Paul Trejo

...Makes you wonder why, if the press was pounding the right wing theme so hard, would the White House and the DPD be claiming the day after the assassination that the murder had been solved and there was no conspiracy.

Excellent question, Richard. Your question implies a potentially explosive situation, doesn't it?

--Paul

b.

Bernice, it just now occurred to me that you might have more of these exciting thumbnails about General Edwin Walker. Now, where would you have obtained these? Have you been collecting them?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

b.

Thank you, Bernice Moore, for these outstanding images from the historical period in question.

I'm especially impressed by the newspaper clippings you found that identify General Walker and the JBS as key players in the attack on Adlai Stevenson on 10/24/1963.

I would point out the American flag flying upside-down in front of Edwin Walker's home in Dallas. This was a deliberate act on the part of General Walker, who flew his American flag upside-down to protest the policies of the JFK Administration, as well as the general direction of USA politics, e.g. the existence of the United Nations on American soil, the Supreme Court ruling that segregated schools are Unconsititutional, the tolerance of Cuba as a Communist nation only a few miles from US borders, the partition of Germany, and Foreign Aid to nations inside the Soviet orbit.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

...Although the message of the speech is clear, JFK never mentions Gen. Walker by name, and also does not make any reference to the "radical right" or "radical right wing" in the text of the speech. That makes me wonder why the author of the News article would specifically name Walker and his right wing affiliates as the target...

It's a good question, Richard. I personally believe the writer justified his presumption with this sentence: "Dallas is the home of Major General Edwin A. Walker, who is acknowledged here as the leader of the radical right wing in Texas, and one of the rightest leaders of the South."

Since this was about 50 years ago, it is difficuilt for us today to recollect how popular General Walker was in the South, and especially in Texas. His face was on the cover of NEWSWEEK in December, 1961. He appeared on radio and television in the South. After he resigned from the Army, he recieved thousands of letters from admiring fans, sending him small amounts of cash. (Hundreds of these letters are on display in the Briscoe Center for American History, in the Edwin Walker archives.)

One of the great right-wing radio hosts of 1962/1963 (segregationist preacher Reverend Billy James Hargis) would take General Walker with him on national speaking tours.

I believe that the clearest view that we today might obtain of General Edwin Walker is found in the 1962 movie, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, starring Burt Lancaster. It is the story of a General who disagrees so much with the White House that he goes on radio and tours making speeches and filling auditoriums with his extreme rightist audiences. He is supported directly by sycophants and not a few followers among the military Brass.

Edwin Walker was so well-known in Texas, and had written so many critical articles about the JFK administration, that JFK's words would have been immediately understood by the majority of Texans to imply General Walker, just as the writer suggests.

I don't believe J.F. Ter Horst was attemping to implant some foreign idea; I believe he spoke directly to the Zeitgeist of Texas in 1963.

Paul, I think you are putting up some great information on Edwin Walker. I am definitely in the H.L. Hunt killed JFK camp. I can't put Walker in there because he contacted the HSCA over the bullet issue.

Remember, Gen. Edward Lansdale was photographed at TSBD. He is a JFK killer.

GHW Bush has said that he can't remember where he was on 11/22/63 despite being a US Senate candidate in Dallas on 11/22/63.(And 11/21/63).

J. Edgar Hoover started covering up the JFK assassination immediately.

McGeorge Bundy who was running the White House Situation Room on 11/22/63 immediately was promoting the lone nutter theory. That is not a reasonable thing to do.

CIA David Atlee Phillips has said before his death that US intelligence officers were likely involved in the JFK assassination (he was in it, I would call that a limited hang out).

E. Howard Hunt said he was a "backbencher" in the JFK assassination.

CIA David Morales has said "we got that bastard" in Dallas.

LBJ told Madeleine Brown it was Texas oil men and renegade intelligence bastards who killed JFK.

Cord Meyer admitted there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.

James Angleton told Sy Hersh that a "mansion has many rooms" ... but pretty much that HE did not kill JFK. Blame some one else at Langley he says.

Allen Dulles said "That little Kennedy ... he thought he was God."

Gen. Edwin Walker fits the perfect demographic profile for a murderer of JFK, but because of that letter to the HSCA I can't put him in there.

Just like I can't put John McCoy in as a plotter because he asked for subpeana power for the Warren Commission. You don't do that if you are a plotter.

Robert, it is somewhat arbitrary to place more blame on people who were present in Dallas on 11/22/1963, compared with those who were not in Dallas that day.

While it is true that General Edwin Walker was not in Dallas on 11/22/1963 because he left town the night before to make a speech in Louisiana, we should consider his role in the attack on Adlai Stevenson on 10/24/1963.

General Walker did not attend the "UN Day" rally led by Adlai Stevenson, but perhaps 100 of his followers did attend. In addition to little old ladies in tennis shoes, these followers of Edwin Walker were largely extremists from the Young Americans for Freedom, led by Larrie Schmidt. The night before, on 10/23/1963, Edwin Walker held his own "US Day" rally to whip up his followers to disrupt Adlai Stevenson's speech at all costs.

The crowd (or mob) was given complete instructions by Walker -- to buy all the tickets they could afford, to take noisemaker toys, to bring megaphones, to make their own speeches, to hiss, boo and throw tomatoes...all of which were carried out with regimented precision.

In other words, although General Walker was not at the Adlai Stevenson rally himself, his intructions were being carried out at that rally 100%.

Furthermore, just because General Landsdale happened to be at the Texas School Book Depository with police following the shooting of JFK, this is in itself insufficient proof that he was personally involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK. I admit it looks suspicious, but final proof is lacking.

In other words, based on previous behavior I find General Walker to be much more suspicious than General Landsdale. Hatred is simply not enough evidence of a conspiracy. Behavior is the only proper evidence in a case as serious as this.

The fact that GHW Bush said that he can't remember where he was on 11/22/63 cannot be used to prove anything at all.

The fact that J. Edgar Hoover started covering up the JFK assassination immediately is behavioral evidence that J. Edgar Hoover had foreknowledge of a plot to kill Kennedy. McKnight showed that Hoover had this knowledge as early as August, 1963, when he learned that Carlos Marcello put up a lot of money to kill JFK.

McGeorge Bundy was following the lead of J. Edgar Hoover in promoting the Lone Nut theory. That is suspicious, but it is not proof he knew all the facts.

Although CIA Agent David Atlee Phillips said before his death that US intelligence officers were likely involved in the JFK assassination, that is not enough evidence to name names. Were these rogue contractors like Frank Sturgis? Were these employees like Cord Meyer?

Although E. Howard Hunt admitted to being a "backbencher" in the JFK assassination, this only means that he heard something from somebody, and this could have been mere rumor. The only names he offered were LBJ (who had no knowledge of details, according even to those who accuse him of 'masterminding' the full conspiracy), and Cord Meyer, whose wife had a love affair with JFK.

Although CIA Agent David Morales said "we got that bastard" in Dallas, that is proof of nothing at all. Perhaps ten thousand right-wing fanatics said exactly the same thing! I agree that David Morales is suspicious, and truly hated JFK, but that in itself cannot be admitted as proof.

Although LBJ told Madeleine Brown that Texas oil men and renegade intelligence bastards killed JFK, he was emotional and talking with his mistress. That cannot be used as hard evidence. Furthermore, it is unreasonable, because renegade CIA contractors have zero power to cover-up anything. Only a higher power could do that. (Nor does a Vice President have that kind of power. Nor even the richest oil men in America; the only people with the necessary power to mastermind a coverup of such gargantuan proportions, and maintain it for a half-century, are far more powerful.) I have no doubt that oil barons were involved, and that H.L. Hunt is most suspicious, but without full support from the FULL military-industrial complex, we cannot explain the enormity of the cover-up.

Although Cord Meyer admitted there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, that proves very little. Actually, there were dozens of conspiracies to kill JFK, and we are aware of many of them -- from the Mafia, from Cuban Exiles, from Joseph Milteer. The question is, which one of the many conspiracies actually succeeded?

Although James Jesus Angleton told Sy Hersh that a "mansion has many rooms" and to "blame someone else at Langley", this is very little to go on.

