALD it was to be picked up. OSWALD was told to go to the lunchroom between 12:15 p.m. and 12:45 p.m. so he would not see the person who picked up the rifle. ------------------------- End Excerpt from Nodule 23 by Weberman --------------------- The more I think about it, the more obvious it seems to me that Gerry Patrick Hemming had just confessed to Weberman that he himself was part of the ground-crew that killed JFK. The ground-crew was extremely well organized, and probably composed of 100 people. Here was the role of Hemming: to instruct Oswald to bring his gun to the TSBD Building and hide it and walk away. Evidently, Oswald did that -- and this is what convicted him of the JFK assassination. Now here is Hemming admitting that he was the very person who told Oswald to bring his rifle to work that day. Even if Hemming did nothing else in the JFK assassination, he was part of the ground-crew. And if he was, then the likelihood of Leonardo and Angel (i.e. Hall and Howard) being part of the ground-crew as well, just increased. And if so, then the claims of Harry Dean, that he personally saw Hall and Howard accept money in the presence of ex-General Edwin Walker, for the purpose of framing Lee Harvey Oswald, has just increased as well. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Tom, if you have something to say, why don't you come right out and say it? My command of the material is not the issue -- nor is my attitude. Nor do I have "everything figured out." But I do call 'em like I see 'em -- whenever I see irrelevant information -- like birth certificates and death certificates of the children of people who talked to the FBI about Sylvia Odio -- I will call it irrelevant unless somebody can use clear sentences to explain the relevance. Quantity of information may be important, but quality of information is more important. Lucille Bass Connell had time on her hands -- what is the problem with that? Don't you know any right-wing housewives with time on their hands? Such people are a cliche in the South. Is it really relevant that Lucille Bass Connell's husband was a pall bearer at the 1964 funeral of the founder of Dallas Catholic Relief? Clearly -- Lucille Bass was an active volunteer for that Charity, and clearly she wanted to be a matron for her city -- so she volunteered her husband. It happens every day. But if you think there is something suspicious about it, please explain why. You say that "this all smacks of a private witness protection program," but you don't provide your reasoning. Why not? Is it really so astounding that a northeast appliance business owner of the Jewish faith ended his life with an obituary naming the children of C. Lee Connell of Dallas as his children? Surely you have heard of divorce, re-marriage and adoption. Surely you're heard about people bickering about renaming their children after a divorce. You suggested that it is important to "attempt to run down the background details," so, have you done that? If so, do you have some actual connection to share? If so, why not just spell it out? As for my opinions, I try to stay close to the topic of Leonardo, Angel, Sylvia Odio, Lee Harvey Oswald and the personnel in question inside the thread upon which I comment. I am surprised to have to respond to insults about being a "turn off" simply because I have an opinion and I express it. If you disagree, Tom, feel free to explain your reasoning. But posting insults along with tons of material that are largely irrelevant to the specific focus of the thread at hand seems to me to be counter-productive. Regards, --Paul Trejo

If that is all settled, then, let us look at the wider implications. We have established fairly well that Lee Harvey Oswald gave right-wing speeches in Dallas. We have the story first from Mrs. Connell (via Sarita, not Sylvia Odio), and secondly from Loran Hall (via Nico Crespi). We also have the story that the New Orleans Cuban rightists warned the Dallas Cuban rightists to avoid Lee Harvey Oswald, because he was a "double agent." Again we have that story first from Mrs. Connell (via Sarita, not Sylvia Odio), and secondly again from Loran Hall (via Nico Crespi, on the presumption that Nico Crespi, when he indicated he was going to hear Oswald speak in Dallas, said he went to "heckle" Oswald -- presumably because Oswald was a "double agent." [with thanks to Tommy Graves for that speculation]). Finally, we have the story that ex-General Edwin Walker was also making speeches in Dallas to right-wing Cuban Exiles. This information came from Mrs. Connell, from her own, personal experience and information. Let's look at the implications so far. Mrs. Connell, who was not a Cuban, but who worked very closely with a Catholic Charity for Cuban Exiles, took a very busy-body interest in learning all she could about the Cuban problem in the USA. Possibly she simply wanted to help, perhaps as an FBI informer, perhaps as an informer for other official intelligence agencies -- or perhaps as an informer for ex-General Walker, or for the John Birch Society (since she was affiliated with them in Dallas), or perhaps Mrs. Connell wanted to feel useful so she gathered information for the "authorities" in general as she could find it. It is interesting that one week after JFK was assassinated, Mrs. Connell called the FBI with her information -- and nobody else, as far as we know. So, she probably didn't work for the FBI, since she was a citizen informer seven days after the JFK assassination -- and she probably didn't see the FBI often, since it took a Presidential assassination to motivate her. More to the point -- Mrs. Connell used to pump Sylvia Odio for information -- so much that Sylvia became annoyed with her, and eventually cut her off, despite the fact that she was grateful for Mrs. Connell's charity work and even her cash outlay in behalf of the Odio family. (The final straw seems to have come when Mrs. Connell began telling Sylvia how to raise her children.) But Mrs. Connell's endless snooping for information may prove to be valuable to us. She conflated Sarita's phone call of 28 November 1963 with a call from Sylvia -- which means that she had probably become accustomed to talking to Sylvia on the phone, before she was cut off. She possibly "wished" it had been Sylvia who called her, and in a Freudian slip told the FBI it was Sylvia who called her (instead of Sarita). Possibly. But look at what she found. (i) The Odio sisters knew lots of Cuban Exile rightists in Dallas, and also lots of Cuban Exile rightists in New Orleans. (jj) Some of the Odio sisters' relatives lived in New Orleans. (iii) The Odio sisters knew Carlos Bringuier, since childhood. (iv) The Odio sisters' uncle in New Orleans, 'Agustin Guitar,' also knew Carlos Bringuier, and followed his actions in New Orleans. (v) When Carlos Bringuier was arrested for fighting with Lee Harvey Oswald on Canal Street in New Orleans on 9 August 1963, Agustin Guitar attended the arraignment. (vi) When Carlos Bringuier appeared on TV with Lee Harvey Oswald, no doubt Agustin Guitar watched the TV program. (vii) From this INCA propaganda effort starring Lee Harvey Oswald, Agustin Guitar would have concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was an FPCC Communist. (viii) Others in the Cuban Exile community, however said that they heard Lee Harvey Oswald speak at their rightist events, and they were impressed. (ix) Probably Sarita Odio told Mrs. Connell that she was impressed or even "very impressed" by Oswald's speech. (x) Yet the official line of Ed Butler (a Cuban Exile) and his mass-media empire, INCA, was that Lee Harvey Oswald was an FPCC officer. Clearly a Communist. (xi) Therefore, the Cuban Community in New Orleans had no choice but to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald was a "double agent". (xii) In other words, Lee Harvey Oswald really did get around in the Cuban Exile movement. He had many associates here. (xiii) Yet the Warren Commission would insist that Oswald was a "loner". This is clearly not the case. (xiv) Lee Harvey Oswald never personally associated with Communists or FPCC members -- all his interaction with them was by US Mail. (xv) Even when Oswald distributed FPCC fliers on Canal Street on 9 August 1963, he did not associate with Communists or FPCC members, but he used cash to hire two young men from the unemployment line at $2 hourly (when the minimum wage was 85 cents an hour; after inflation, $2 hourly amounts to $20 hourly today; Jim Garrison did a good job identifying those two young men -- one was from his own neighborhood. Probably Oswald got this cash from Clay Shaw or Guy Banister.) (xvi) When attorney Dean Andrews first saw Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans, he saw him in the company of two "gay Mexicanos." (The meaning of that epithet is unclear since Dean Andrews was himself "gay" and may have been projecting. However, Sylvia Odio said she was unsure if Leopoldo and Angel were Mexicans or not. Dean Andrews told the Warren Commission he was not sure if these two men were Mexicans or not.) (xvii) So Lee Harvey Oswald clearly had associates among the Cuban Exile Community, both in New Orleans (where he is on radio and television with some of them) and in Dallas (where Sarita Odio and Nico Crespi, at the very least, saw him there). The FBI report supplied by Mrs. Connell has not been sufficiently explored after 49 years. The place of Loran Hall and Larry Howard in this Cuban Exile community is also of great interest to me. Gerry Patrick Hemming himself will find a place in this line-up, because of his close association with Loran Hall and Larry Howard. Finally, didn't Gerry Patrick Hemming once say that he personally told Lee Harvey Oswald to bring his rifle to the Texas School Book depository on the morning of 22 November 1963, because he wanted to buy it for a high price? Wasn't that confession made on this very FORUM? Does anybody have a link to that thread? Best regards, --Paul Trejo