Although Allen Dulles said "That little Kennedy...thought he was God," that is merely another of the countless expressions of hate we find for JFK, and that cannot be accepted as proof of anything else but that JFK was widely hated -- which we already knew.

Although General Edwin Walker wrote a letter to the HSCA mocking them because the bullet fragment he retrieved from his living room wall did not match the bullet fragment they entered into HSCA evidence, this alone cannot absolve him. Walker was not afraid of anybody; not Hoover, not Dulles, not the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and certainly not Earl Warren.

General Edwin Walker, from 11/23/1963 until 11/23/1991, told every outlet, newspaper and US Government official who would listen to him, that Oswald was only one of two shooters at his home on 4/10/1963, and that the other shooter, along with Oswald, was hired by Robert F. Kennedy. Walker believed, firmly, that RFK plotted to kill him. RFK had placed Walker in an insane asylum in early October, 1962, and Walker neither forgot nor forgave that insult. Walker's paranoia against RFK was sufficient to justify any risk.

If Edwin Walker was the center-point of the Dallas conspiracy to assassinate JFK, I have little doubt that H.L. Hunt was his bankroller, because H.L. Hunt was Walker's bankroller when Walker resigned from the Army after 30 years of loyal service -- resigned without a pension. Hunt had high hopes for Walker from 1961-1962, but even H.L. Hunt could not support the man who was widely regarded as the instigator of the Ole Miss riots of 1962. Hunt stopped supporting Walker for public office about that time, but he continued his personal relationship with Walker, according to Hunt's own personal aide.

My theory does not openly accuse Walker of the JFK conspiracy -- but rather attempts to disprove that Walker was involved at the center. I have not been able to disprove it, and the fact that Walker wrote a letter to the HCSA does not in the slightest prove that Walker is absolved.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

...Jim Garrison was openly saying some very nasty things about Lyndon Johnson. Especially read this first quote by Jim Garrison

New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison at his press conference on 12/26/67:

“President Johnson is currently the most active person in the country in protecting the assassins of John Kennedy.”

“President Johnson must have known by the time of the arrest that Oswald did not pull the trigger.”

“You are being fooled. Everyone in America is being fooled. The whole world is being fooled.”

“Why? Because of power – because if people knew the facts about the assassination they would not tolerate the people in power today. Keep in mind who profits most. Who appointed the Warren Commission? Who runs the FBI? Who runs the CIA? The President of the United States.”

Jim Garrison would have said anything to obtain more clues about the JFK assassination. In 1991 Craig Zirbel published his book, The Texas Connection about the JFK assassination, in which he simply and solidly claimed that LBJ was the mastermind.

I believe Zirbel made a weak case, but he was very emotional and convincing to many. His theory appears to be the predominant theory circulating today inside the very latest books on the JFK assassination.

As for Garrison's first remark that you cited above, Robert, it was arguably an exaggeration -- LBJ was clearly vital to the cover-up of the plot to kill JFK, but he was not alone in the cover-up, nor did he control the FBI or the CIA in this matter, because they were more active than LBJ was.

Insofar as the US military-industrial complex was sitting at the center of this mess, with General Landon and General Walker so close to the scene of the crime, we must recognize that the FBI and CIA were themselves among the smaller players, and LBJ even smaller.

It simply does not matter that LBJ would 'stand to benefit' the most from the JFK conspiracy -- that did not make him the mastermind. LBJ was an observer, no matter how much he benefitted. LBJ was the last to find out, according to Madeleine Brown.

JFK had simply made too many enemies in his own Administration - and too few friends. JFK's practice of Free Love inside the White House was too big of a culture shock for the average 1961 WASP. And that was only the tip of the iceberg. Not enough friends.

Our Military Generals were convinced that JFK was a weak leader, and that the USA was headed for more trouble with the Soviets than JFK could possibly foresee.

Now, in that circumstance, if (and only if) our own Generals were at the center of the plot to assassinate JFK, what in the world could the Vice President, the FBI or even the CIA do to stop them? Nothing at all, frankly. They had to play along, for National Security reasons, at least to the point of a cover-up.

J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ did not wish to pursue a nuclear war with the USSR. But the question had to be decided for the public -- was Oswald a tool of the right-wing or the left-wing? If Oswald was a tool of the right-wing, then a Civil War could have erupted. If Oswald was a tool of the left-wing, then a nuclear war could have erupted.

The solution -- which appears to be the brainchild of J. Edgar Hoover -- was that Oswald was the tool of neither side, but was a Lone Nut, who would sometimes befriend the left-wing and sometimes befriend the right-wing. How convenient that he was a double-agent! It was almost serendipity. (If [and only if] this theory is correct, then Marguerite Oswald was correct when she said that Oswald's sacrifice was second to none. He played the patsy, the scape-goat, for the sins of a nation.)

The conspirators were certainly known to the FBI and CIA, and actually it made no sense to portray Oswald as a Lone Nut while at the same time making his FBI and CIA records a matter of National Security. Oswald was now dead, so where was the threat to National Security?

The best explanation is that the associates of Oswald were known and would never be given up. The FBI did not fear the conspirators, because the FBI knew very well that they were not Communists, nor any foreign body. They were protected precisely because the FBI knew exactly who they were. They were internal, and even essential to US existence. This explanation goes a long way towards identifying their contours.

It has now been a half-century since this terrible act was committed in the face of our nation, and since its cover-up has divided our nation severely, eroding our confidence in the honesty of our leaders. Is it now time for a healing? Or is another quarter-century needed?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

John

A few years back I corresponded with several people who had met Walker as children when he visited their homes.

Since this story makes reference to events at Little Rock and tells of visits to Arkansas in the post assassination attempt time period I might offer just a few thoughts.

While in Little Rock Walker was actually (surprising in some ways) welcomed as a War Hero type celebrity in society there. He was touted as a very eligible bachelor and seems to have participated regularly on the social circuit.

Following Walker's resignation from the military I believe it was the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce that issued a proclamation of support for Walker that I have a copy of somewhere in my files. It seems Walker left the Arkansas area with many friends and associates.

Might point out that at the time of the assassination attempt on Walker he had been banned from travel to Canada where he had previously been a frequent visitor. Walker seems to have enjoyed "dropping in" on former comrades in arms and associates and seems to have had many visitors to his home as well.

The small game hunting seems to have been something Walker enjoyed from his youth in Kerr County, Texas.

Jim Root

Jim, your thread deserves to be revived. General Edwin Walker was involved in several of the key events of the Cold War in the domestic USA, including the Little Rock, Arkansas implementation of the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education legislation to racially integrate all public schools in the USA, signed by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, which earned Warren the hatred of the extreme right wing, especially in the South.

General Edwin Walker complied with Eisenhower's demand that he lead troops to force Arkansas to integrate their local high school -- and he delivered a fine speech for the occasion. But his heart was torn by this event, and it was this, perhaps more than anything, that led him to resent the Federal Government for the rest of his life.

In 1961, with JFK as President, Walker implemented his compulsory right-wing reading program for the 24th Infantry Division in Augsburg, Germany, call the Pro-Blue (implying anti-Red) program. Some of this literature came from the Billy James Hargis segregationist Christian Crusade, and some came from the John Birch Society, both sources inspired by Joe McCarthy, and both insulted JFK, calling him a Communist.

The John Birch Society was solidly aligned with the White Citizens' Councils of the South that condemned compulsory race integration for public schools -- showing that General Walker had a firm change of heart and would never again integrate a public school against their will.

JFK mildly admonished Walker for this pecadillo, and offered him a promotion if he would move to Hawaii. Instead, General Walker resigned from the Army, being the only US General in the 20th century to resign, thus giving up his $12,000 a year pension (which is $120,000 in today's dollars).

Clearly, Walker was hopping mad. But more to the point, Walker had dreams of entering politics and toppling JFK. With what money? Most likely, with the money of H.L. Hunt.

When Walker quit the Army in late November, 1961, he made the December, 1961 cover of NEWSWEEK as the 'voice of the right-wing extremists.'

To earn his money, he quickly began writing speeches. His new office was in a Dallas skyscraper belonging to one of Dallas' many oil companies. Would we be surprised to learn that H.L. Hunt was his sponsor?

When General Walker came out of his office in early 1962 he delivered an hour-long speech in Dallas that Joe McCarthy might have been proud of, with all the JBS overtones of accusing the White House of a Communist Conspiracy. He earned ten standing ovations -- one every six minutes.

At the end of his very first speech, the NIC (National Indignation Committee) gave Walker a big celebration, and he was awarded a Stetson hat by Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell. (I include that video below.)

This was only the start of Walker's "coming out". Later in 1962 he tried to reverse his humiliating performance under Eisenhower. This time it was Oxford University in Mississippi that was ordered to accept a qualifying application by a Negro (James Meredith). JFK vowed to enforce the Supreme Court order to integrate Oxford (Ole Miss) and Mississippi Ross Barnett defied JFK head-on.

So General Edwin Walker got on national radio in late September 1962, and called for thousands of protestors "from every State in the Union" to oppose JFK's use of Federal Troops in this alleged violation of State's Rights. Should they bring their guns? Walker replied, "That's up to them!"

Walker knew he was addressing radical militia and the paramilitary Minutemen in many States, especially in the South. Actually, thousands did show up in Jackson, Mississippi for this mass protest.

The short story is that the protests turned into riots, where two were killed and perhaps a hundred were wounded. It was no surprise when RFK ordered that Walker be arrested for insurrection and contempt of Court.

However, in a horrible political blunder, RFK also ordered Walker to be detained for psychiatric examination. At this point, the eminent psychiatrist, Thomas Szasz (THE MYTH OF MENTAL ILLNESS, 1960) loudly protested this abuse of science in the service of political partisanship! Even the ACLU joined this protest by Szasz, what to speak of the extreme right-wing paranoia over RFK's blunder.

The short story is that RFK had to release Walker immediately, and within a few weeks all charges against Walker were dropped! The JFK Administration all but apologized for their blunder.

There is more -- much more -- about this colorful American General who is worthy of at least a monograph on his biography. But none exists, yet.

On that score, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) possesses perhaps seven sound recordings of extended interviews of eye-witnesses to the Oxford riots -- yet they would not release copies to me when I requested them in the first few days of this month.

Instead, they said, these sound recordings (which are now a half-century old) must endure another Security Screening before the American public can hear them again.

So, I formally requested an official Security Screening, and am now currently awaiting the NARA response.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

<edit typos>

P.S. Here is the video of Walker receiving an award after his very first McCarthyist speech:

"US isolationism on the one hand, and the duty of Global Empire "

These foreign policy characteristics are too dichotomous as to capture the conflict between JFK and his killers. JFK was far from an isolationist. He just thought that third world nationalism and anti-imperialism need not be subsumed into ideas of monolithic communist conspiracy that were used to justify a more purely oil-banking- and military economy.

This difference between JFK and his more Latin American and Asian oriented unilateralist opponents had its corresponding economic policies, in the lowering of tariffs, the extension of free-trade zones to include countries led by right wing dictatorships propped up by the CIA and the death of American industry in favor of a NAFTA, purely finance, oil and military based economy.

The reason it was a coup is because permanent intelligence bureaucracies permanently replaced elected officials when it came to sovereignty. A couple of presidents may have been slow learners, but there is no longer any doubt.

Nathanial, here's what I infer from US Isolation and Global Empire.

The right-wing in the US, resistant to change from any direction, continued to demand US Isolation. Keeping out of foreign wars is one of their ideals. This would clearly prevent losses to life and resources, but it would also prevent foreign entanglements, strange bedpartners, and the disappointment of endless broken treaties. Other ideals of the right-wing reflect a melancholy of what the USA could have been if we had respected their call to Isolation, i.e. a more Christian society, a less racially diverse society, a society with more consistent cultural values. Preventing change was high on the list of rightists in 1960. Even if this meant delaying Civil Rights as long as possible -- change was the enemy.

Few leftist intellectuals were aligned with Isolationism. Progress involved foreign investments, foreign travel, foreign friendships, foreign adventures and the inevitable foreign conflicts. For most of US History, our model in the Global approach to politics was the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

When the USA entered World War Two in December, 1941, we joined the Allied Powers already in progress in their modern warfare against the Axis Powers. Since Americans almost exclusively spoke English, we kept closer to the UK than to our other Allies. Again, the UK was our model in Global survival. The UK was a Global Empire, and the USA was largely a smaller economic force before WW2, content to follow the UK lead in most (but not all) foreign matters.

To make a very long story very short, the Allied Powers won WW2, but at a terrible cost. London had been reduced to rubble. Much of Europe had been reduced to rubble. Some reports said the USSR lost 20% of its population to WW2. The USA did not expect it, and did not necessarily want it, but the fact remained -- the USA was the most powerful nation on the planet.

At the end of WW2, like it or not, the USA was the heir of Great Britain as the Superpower of planet Earth.

Some Americans loved the idea. Many Americans were most uncomfortable with the idea. For one thing, it was nearly impossible for US rightists maintain an attitude of Isolationism when the world looked to the USA as a Global Superpower.

Did we rise to the occasion? In some cases yes, and in other cases, no.

I believe that JFK rose to the occassion - for the most part. I believe that many among the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many retired Generals as well, did not rise properly to the occasion. General Edwin A. Walker, for example, continued to rail loudly in all news media possible, that the United Nations is Treason!

Any political figures that did not embrace McCarthyism, or rightist Christian jingoism, or University race segregation, were for the extreme USA rightists, Communists pure and simple. And like all Communists, they must all be wiped out. Thus the extreme rightists in 1963 identified their main Communist enemy not in Moscow, but in Washington DC.

This had a suppressive effect on US politics, as should be obvious. Many in the Soviet world enjoyed the buffoon side-show of rightist Americans attacking leftist and even moderate Americans, because they knew it weakened the unity of America.

JFK took particular exception to these new Isolationists in the early 1960's. He made speeches against them. He encouraged movies to be made to criticize them (e.g. Seven Days in May (1962)). He had little or no patience at all with them. JFK was trying to adapt the Presidency and the USA to the demands of being the Global Superpower -- something new and unsteady for our people.

So, Nathaniel, when I spoke of US Isolationsists, I referred to the US right-wing in 1963, including H.L. Hunt, Billy James Hargis, Dr. Fred C. Schwarz, Robert Welch, and General Edwin A. Walker.

This is why I said that JFK was killed as a result of the clash of US Isolationists with Globalists -- I presumed it was self-evident that JFK was among the Globalists.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Scott, if Frank Sturgis was 6'2" tall, then the man standing to his right in the videos you kindly shared in this thread must be 6'8" tall, since he's much taller than Frank.

Is it possible Frank Sturgis wore high-heel boots in his later years?

--Paul

Paul,

I'm not sure if you've been missing any of my past posts or you're just trying to give me a hard time, I really don't know what it is, and I thought perhaps you would have just let it go by now, but it seems you want to drag this on and for what reason? I really don't know, you're a reseacher why don't you find out yourself how tall Frank is. I really don't care to argue the fact of Frank hight. Is it not enough that you don't want to believe me? I guess it wouldn't help telling you that I knew Frank for nine years either would it? ... but I'm telling you he was taller then my dad, I do remember...

Scott, I admit my comment was too sarcastic. I've read different reports about Sturgis' height, so it gets confusing. Yet you're an eye-witness, so that's a different matter. Also, your real point was about your dad, not about Frank Sturgis' height. So, my sarcasm was out of place, and I apologize.

--Paul

...My father stood at 5' 10". Frank was about four inches taller then my father. Frank would have stood at 6' 2", not short at all, by no means...

Scott

Scott, if Frank Sturgis was 6'2" tall, then the man standing to his right in the videos you kindly shared in this thread must be 6'8" tall, since he's much taller than Frank.

Is it possible Frank Sturgis wore high-heel boots in his later years?

--Paul

I found this to be very interesting, posted by Esther Howes in one of the Forums on Facebook.

Esther Howes

Excerpt from a letter from Billie Sol Estes' lawyer

August 9, 1984

Mr. Stephen S. Trott

Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, D. C. 20530

RE: Mr. Billie Sol Estes

Dear Mr. Trott:

My client, Mr. Estes, has authorized me to make this reply to your letter of May 29, 1984. Mr. Estes was a member of a four-member group, headed by Lyndon Johnson, which committed criminal acts in Texas in the 1960's. The other two, besides Mr. Estes and LBJ, were Cliff Carter and Mac Wallace. Mr. Estes is willing to disclose his knowledge concerning the following criminal offenses:

I. Murders

1. The killing of Henry Marshall

2. The killing of George Krutilek

3. The killing of Ike Rogers and his secretary

4. The killing of Harold Orr

5. The killing of Coleman Wade

6. The killing of Josefa Johnson

7. The killing of John Kinser

8. The killing of President J. F. Kennedy.

Mr. Estes is willing to testify that LBJ ordered these killings, and that he transmitted his orders through Cliff Carter to Mac Wallace, who executed the murders. In the cases of murders nos. 1-7, Mr. Estes' knowledge of the precise details concerning the way the murders were executed stems from conversations he had shortly after each event with Cliff Carter and Mac Wallace.

Well, this came out in 1984, when LBJ (d. 1973), Mac Wallace (d. 1971) and Cliff Carter (d. 1971) were long dead.

He was the only survivor of these alleged conspiracies -- so who could contradict his evidence?

Also, he did not claim knowledge of the "precise details" of number 8, the JFK killing, which is our main concern here.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that he was: (i) mistaken; (ii) exaggerating; (iii) trying to make a book deal real quick.

Unless we can actually view the details of how the JFK assassination was allegedly "executed" by Mac Wallace, everything Mr. Estes claims is subject to skepticism, doubt and dismissal.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

(i) You still didn't answer my question, I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

(ii) The problem I have with that is when you have to many people involved wanting to or contributing to an assassination you have to many cooks in the kitchen, someone is about to spill the beans if you're not careful. What I mean is that someone would have talked, take the Mob for example, someone is always wanting to be the top man on the totem pole, king of the mountain, always willing to whack the top guy so he the next guy could be (in charge). Its easy for word to get out on who is trying to kill the top dog, so the top dog has the guy whacked himself. To many people involved only spoils the account if you know what I mean, you can't have that many people involved without someone talking about it.

You have to keep a low profile, trust no one, there's a saying, those who are closest to you become your worst enemy, keep your friends close and your enemy closer.

Scott, here are my replies to your question and your comment:

(i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was.

(ii) I believe that we had so many cooks in the kitchen (so many people contributing to any assassination plot against JFK that they heard about). But they weren't all contributing to the same ground-crew!

Probably a lot of people believed that their hit squad killed JFK, and so their cash contribution was the deciding factor. But in reallity, it was only a fraction of that money that was successful, just as it was only a fraction of the hired 'mechanics' who actually killed JFK.

Although the ground-crew that actually killed JFK was professional, and so they would not have talked, this would not prevent liars and boasters from claiming that they were the ones who killed JFK. It is almost a boast today - not really a confession - for somebody to say that his crew was the crew that killed JFK a half-century ago.

Would somebody have talked? Actually, plenty of people talked -- but most of them are fake.

For example, I don't believe the mob killed JFK, because, as Jim Garrison said, they did not have the means to cover it up, or the proper sniper's modus operandi. Yet Sam Giancana was going to testify, and Johnny Rosselli was going to testify, and others, also. Why? For prestige, probably. But the people who put up the cash for these hit-squads would never let them sing - so they were both murdered before they could testify to the HSCA.

I think we agree, Scott -- the mob lacks the discipline of a long-term chain-of-command. That's why I believe the actual assassins were from a different school -- one with more discipline and more honor. The actual JFK assassins were probably trained marksmen with military discipline.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

1. I'm curious you say Sturgis was short, do you know how tall Sturgis was?

2. That doesn't mean there is a problem with [Marita's] story, just because Hemming said something else, the question is which one do you beleive, or should I say, which one is telling the truth?

3. Do you have proof of Oswald in Mexico?

4. So that's where the money came from [HL Hunt], I should have known.

Scott, here are my replies to your questions and remarks:

(1) My measurements were relative: (i) Howard Hunt was very tall compared to Sturgis; and (ii) the tramp who looked like Sturgis was very tall compared to the tramp who looked like Howard Hunt. Therefore there was no match.

(2) I agree with you that either Marita Lorentz or Gerry Hemming was lying about who rode in that caravan. I don't know who was lying. When the late Gerry Hemming was on this Forum, he blatantly called Marita a xxxx. Yet in another context he softened his voice and admitted that he was invited to join the caravan. My point was that if (and only if) Marita was lying about Hemming, then she could have also been lying about Oswald. It is also possible that Marita was lying about Hemming and telling the truth about Oswald. (It is also possible that Marita was telling the truth about Hemming but lying about Oswald.) But if (and only if) Marita was telling the truth, then Hemming was lying.

Yet please remember that Marita was not an eye-witness to the JFK assassination - she was only an eye-witness to an illegal weapons deal, which she claims was consummated by Howard Hunt (and Howard Hunt did not have a believable alibi for that day, according to a duly appointed jury). So, even if Marita was telling the truth, we are left to guess whether these weapons were the weapons used to assassinate JFK, and whether these sharpshooters were the sharpshooters that assassinated JFK. She had no eye-witness information about that.

(3) While I'm no expert on the controversy over Oswald in Mexico, we have a Forum member (Harry Dean) who has also joined this thread, whose memoirs say that the famous war hero, Guy Gabaldon, was in Mexico at that time, working for the JBS, and that Gabaldon gave some money to Oswald in Mexico at that time. Oswald had no idea, according to Harry Dean, that the money came from the JBS, or that this money was buying Oswald's services as the patsy for a famous crime.

(4) The money for the dozens of hit squads who promised to kill JFK for a price came from many different sources, according to my reading. Some money came from Carlos Marcello. Some came from Santos Trafficante. Some came from Sam Giancana. Some possibly came from Howard Hughes (since his accountant coordinated all the Mafia money). Some money came from Joseph Milteer, some money came from Jimmy Hoffa, some money came from H.L. Hunt, and some money came from the JBS, according to sources. There were probably hundreds of rich individuals and groups that contributed whatever they could, because they truly, sincerely believed that JFK was a communist traitor to the USA. H.L. Hunt was particularly generous, according to reports.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

...Howard Hunt only says he was a benchwarmer on the big event, I'm sure H.L. Hunt must have played a bigger roll.

Scott

That's another good question, Scott; how big a role did E. Howard Hunt play? On his deathbed he claimed to play a minor role, so that's fairly good evidence that he was at least involved. But how big was his role?

A lot of our suspicions about E. Howard Hunt are centered in the landmark legal decision won by Mark Lane as described in his book, Plausible Denial (1992). Lane convinced a jury that E. Howard Hunt was involved in the JFK assassination to some degree, based mainly on the evidence of Marita Lorentz.

Marita's story is to some degree documented in the videos you uploaded earlier today on this thread. She said that she joined Frank Sturgis and a number of rogue CIA operatives and stooges in a weapons smuggling operation in late November 1963, starting from Florida and ending in Dallas, Texas.

Mark Lane made her sound believable. She further claimed that the purchaser of these weapons was none other than E. Howard Hunt, who went by the code-name, "Eduardo."

Yet there are problems with her story. She also named Lee Harvey Oswald and Gerry Patrick Hemming as two of the men involved in that smuggling caravan. Yet Hemming (when he was a member of this Forum) denied that he was in that caravan!

It is true that Hemming admitted that he was invited to join the caravan, and that he knew the caravan existed -- but he firmly denied riding in the car, as Marita claimed he did.

So - if Marita lied about Hemming's participation, then she could have lied about Oswald's participation, too. (And for the record, that person standing behind Frank Sturgis in those videos you kindly shared -- that doesn't look like Oswald to me.)

I'm not saying that Oswald wasn't in that caravan -- I have no proof for my theory yet -- but this is after all the week that Oswald should have been in Mexico with Nagell, trying to get into Cuba, wasn't it?

Now, E. Howard Hunt claims to be a benchwarmer. I believe that is correct -- he was not one of the three tramps as some writers have claimed. (The two tramps that look a little like Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis have a major difference -- the tramp who looked like Hunt was short, but Hunt was tall; and the tramp who looked like Sturgis was tall, but Sturgis was short. No match.)

Because E. Howard Hunt knew so many of the conspirators, he was an accessory after the fact -- his main crime was his silence. (The same applies, also, to David Atlee Phillips, whose main role was to obtain lots of cash for Alpha 66 and similar counter-revolutionary groups. He knew what was going on, but he only offered minor help here and there, in response to rare requests from the major players, IMHO.)

Yes - H.L. Hunt was far more involved. For one thing, when E.H. Hunt and D. Atlee Phillips wanted cash for their operations, they often got it from H.L. Hunt, anyway.

Unlike the rogue CIA guys who were in the game for the money and the machismo, and who had no firm ideological beliefs of any kind, and whose loyalties could often go to the highest bidder, H.L. Hunt was totally committed to his ideology. For Hunt, and for all JBS extremists, JFK was a communist, a traitor, and worked for the aid and comfort of the USSR. The conspiracy was only the patriotic thing to do.

What H.L. Hunt needed was somebody at the ground-level -- somebody with real military connections -- somebody with a real zeal to get the job done. Somebody who had nothing more to lose. (Remember, when Edwin Walker resigned from his post as Major General, he gave up his military pension! He was angry! He was penniless!)

My current theory: It was General Edwin Walker -- financed by H.L. Hunt and supported by probably 100 field operatives, including violently anti-communist foreigners from Cuba, Germany and Russia, but mostly from the extreme right-wing in Dallas, USA.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

...So obviously, Edwin Walker was close to the murderers of JFK. But was he personally involved? I tend to think NOT because of his letter to the HSCA saying that the bullet in evidence for the Walker shooting was not the one that was shot at him.

That is not consistent with the behavior of someone who has murderered the president 15 years before because it draws too much attention. The best strategy is to just shut up and be quiet, especially for someone who was a highly visible and KNOWN enemy of the Kennedys.

I think that the Texas oil men had close military ties to the CIA/military men who killed JFK. The Air Force keeps coming up: Gen. Ed Lansdale was Air Force (and more significantly CIA). Curtis LeMay was an absolutely rabid JFK hater and present at the JFK autopsy at Bethesda chomping on his cigar. Col. Richard Burris was Air Force and he was LBJ's top military attache.

Robert, we agree on many aspects of the Dallas connection. As for the resigned General Edwin Walker, however, you decline to believe that he was personally involved in the JFK assassination because in 1977 he wrote to the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations) mocking them, saying that the bullet they filed in evidence of the Walker shooting on 4/10/1963 did not match the fragment that he found in his own living room wall and window sill.

I don't find this to be inconsistent for somebody like Edwin Walker, but you believe that it draws too much attention, and that if Walker were really guilty, he would have simply remained quiet. After all - he was a known hater of the Kennedys, and he was called to testify for the Warren Commission mainly for that reason.

Yet that presumes that if Walker did play a major role in the JFK assassination, that he would have preferred to hide in the shadows like a coward all his life. Based on his biography as a USA officer who saw many heated war compaigns, I find that difficult to accept.

It makes more sense to me that Edwin Walker would have wanted to confront his opposition head-on, and explain the reasons why JFK had to be killed. Here's my reasoning on this:

1. Edwin Walker, as a member of the JBS, truly believed that JFK was a communist, and therefore a traitor.

2. Edwin Walker, as a victim of the Kennedy tyranny which committed Walker to an insane asylum in an unforgivable act of political imprisonment, was confirmed in the correctness of the JFK assassination.

3. Edwin Walker believed that Oswald tried to kill him on 4/10/1963, despite what he told the HSCA.

3.1. We know this because of the story that he spread all of his life; from 11/23/1963 all the way into the 1990's -- namely, that RFK was the one who tried to kill him on 4/10/1963, and that Oswald was only one of the shooters at 9pm that evening.

4. Edwin Walker was obsessed with finding out who the other shooter was. Even in the early 1990's, Edwin Walker wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno, demanding to obtain the CIA records on the shooting of 4/10/1963. He was convinced that he would have proof that RFK was behind it all.

5. In the early morning hours of 11/23/1963, less than 20 hours after JFK had been killed, Edwin Walker called a German newspaper (Deutsche NationalZeitung) and its news staff, Helmut Muench and Haslo Thorsten, in a jubilant mood, to exclaim how the shooter who failed to kill Walker on 4/10/1963 had just killed JFK on 11/22/1963.

6. In the interview that followed, Walker expressed the glee of irony that RFK failed to kill Walker, but instead his plan backfired and killed RFK's own brother.

7. This actually came out in the Warren Commission testimony, as Attorney Liebeler tried to pressure Walker into explaining how he knew on 11/23/1963 that Oswald was his 4/10/1963 shooter, when Marina had not told the FBI that fact until 12/02/1963.

8. Of course, Walker simply denied the whole thing, and there was nothing that Liebeler could do about it. What sort of proof could he provide other than the FBI statement from Helmut Muench himself? After all, Walker was not on trial.

9. Would the former General Walker lie to the Warren Commission? Remember that for the past five years Edwin Walker had been campaigning with newsletters, speeches, radio spots and bumper stickers: IMPEACH EARL WARREN!

10. Edwin Walker had no respect for Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren. None at all. For Edwin Walker, the honorable Earl Warren was a communist - a traitor - and one's patriotic duty is to lie to all traitors.

11. Edwin Walker did not fear the Warren Commission. Nor did he fear the FBI. For one thing, the FBI itself was lying when it said that they only learned about Oswald's April, 1963 pot-shot at Walker from Marina Oswald in December, 1963. Walker knew this was a lie because it was the FBI who told Walker of the fact back in April, 1963 (probably on Easter Sunday, 4/14/1963).

12. The FBI found out about it from Mrs. Igor Voshinin who had just heard it from George DeMohrenschildt!

13. So, the FBI had plenty to hide from the USA public, and General Walker knew all the facts. J. Edgar Hoover knew a lot more about what happened with Oswald than he ever could admit.

14. General Walker could blackmail the FBI itself if he'd wanted to.

15. But he didn't want to blackmail the FBI -- it was enough that he didn't fear them. Walker, the great warrior, was not afraid of Earl Warren and he wasn't afraid of J. Edgar Hoover. Or of LBJ, either, for that matter.

16. But like any "true believer" he would have been plagued by inner doubts. He had to continue to justify in his mind why the killing of JFK (and later RFK) was truly necessary.

17. The most material way to do that would be to demonstrate to the world (and to himself) that RFK was really and truly the person who was behind Oswald's pot-shot at Walker at 9pm on 4/10/1963.

Walker was no ordinary conspirator. He was a unique personality -- a minor marvel of the Cold War. Does this influence your opinion about your position on Walker, Robert?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

...E.H Hunt was "Eduardo" to the anti-Castro groups and during the Bay of Pigs, in fact many knew him by his real name, even during the Bay of Pigs. In fact Sturgis knew E.H. Hunt since 1954 during the Guatemalan coup. He only adopted that name "Eduardo" while he was involved with the Cubans in South Florida.

Mark Lane describes this letter as a possible forgery while being very skeptical, and in 1999, the note was revealed to be a "Soviet forgery" in a book by KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin. perhaps written by the Russians. Why would any Russian write this? But should it be taken at face value? The House Select Committee on assassinations had three handwriting experts examine the note to determine its authenticity. I do beleive that someone in the KGB is seeking notoriety by adding one more book to the all ready long list.

The writing and signature of that letter and the entire of Lee in my father's phone book are nearly identical, am I to beleive that because some Soviet KGB says its a "Soviet forgery" am I suppose to beleive him? If in fact this letter is authenticate and sense Lee was a Marxist who as an individual would develop his own capacities and talents. I say Oswald may have been swinging both ways, on one hand he was anti-Castro, but on the other he was pro-Cuba. So what does that say about a confused young man? I don't beleive that letter had anything to do with H.L. Hunt. There is ample information/evidence that Oswald visited South Miami where he may have encountered Howard Hunt, which makes sense, but I seriously doubt that Oswald and H.L. Hunt who calls himself the richest man in the world would be rubbing elbows...

Scott

Scott, thanks for bringing up the doubts by Mark Lane, one of the great writers on this topic since the days of the Warren Commission. I tend to think that letter was a forgery, too, since it is a little too blatant.

Why would the KGB want to forge evidence linking Oswald to HL Hunt? For one thing, as LBJ himself said to Senator Russell when twisting his arm to join the Warren Commission, some people were claiming that the USSR killed JFK, and wanted to lead the USA into an immediate showdown with the USSR. But LBJ said, "we know that Khrushchev didn't have a damn thing to do with it."

Well, the USSR were terrified that the extreme right-wing in the USA would use the assassination of JFK as an excuse to drop the bomb on the USSR (Dr. Strangelove style). Also, the Soviet press already announced their guess - that the extreme right-wing in Dallas, led by HL Hunt, was behind the JFK assassination.

Therefore, the motive for the KGB to forge this letter by Oswald, asking "Mr. Hunt" for some money or for a meeting, is not difficult to put together. If Mark Lane thinks it was a forgery, and it sounds like a forgery (and it didn't show up until months later), then I tend to think it was a forgery.

However, handwriting analysts say the handwriting is too close to be a forgery. So, it might be authentic. Oswald was a money-grabber, I believe. (This is why he liked hanging out with George DeMohrenschildt, and also with Clay Shaw. He was hoping that being a mercenary would one day pay off big time.)

So, if (and only if) the letter is authentic, then I still believe Oswald would have addressed E.H. Hunt by his CIA alias instead. It's an intriguing question.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I was wondering about the letter Oswald wrote to a Mr Hunt. Which Hunt do you think was writing to?

E.Howard or H.L?

Mark, IMHO, if (and only if) that letter is authentic, then Oswald would have addressed E.H. Hunt by his CIA Alias, "Eduardo," and not by his last name. So, since the writer used the name, "Hunt," he was almost certainly writing to H.L. Hunt.

--Paul Trejo

^^ Not necessarily true, E.H Hunt was "Eduardo" to the anti-Castro groups and during the Bay of Pigs, in fact many knew him by his real name, even during the Bay of Pigs. In fact Sturgis knew E.H. Hunt since 1954 during the Guatemalan coup. He only adopted that name "Eduardo" while he was involved with the Cubans in South Florida.

Scott, I agree that Oswald might not have used the name "Eduardo" when addressing E.H. Hunt in writing -- but Hunt had other aliases, too. Insofar as Oswald was accepted in the fringes of the rogue CIA underground, he would have known the appropriate alias, and he would have used the proper alias when writing to E.H. Hunt. He wouldn't have used his real name, IMHO. That's why I say it's better than 50/50 that Oswald was writing to H.L. Hunt (if the letter is authentic).

Think of Oswald's situation in life; he did not like holding down regular jobs. He changed menial jobs so often that one gets the idea he took those jobs only to provide a cover for his lifestyle. He obtained cash from his many post office boxes, and also from the local Western Union (according to a clerk in the Dallas Western Union). He owned a Minolta spy camera; he was always looking for money. Clay Shaw was mainly a money source for Oswald (and Banister and Ferrie). Oswald saw the older spies go to very rich people to ask for money for right-wing adventures -- and get it. He was practicing for the day when he would call the shots, IMHO.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

..Johnson's closest and most powerful oil men who had hierarchy would be H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, Sr. I think it is almost certain that one or both were involved as key organizers of the JFK assassination...

From 1990 manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS:

All such information (re: President Kennedy) had no significance to those who desired

to hasten his death. Kennedy's Dallas trip was a non-secret. It was known and leaked

months earlier by...mole-agents-in-place that lurked for years in every agency,

service and bureau of the U.S. government.

The burrowing moles who's 'sacred duty' is always to serve only the 'ultimate goal' of

the LDS-JBS conquest, informed RID (Research Intelligence Department) of the John Birch

Society on a continuing basis concerning the 'movements' and even the 'personal' activities

of the President.

Harry, thanks for reminding us of the John Birch Society (and its LDS component) in connection with the participation of H.L. Hunt (and General Walker) in this drama.

The John Birch Society is a major player in this drama because they were McCarthyists who believed that communists had taken over Washington DC, and that the only way to get them out is to "shoot them out" (according to Robert Welch).

Harry Truman is quoted as saying that "the JBS is only the KKK without sheets."

In any case, the JBS was known for its large membership of WASP professionals and small businessmen, who would send truckloads of money to Robert Welch. They were extremists, and they had scads of money. H.L. Hunt was one of their biggest contributors. Dan Smoot was an occasional writer to their monthly magazine. General Walker was one of its first members. They hated JFK openly, and JFK did not back off from them, but publicly insulted them, just as Harry Truman insulted them.

Perhaps most literate adults in 1963 simply presumed that the JBS was behind the assassination of JFK. Frank Ellis (ATF) said so. Jack Ruby himself said so. The rhetoric of the JBS in 1963 would lead the average reader to believe so. They sincerely and honestly believed that JFK was a communist and a traitor to the USA. They believed that the assassination of JFK was the right thing, the patriotic thing, to do.

In this regard, they had the full and complete support of H.L. Hunt and General Edwin A. Walker.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I was wondering about the letter Oswald wrote to a Mr Hunt. Which Hunt do you think was writing to?

E.Howard or H.L?

Mark, IMHO, if (and only if) that letter is authentic, then Oswald would have addressed E.H. Hunt by his CIA Alias, "Eduardo," and not by his last name. So, since the writer used the name, "Hunt," he was almost certainly writing to H.L. Hunt.

--Paul Trejo

..Johnson's closest and most powerful oil men who had hierarchy would be H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, Sr. I think it is almost certain that one or both were involved as key organizers of the JFK assassination...

Robert, you and I agree on the central place that H.L. Hunt plays in the Dallas power structure, not only regarding wealth and power, but also regarding right-wing ideology. In my view, the assassination of JFK would not be possible without the extreme right-wing ideology that considered JFK to be a Communist-sympathizer or worse.

To appreciate this theory to the fullest, we should become familiar with the right-wing hermenuetic of Dallas in 1963. We should be familiar with their literature, i.e. the "Life Line" radio show of H.L. Hunt, the Dan Smoot Report (which is plagiarized by the 21st century American left wing today), the rants of segregationist Evangelist Billy James Hargis, the John Birch Society teachings of Robert Welch, and the nationally broadcast speeches of General Edwin A. Walker. These people knew each other (Hunt, Smoot, Hargis, Welch, Walker) and they shared stories.

I was at the Briscoe Center for American History for several hours today, looking through Edwin Walker's archives and trying to identify the tone of his speeches and writings. They sound so much like Robert Welch that it seems to me today that he borrowed much of his vocabulary and phrases from Welch. Now, Welch borrowed much of his vocabulary from Joseph McCarthy; and Joseph McCarthy got a lot of his ideas from General Charles Willoughby, the intelligence officer of General Douglas MacArthur. Willoughby was a right-wing fanatic (and like MacArthur he was an Army officer in World War One as well).

It now seems that when Truman dismissed MacArthur, that's when the modern right-wing propaganda fired up in a major way. MacArthur and Willoughby began to entertain humor about Truman's treason. This was all Joe McCarthy needed to fire up his lackluster Senate career and become a superstar. Thus the right-wing was born, and even after Joe McCarthy was censured by the Senate, that didn't stop an American cottage industry in right-wing paranoia about Reds in Washington. Thus the John Birch Society was born.

These people took themselves very seriously. H.L. Hunt was so impressed with this train of thought that he spent millions on a radio show to promote these ideas. He called it, "Life Line." Dan Smoot was one of his first announcers. H.L. Hunt was himself the main writer. Sometimes, however, he would hire Billy James Hargis to write some of his radio spots (because a young Billy James Hargis also wrote for Joe McCarthy).

All of this was centered in Dallas, Texas, the national headquarters of the USA right-wing.

JFK should have known that this was dangerous territory for a Liberal like himself. For the extreme right-wing, the very word 'Liberal' was equivalent to 'Communist.' The very notion of the United Nations would make some of them virtually foam at the mouth. They saw the United Nations as the USSR giving orders to the USA, and the USA paying for the entire show. The Dallas right-wing wanted the UN out of the US now. (This is still a major plank in the John Birch Society platform.)

So, when Adlai Stevenson came to Dallas in October 24th, 1963 to advocate the UN, he should not have been surprised that the John Birch elements in Dallas would have had their own anti-UN rally the night before!

That was set up by General Edwin A. Walker. He called it, "US Day". For the Dallas right-wing, the choice was always between the US and the UN, with no middle ground. So Edwin whipped up his crowd into a religious frenzy, cursing the godless and Satanic UN in favor of the Christian USA. He instructed them to interfere with Adlai's speech by all means possible. And they did just that.

As part of this fiasco, in which Adlai Stevenson was struck on the head with a protest sign, a poster was circulated in downtown Dallas that day and evening. It read: WANTED FOR TREASON - JFK. Yes, Edwin Walker was behind that famous poster as well.

One thing I found in the General Walker archives -- notes for a speech written in early October 1963, marking the anniversary of time RFK had him locked up in an insane asylum in Missouri.

OK - that's the background, and now for my request. While at the Briscoe Center today, I asked to see all the transcripts they have for H.L. Hunt's radio show, "Life Line", for the year 1963. I wanted to read what H.L. Hunt had to say about the treatment of Adlai Stevenson in Dallas on 10/24/1963, and of course what Hunt had to say in the weeks leading up to the assassination of JFK on 11/22/1963.

As it turns out, after a lengthy search, the Briscoe archives only have "Life Line" transcripts for December, 1963 and forward. Very frustrating.

So - my question to you and to all who read this request -- do you have access to the written transcripts of H.L. Hunt's "Life Line" radio programs for the months of September through November of 1963? (I believe the transcriber will probably be Melvin Munn.) I would very much like to see these, and I suspect that the Forum might find them to be interesting as well.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

So, in my view, Nagell was a double-agent, and he was charged with protecting Castro. He used this project and this cover to obtain information about the KGB for the CIA.

Thanks, Paul. I've read Dick Russell's book several times, too. I forget the extent to which (before Nagell put himself in an American jail) the CIA knew about Nagell being compromised by having been duped into working for KGB.

Who was aware that Nagell was meeting with Kostikov? Was Nagell reporting on KGB-Mexico City to CIA? Could "Bob," the CIA operative who duped Nagell into handling a project for KGB, have tricked him on orders from both CIA and KGB - making Nagell a triple-agent?

David, I'm unaware of Nagell's full motives, but it's an interesting question. Being a spy is a thankless job -- and if a spy gets caught, the Government disowns that spy immediately. "Never heard of him."

That's pretty bad, but the fate of a double-agent is twice as bad. Only one side must know that this spy is a double-agent, otherwise it won't work. But even then, the side that knows that this spy is a double-agent is always suspicious that they are being tricked by the other side (i.e. that he is a double-crossing double-agent, a.k.a. a triple-agent).

In other words, every double-agent is always under suspicion of being a triple-agent, no matter what.

Although Nagell eventually confessed to being a double-agent, he never divulged details of his cases. That's why Jim Garrison couldn't use Nagell -- Nagell would say, "that's classified" for almost every question. The interviewer was simply supposed to take his word about his anecdotes of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Dick Russell used Nagell quite skillfully, IMHO. He didn't press him, but carefully followed each lead to see where it led -- and Nagell was usually correct.

So, presuming that Nagell told the truth when he said he was a double-agent, the answers to your questions would look like this:

(1) The CIA and KGB were both aware that Nagell was meeting with Kostikov.

(2) Nagell was certainly reporting on KGB-Mexico City to the CIA.

(3) When it comes to the work of spying, with its endless denials, endless lies and endless secrets, anything is possible.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

(Probably, too, Nagell told Oswald that he'd kill Oswald if the Mexican Consulate gave him passage to Cuba, so Oswald simply hired somebody else to pretend to be Oswald, to push his paperwork through. This would explain why the 'Oswald' that the Consulate recalled wasn't the real Oswald.)

Paul: Kill Oswald for the KGB? Interested in what you think Nagell's motives toward Oswald were.

David, I take my clues about Nagell from Dick Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1992). So, in my view, Nagell was a double-agent, and he was charged with protecting Castro. He used this project and this cover to obtain information about the KGB for the CIA. But he would kill in order to protect his cover. Oswald was a small player in Nagell's world.

According to Dick Russell, Nagell warned Oswald several times about the company he was keeping. As an alleged communist, Oswald never joined the Communist Party, never went to communist rallies, and more importantly, never had any communist friends or associated with any communists - ever. Instead, Oswald moved in right-wing circles in New Orleans. His most common compatriots were Cuban Exiles (what Dean Andrews would call, 'Chicanos').

So Nagell warned Oswald that if Oswald went to Mexico, Nagell would follow him; and if Oswald tried to get passage to Cuba, Nagell would kill him. This is because Nagell was aware that Oswald's FPCC front was only a front, and that the FPCC did not trust Lee Harvey Oswald. It is possible that Nagell warned the Mexican and Cuban Consulates that a fake FPCC officer would try to obtain passage to Cuba.

Nagell would have killed Oswald if Oswald's fake FPCC street credentials would have worked. Not because Nagell was a communist, but because Nagell had to protect his own cover as a double-agent. Evidently Nagell believed he had bigger fish to fry than Lee Harvey Oswald.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

It is no small coincidence that Guy Banister, who clearly knew Lee Harvey Oswald, was in charge of anti-Cuban operations in Mexico.

David Atlee Phillips: As we've seen, CIA propaganda expert Dave Phillips, a veteran of the CIA overthrow of Guatemala's government in 1954, was involved in both the Castro assassination plots and the CIA counterintelligence operation against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, working under Watergate's James McCord. By the Fall of 1963, he was in charge of anti-Cuban operations in Mexico City at the time of Oswald's visit, but was out of town and didn't return until about a week after Oswald left; a cable from Mexico City suggests the CIA station there held materials about Oswald's visit for Phillips to pick up. Every key source who tried to tie Oswald to Castro after the assassination had links to Phillips.

source

I still think that the key relationships here, as they relates to the Kennedy assassination cover up are Banister/Hoover, the FBI players of the Cuban Operation, and Jim Garrison, the official who helped Hoover and Johnson bury information about the illegal, Cuban operation.

Does the Warren Report mention the Cuban Operation?

Lynne, this thread began with your question, "Didn't Hoover frame Oswald?". It's turned into a gossip column about the gender-preferences of Hoover, which I find germane in only one small area.

Gerry Patrick Hemming declared when he was a member of the Forum some years ago that RFK himself put up the cash to find some dirt on Hoover, because Hoover was finding a lot of dirt on JFK. Hemming and his crew took that cash and found some dirt very quickly -- Mafia photographs of J. Edgar Hoover at parties in many types of compromising, gender-twisting positions.

This is irrelevant on a personal level, but it matters at a political level because it clearly drew a line in the sand between Hoover and the Kennedys. Most people in Washington cooperated with Hoover's game. But the Kennedys chose to fight back, and gave Hoover a dose of his own medicine.

There was no way to repair this, was there? Hoover at this point had to break all hopes of working with the Kennedys after this point. There was no turning back.

I don't find enough evidence to say that Hoover framed Oswald -- but I would love to see some if it's available.

In my current theory, former Major General Edwin A. Walker was the person who framed Oswald. He had a strong material motive -- he was aware (probably through FBI channels through Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin who heard it from George DeMohrenschildt on 4/14/1963) that Lee Harvey Oswald was the one who shot into his living room on 4/10/1963.

Also, Walker was convinced (till the end of his life) that RFK himself hired Oswald to kill Walker.

Walker, as an officer of the Texas Minutemen, was also acquainted with Guy Banister, who was an officer of the Lousiana Minutemen. They started the process of framing Oswald, as a punishment for this crime.

Now, I have no doubt that Hoover would hear about this through the grapevine -- and his complicity in the crime is simply that he did nothing at all to stop it. All Hoover had to do was turn a blind eye.

Sure, Hoover hated the Kennedys, but he also had a good run of a career. He wouldn't risk his reputation on becoming personally involved. (And the same goes for LBJ, I believe). Rather, the only thing that the rich and powerful had to do was look the other way.

The people in the ground-crew that framed Oswald were professionals, and they did a professional job. Their hatred for RFK was so profound that they literally worked for RFK as they used RFK's own resources to kill JFK.

Operation Mongoose was RFK's own operation, controlled from the White House. Eladio del Valle said that RFK would personally call 544 Camp Street on a regular basis to ensure that the Castro-killing operations were making good progress. Yes, yes, of course, was their answer, as they used Operation Mongoose resources to plot the JFK assassination for November in Dallas.

I was finally convinced that this was the correct route to the truth when I read Gerry Hemming claim that he saw General Edwin Walker at Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana. Add this to the claim by David Atlee Phillips that he saw Lee Harvey Oswald at Lake Pontchartrain, as well.

Cuban Exiles play a major role in this. I have found very little about General Walker's interaction with the Cuban Exiles -- although one Forum member, Harry Dean, says he was an eye-witness to these events, and affirms that General Walker worked closely with Cuban Exiles during this period.

Two of these Cuban Exiles are on film with Lee Harvey Oswald, and are both noteworthy here. Edward Butler, a Cuban Exile, ran a radio station in Florida called Radio-Free-Cuba through a counter-revolutionary organization named INCA, which was funded liberally by the CIA through David Atlee Phillips, who also supported other militant Cuban Exile organizations like the CRC and the DRE. Carlos Bringuier, another Cuban Exile, and also a member of both CRC and DRE, was equally interested in propaganda. Butler and Bringuier were the main Latino sources for Bill Stuckey's radio show, "Latin Listening Post."

Guy Banister and David Ferrie manipulated Oswald very skillfully. Using Clay Shaw to grant Oswald a few dollars here and there, they convinced him that he had the right stuff to be their undercover operator. Probably they convinced Oswald to pretend to be an officer of the FPCC, because then he could get into Cuba overnight, kill Castro easily, then return to the USA for his fame and fortune.

That's why Oswald pretended to be an officer of the FPCC. (Remember that the FPCC officers in New York wanted nothing to do with this pretender, and Oswald had no members at all in his so-called organization.) But Guy Banister had to make the pretense look real.

So, Guy got together with some Cuban Exiles - Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier, who also had offices at 544 Camp Street. Their plan was to use the radio and TV to film Oswald in the act of being an FPCC officer. They started with a fake fight on Canal Street to get them arrested and start some free publicity. They then moved to the "Latin Listening Post" radio show, rehearsing nearly every line.

Then Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler arranged to set up a TV show, starring Lee Harvey Oswald as the FPCC officer. Newspaper, radio and TV (and newspaper stories about the radio and TV spots) were the street credentials Oswald would take with him to Mexico.

Although this seems a bit corny -- this was the essential apparatus to frame Lee Harvey Oswald. The essence was to control him so that he posed as a communist for the whole world to see. He could not back out of that.

Further, Oswald had to be convinced that no matter how deeply he got involved as a double-agent, he would always be rescued by his comrades in arms. This explains why Oswald did not expose his accomplices when he was arrested in Dallas on 11/22/1963. He was always certain that he was going to get away with it.

So - that's my theory, Lynne. Hoover was aware of all this, because Guy Banister alone would be enough to guarantee Hoover's knowledge. When the file cabinets of Guy Banister were confiscated by the FBI the day he died - we lost our best evidence for the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald.

So what about General Walker? What was his role? In my current theory, Walker was waiting in Dallas when Lee Harvey Oswald came crawling back from Mexico City - a dismal failure as a fake FPCC officer. Nobody in Mexico believed Oswald - he was a joke. (Probably, too, Nagell told Oswald that he'd kill Oswald if the Mexican Consulate gave him passage to Cuba, so Oswald simply hired somebody else to pretend to be Oswald, to push his paperwork through. This would explain why the 'Oswald' that the Consulate recalled wasn't the real Oswald.)

In my current theory, General Walker was getting things ready for 11/22/1963. Walker had friends who could find or create a job anywhere in the city, at the drop of a hat. Walker had friends who could change the Presidential Parade Route, anytime he wanted. Walker had loyal followers who were among the world's best sharpshooters - whether former military, or Minutemen, or both. General Walker also had many friends in the Dallas Police Department. I believe these are simple facts.

With the patsy now completely sheep-dipped, economically dependent, and tamed as the failure he surely was -- he was ready for the Big Show.

Once again -- Hoover knew all about this -- probably every detail. But Hoover wasn't the one who framed Oswald, and he wasn't the one who planned the JFK assassination. His was the complicity of silence; he was surely an accomplice after the fact.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

...The reason it was a coup is because permanent intelligence bureaucracies permanently replaced elected officials when it came to sovereignty. A couple of presidents may have been slow learners, but there is no longer any doubt.

This is intriguing, Nathaniel. Surely there were intelligence bureaucracies before World War Two. Yet after World War Two, when the USA emerged the Global Superpower that it is today, naturally the USA intelligence bureaucracies that emerged after the cataclysm would be special because they had reached the absolute limit of global purview.

Further, these USA intelligence bureaucracies absorbed the German intelligence bureaucracies and then interlaced with the French and British intelligence bureaucracies -- this is a special entity in world history. Naturally it would take on a special importance. Naturally it would arrive on the scene to stay. But for all that, he remains purely American and Constitutional.

Yes, it takes a special sort of President now to control this sort of creature. But it is still an American President, and he is still elected to a four-year term.

All best,

--Paul

Well, this is clearly an active thread. I'll chime in, too.

Although I agree that lots of the evidence is altered, e.g. the Backyard Photos, I wouldn't generalize, and I will continue to take each item of evidence on its own merits.

I think that shadows play a role in the photograph of the man in the doorway. That's not a V-neck T-shirt, or even a round-neck T-shirt that has been nervously pulled down to emulate a V-neck. Rather, it appears to me to be a shadow of the man's chin on an ordinary T-shirt.

The photograph is so poor, so unclear, that one doesn't need somebody to alter it in order to enjoy many fine debates over it. Anyway, that's a shadow. Also, because the photo quality is so poor, it is very difficult to say with certainty that the man in the doorway is wearing a solid color shirt or a lined shirt. I believe I see lines in the shirt. That's my eyesight on this poor photograph.

Still - it doesn't matter much to me which way it turns out - it doesn't alter the key conclusion of the HSCA, the new official US Government position (1979) that already blew the Warren Commission conclusion out of the water. There were at least two shooters, no matter who was standing in the doorway.

The larger questions to ask are - what person or group would want to frame Oswald? Did Oswald's New Orleans associates frame him? Clearly, somebody close to Oswald framed him. Why were George DeMohrenschildt and General

Edwin Walker called to testify before the Warren Commission? How close were they to Oswald? What motive did either man have to participate in a frame-up of Oswald?

Finally - as for the Backyard Photograph, I accept Marina's testimony that she took one (and only one) picture that day. But when she was confronted with two different poses of Oswald with his guns, she slightly modified her testimony: "Well, I guess I took two without knowing it." (OK, she was a chemistry graduate not a photography graduate.)

The better answer is that she took one, and somebody altered that one to make different poses. Now, who would that be? Let's ask who was close to Oswald at that time, and also close to professional photographic equipment at that time. Using Occam's Razor, the first suspect should be Oswald himself. He had the photo, and he was in his final days working at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall in Dallas, which had excellent photographic equipment in 1963 (almost as good as having Photoshop in the 21st century). Oswald probaby made his "Alek Hidell" identification card there, as well as these photo variations. He only had one photo to work with (as Marina correctly recalled) so he only had one face to superimpose on different photographs -- as the expert evidence clearly shows. Why would he do it? Possibly so he could tell the police (if they ever got ahold of them) that "these photos are fake, and I can prove it!"

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo