Paul Trejo

Hi Paul Marguerite Oswald really tried to impress upon the Commission that Marina could speak English and that she had many conversations with her in English. James Martin (who was sleeping with her a few weeks after she buried her husband) stated she could understand everything he said in English. Robert Oswald stated Marina had conversations with him in English - one about a James Martin business contract. Robert Webster stated he met Marina and she could speak English (in a heavy accent - much like she still speaks to this very day) She herself claimed that she called the Reily Coffee Company one day when she was looking for Lee - which would have been tough only being able to say "Hello, how are you?" The buidling manager at the Elsbeth apartments, M. F. Tobias Snr., said that Marina's English was enough to understand and be understood ( Lost in Translation thread - http://educationforu...opic=17690&st=0 ) Minnie Williams (who lived with the Grays at the Neely Street property) claimed to have English conversations with Marina. She could probably also write in English: http://www.aarclibra...WH16_CE_110.pdf George Bouhe said he was "teaching" her English by sending her things through the post to "translate" I think we can safely assume that Marina spoke good English, Paul - and that being the case, why do you think she continually lied about it? Sitting in front of the Warren Commission with a couple of interpreters when you can actually understand everything that is being asked of you is something of a major porky, don't you think? The fact that she could speak English before she stepped foot on U.S. soil opens up a hornets nest. Finally on Webster - skepticism is great, there are many members here who have been served well by it - however, it isn't just a case of Webster claiming he met her (according to Dick Russell who interviewed him) but the fact that the apartment complex in Leningrad where Webster lived was listed in Marina's address book. I know you believe in coincidences but you're going to need an extra-wide neck to swallow that one. One of the other women who Webster was involved with in the USSR, Vera Ivchenko, was widely suspected as a KGB agent and the ramifications of this scared the HSCA so much that it decided not to name her. They instead called her "Robert Webster's girlfriend." Regards Lee P.S. I think a lot of the other stuff you have written about deMohrenschildt/Bouhe/Walker suffers from evidence omissions and glosses over certain things quite superficially. I'd like to respond to the rest tomorrow if I have a chance. And I'd like to know how a Walker/Ferrie/Martin revenge plot factors in the CIA/Mexico City shenanigans, the removal of Oswald's FBI FLASH and the segregation of his 201 file. Lee, From a post I made back in Oct 2004 when trying to figure out more about Lawrence Orlov... "...But when you add that the above-mentioned Alexander Orlov was working at the University of Michigan at the same time Marina took an eight week course at the English Language Institute at UM, the flag pole needs to be extended." And the following year, Joan Mellen's book had this to say about it, "Garrison did not raise Marina's having attended the English Language Institute at the University of Michigan, a hotbed of Soviet defectors and CIA assets, although he was aware that she had. He did not ask her if she knew former KGB officer, Alexander Orlov, resident there, placed by the CIA to be debriefed on what he knew about Soviet espionage..." Given Marina's very likely ability to speak and comprehend English far better than she ever let on, what do we make of the above? I appreciate your questions, Gary. I will admit this much - if (and only if) Marina Porter spoke English fluently enough to carry on a complex business conversation, and yet pretended to the world that she didn't know English, then of course my theory about her testimony would break down significantly. So, I'm not married to my theory - but I am married to the Truth, and the Truth requires hard evidence, and not just innuendo and hear-say. After all - condemning Lee Oswald as the Lone Assassin proceeded with innuendo and hear-say. Also, as for Margueurite Oswald's opinion about Marina - I detect some hostility and bias there. One must remember the tremendous emotional pain that Marguerite was suffering -- being certain in her mind that Lee Oswald was a covert Military hero, taking the fall for a Military Coup, and the vast majority of the world calling her insane. She had few friends, and Marina Oswald did not feel in a position to try to console her. Some of this came out in the WC testimony, too. So, Marguerite's opinion is somewhat compromised. As for these other people who claim that Marina spoke fluent English, I must take their testimony one at a time. I happen to be a certified ESL instructor (UCSC-Extension, 2004), so I know something about ESL and accents and fluency. I also know that Marina was bright - and that she'd lived in the USA for nearly 1.5 years before JFK was assassinated. She was, as we say, immersed in English, which is the very best way to learn a language. So, if she could speak English fairly well in 1964 (as she did before the Warren Commission) that is not a surprise, academically. Also, when people learn a foreign language by immersion, they always learn to listen and comprehend far sooner than they learn to speak it. (And they learn to speak it far sooner than they learn to read it.) So, I find Marina believable. Even if she understood what English-speakers were saying in November, 1963, it would have been rude or even cruel to force her to speak English right then and there. Of course, everything changes if she was taking English classes in RUSSIA. That's now very different. But the evidence does not show that. That's very important to your case, I believe. Your case needs to show that Marina Porter had formal English classes in Russia, either at a very young age, or in college. I think the evidence is against you in this. To make the 'English-speaking Marina' theory work, one must then resort to KGB theories - but the FBI and CIA scoured that pot clean. All best, --Paul

Lee, I look forward to your responses. As for the CIA/Mexico connection, I find the memoirs of Harry Dean (a member of this Forum) to be most revealing. Dean says he personally saw General Walker in Mexico during this time-frame, speaking with radical, gun-toting members of the JBS, plotting the Dallas logisitics, and naming Oswald as their patsy. Mexico City was the 'smoke-filled room', according to Harry Dean. All best, --Paul P.S. Correction: Dean says he saw Walker and the JBS in Southern California, at this time, as other members of the JBS were meeting with Oswald in Mexico.

Thanks for the response, Ed. Your concern appears to be the apparent contradictions in Marina Oswald’s story. Was the rifle hidden or out in the open? Was it buried, or was it in her closet. The evidence suggests to me that, depending on the day, and on the circumstances, it could either be hidden, out in the open, or buried. Did the interrogator seek to clarify these circumstances, or was he rushing forward toward the conclusions that Hoover wanted to hear? I appreciate that you supplied a large segment of Marina's testimony to the Warren Commission. So let’s take some of these apparent contradictions one at a time, please: 1. Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the first time that you observed the rifle? Mrs. OSWALD. That was on Neely Street. I think that was in February. Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about it? Did you see it some place in the apartment? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of time, where he read---where he kept his things, and that is where the rifle was. Mr. RANKIN. Was it out in the room at that time, as distinguished from in a closet in the room? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was open, out in the open... >>> So, early in February, 1963, she saw a rifle in Lee’s private room, “out in the open”. I have no problem with Marina’s testimony so far. 2. Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle later placed in a closet in the apartment at Neely Street? Mrs. OSWALD. No, it was always either in a corner, standing up in a corner or on a shelf. >>> Here the interrogator did not clarify the generic term, ‘later’. In the present context, he might easily have meant ‘in those weeks before the Walker trouble.’ I take it that Marina heard that sloppy question in the context of a pre-trouble weeks. So her answer was truthful: ‘before there was any trouble, Lee kept his rifle in his private room, out in the open.’ 3. Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever show that rifle to the De Mohrenschildts? Mrs. OSWALD. I know that De Mohrenschildts had said that the rifle had been shown to him, but I don't remember that. >>> Here the interrogator did not clarify the term, ‘show’. He probably meant, ‘did you ever ‘accidentally show’ the rifle to the De Mohrenschildts?’ But in the present context, he might easily have meant ‘deliberately show it off’. I take it that Marina heard that sloppy question in the context of ‘showing it off,’ so she truthfully denied it. (Her trouble wasn’t with the truth, it was with the English language – but Rankin was insensitive to that. Marina didn’t know if George and Jeanne had told the FBI that she showed it off or not – but she didn’t want to contradict them – and all this confusion in her mind was due to her poor grasp of colloquial English.) 4. Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall your husband taking the rifle away from the apartment on Neely Street at any time? Mrs. OSWALD. You must know that the rifle it isn't as if it was out in the open. He would hang a coat or something to mask its presence in the room. And sometimes when he walked out, when he went out in the evening I didn't know, because I didn't go into that room very often. I don't know whether he took it with him or not. >>> Here the interrogator changes the topic, and Marina is still pondering the previous question. Her mind was often stuck on the Easter night visit of the De Mohrenschildts, so she said, ‘It isn’t as if the rifle was out in the open.’ Now she is speaking about the post-Walker-shooting, the trouble times. The rifle was buried on April 10th. At some point Lee dug it up and brought it home, said Marina. And now, at this point, it would be absurd to leave it out in the open. Now there was truly something to be ashamed about. So either Lee or Marina or both hid it in the closet. After getting that off her chest, she then answered Rankin’s question – truthfully. She didn’t keep tabs on Lee – presumably because he might beat her for that. 5. Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see him clean the rifle? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I said before I had never seen it before. But I think you understand. I want to help you, and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything. I will not be charged with anything. Mr. GOPADZE. She says she was not sworn in before. But now inasmuch as she is sworn in, she is going to tell the truth. Mr. RANKIN. Did you see him clean the rifle a number of times? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. >>> Here the interrogator changes the topic, and Marina is still pondering whether Rankin is interested in everything she is trying to tell him. Marina knows that she contradicted her original statement to the FBI that she knew utterly nothing at all – because now she’s admitting that she knew a lot about the rifle, and about the Walker shooting. She is still worried that she will be charged with lying to the FBI immediately after the JFK assassination; but her attorney is with her and advises everybody concerned that she was not under oath at that time. Marina calms down and answers the original question. 6. Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever observe your husband taking the rifle away from the apartment on Neely Street? Mrs. OSWALD. Now, I think that he probably did sometimes, but I never did see it. You must understand that sometimes I would be in the kitchen and he would be in his room downstairs and he would say bye-bye, I will be back soon, and he may have taken it. He probably did. Perhaps he purely waited for an occasion when he could take it away without my seeing it. >>> This is believable to me. They lived upstairs and there was a tool shed downstairs, and sometimes Lee would go there for privacy. That came out in the WC testimony. Lee did not share all of his comings and goings with Marina. He was very possessive, jealous, patriarchal, and yet was not successful; he compensated with excessive bossiness, and in Dallas, even with violence toward Marina. It is believable to me that he would sneak his rifle downstairs and then out of the house without her noticing it. 7. Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn at any time that he had been practicing with the rifle? Mrs. OSWALD. I think that he went once or twice. I didn't actually see him take the rifle, but I knew that he was practicing. Mr. RANKIN. Could you give us a little help on how you knew? Mrs. OSWALD. He told me. And he would mention that in passing---it isn't as if he said, "Well, today I am going"---it wasn't as if he said, "Well, today I am going to take the rifle and go and practice." But he would say, "Well, today I will take the rifle along for practice." >>> Here, again, the English language is Marina’s barrier. She’s trying to indicate a nuance of degree, but without expertise in English it falls flat. We see this many times with ESL speakers. This is clear because of the double starts in her response. She meant to say that Oswald didn’t give her explicit signals, but he gave her implicit signals. It is still believable testimony to me. 8. Mrs. Oswald. Therefore, I don't know whether he took it from the house or whether perhaps he even kept the rifle somewhere outside. There was a little square, sort of a little courtyard where he might have kept it. When you asked me about the rifle, I said that Lee didn't have a rifle, but he also had a gun, a revolver. >>> Again, it is the English language that compromises her sentence. She omitted the word, “only” as in, “Lee didn’t only have a rifle.” This is also common with ESL speakers. 9. Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall when he first had the pistol that you remember? Mrs. OSWALD. He had that on Neely Street, but I think that he acquired the rifle before he acquired the pistol. The pistol I saw twice, once in his room, and the second time when I took these photographs. >>> I find this believable. 10. Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any objection to having the rifle around? Mrs. OSWALD. Of course. Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to that? Mrs. OSWALD. That for a man to have a rifle since I am a woman, I don't understand him, and I shouldn't bother him. A fine life. Mr. RANKIN. Is that the same rifle that you are referring to that you took the picture of with your husband and when he had the pistol, too? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business--it was man's business. >>> Marina answers the question, but then she adds more, apparently worried that she will be implicated in the Walker shooting. She knew about it, and she should have told the police, but didn’t, so to some degree she was guilty. (So were George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, for that matter.) Her rambling about how crazy Lee with this rifle, saying it was none of her business – this is believable testimony. 11. Mr. RANKIN. You have examined that picture since, and noticed that the telescopic lens was on at the time the picture was taken, have you not? Mrs. OSWALD. Now I paid attention to it. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses. >>> Marina’s answer is plausible for somebody who is not used to taking photographs. But I find it believable for another reason. Photographic experts have proven scientifically that the two photographs we have of Oswald posing with those weapons were both modified by experts. First of all, the same head is superimposed on two separate bodies, but tilted slightly. So, it is actually likely that Marina took only one photograph as she thought. (It is also possible, even plausible to me, that Lee Oswald himself, while he was at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall actually made those fakes, so that he could later claim – and prove – that they were fakes in case they fell into the wrong hands. I think it is also plausible that Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall fired Oswald when they found out what he was doing, i.e. these photos and his fake ID for Alek Hidell.) 12. Mr. RANKIN. Did he say any more than that about the shooting? Mrs. OSWALD. Of course in the morning I told him that I was worried, and that we can have a lot of trouble, and I asked him, "Where is the rifle? What did you do with it?" He said, that he had left it somewhere, that he had buried it, it seems to me, somewhere far from that place, because he said dogs could find it by smell... >>> I find Marina’s testimony here to be easily believable. Oswald said he buried his rifle rather than bring it home, just in case he was followed by police; simple to understand. 13. Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask him how long he had been planning to do this? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He said he had been planning for two months. Yes--perhaps he had planned to do so even earlier, but according to his conduct I could tell he was planning--he had been planning this for two months or perhaps a little even earlier. >>> This testimony sounds believable to me. He evidently bought his weapons in February, soon after various New Years parties with Dallas Russian Exiles (as I call them), in which Volkmar Schmidt attended and tried to convince Oswald that General Walker was pure evil. 14. Mr. RANKIN. Did he show you a picture of the Walker house then…after the shooting? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He had a book – he had a notebook in which he noted down quite a few details. It was all in English, I didn't read it. But I noticed the photograph. Sometimes he would lock himself in his room and write in the book. I thought that he was writing some other kind of memoirs, as he had written about his life in the Soviet Union. >>> This testimony sounds believable to me. Intent on impressing George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt – two of the few men Oswald actually admired – he would carefully plan each move – methodically and even scientifically. He would not share this with Marina for many reasons. 15. Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask him if that is what he meant by the note? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, because as soon as he came home I showed him the note and asked him "What is the meaning of this?" Mr. RANKIN. And that is when he gave you the explanation about the Walker shooting? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I know that on a Sunday he took the rifle, but I don't think he fired on a Sunday. Perhaps this was on Friday. So Sunday he left and took the rifle. >>> Marina is hiding something here, because she changed the subject, and she makes no sense. She was not asked about the day of the shooting, but that is the question she is answering - but at the same time trying to evade. Again - her memory flitters when thinking of this day because it is "three days later" that sticks more firmly in her mind - Easter Sunday - when the De Mohrenschildt's discover the rifle in the Oswald home - and so also discover the shame of Marina, that she was an accessory-after-the-fact in a shooting that is all over the Dallas newspapers, radio and television news. She is still not convinced that she will escape prosecution for this, because she condemns it herself. However, the interrogator does not care about this - he seems to notice it and quickly asks the question she is trying to answer so that they can move onward toward the conclusions that Hoover wants to hear. 16. Mr. RANKIN. If the Walker shooting was on Wednesday, does that refresh your memory as to the day of the week at all? Mrs. OSWALD. Refresh my memory as to what? Mr. RANKIN. As to the day of the shooting? Mrs. OSWALD. It was in the middle of the week. ...By the way, several days after that, the De Mohrenschildts came to us, and as soon as he opened the door he said, "Lee, how is it possible that you missed?" I looked at Lee. I thought that he had told De Mohrenschildt about it. And Lee looked at me, and he apparently thought that I had told De Mohrenschildt about it. It was kind of dark. But I noticed---it was in the evening, but I noticed that his face changed, that he almost became speechless. You see, other people knew my husband better than I did. Not always--but in this case. >>> Here Marina comes back down to earth and remembers the day: Wed10Apr63. As for the 'how did you miss' remark, I would note that later Marina modified her testimony to agree with George De Mohrenschildt’s testimony. I don’t see dishonesty here – I regard this as an English language barrier combined with emotional confusion. Marina continually sought to evade guilt for any role she might have played in the Walker shooting, e.g. accessory-after-the-fact. She kept bringing this up even when Rankin didn’t ask her about it. George De Mohrenschildt’s main objection was that it was not on the doorstep, but inside the house, after Jeanne had found the rifle and announced it, that he made a similar remark – entirely as a joke. Marina later admitted it was a joke – but it spooked her and Lee because his guess was 100% correct. So that was confusing to her. >>> (BTW, I also believe George De Mohrenschildt’s testimony – aside from the fact that it was incomplete. For the HSCA he added important details, e.g. that he and Jeanne were worried that Lee was the shooter for days after the Walker shooting. They needed a pretext to go and search the Oswald house. This fear shows up clearly in Jeanne’s testimony, which is the clumsiest of the lot. She was either trying to hide the fact that she and George were accessories-after-the-fact because they didn’t tell the police, or that they were innocent because they actually told the CIA, but had to keep that top secret.) 17. Mr. RANKIN. What did you do with the note that he had left for you after you talked about it and said you were going to keep it? Mrs. OSWALD. I had it among my things in a cookbook. But I have two--I don't remember in which. >>> I find this believable. Such a note is not something that you put in a scrap-book. Nor was their life a settled affair, but Marina moved many, many times in 1963. She had this note and she had the note from Oswald to the Russian Embassy – both bargaining chips. 18. Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe to us the changes as you observed them? Mrs. OSWALD. Soon after that, Lee lost his job---I don't know for what reason. >>> This is important for my theory – Marina still believed that Oswald lost his job at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall after the Walker shooting, when in fact he lost that job ten days before the shooting. She was lied to continuously. In the USA she rarely knew where Lee Oswald was. 19. Mr. RANKIN. When he promised you that he would not do anything like that again, did you then believe him? Mrs. OSWALD. I did not quite believe him inasmuch as the rifle remained in the house. >>> Completely believable; I don’t see why anybody would doubt this. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Lee, of course anything is possible, yet we are all weighing the evidence here. Your concern seems to be that Marina finally 'molded herself to the official story.' However, I don't believe that she did. I'm basing my theory on her Warren Commission testimony. She left large gaps in it, deliberately, because the interrogators would not let her speculate - they only wanted to drive to Hoover's conclusions. Marina repeatedly said that she did not have enough information to arrive at the conclusions they wanted to hear. Lee did not tell her very much, she claimed. Lee would keep her in the dark and lie to her. Lee would tell her he was working at his job (once in Dallas and once in New Orleans) when for many weeks he had been laid off! Lee Oswald did not tell Marina where he went! He did not tell her how much money he had, or where he got his money. She had rent paid and food for the children and she was content, she says. She got gifts from Bouhe, and she admitted it. This probably made Lee jealous, but she didn't care -- she needed the dresses. She had no idea Lee Oswald had a Minolta camera. So - as Marina told the Warren Commission, she had very little information to work with, and the FBI would not answer her questions, either. So, she said, based on the little evidence she had, it appeared that Lee shot Kennedy -- however, she repeated, if she had more evidence she might change her opinion! So, she did not accept the official story. Now, granting that Marina came clean, so that Lee Oswald was a disturbed man, this in no way (by itself) proves that Lee shot Kennedy. Yet we also find Lee Oswald consorting with Banister and Ferrie in NOLA. That is not innocent behavior. Also, General Walker was convinced that George DeMohrenschildt played a major role in the April shooting. DeMohrenschildt was no angel, either. Lee Oswald was probably violently jealous of George Bouhe, the rich Russian who made eyes at Marina. Yet none of this proves that Lee shot Kennedy. Not only do I find the account of Lee threatening to shoot Nixon believable, I also believe Ron Lewis' account that Lee threatened to shoot Huey Long in New Orleans. As Volkmar Schmidt said, Lee gave him the impression that he was starved for attention and adulation - from anybody. Did Lee Oswald shoot Kennedy? I say no. But I do believe that Lee Oswald knew who shot Kennedy, and could name ten of the central conspirators, if he had wanted to. Here's what I believe Marina Porter did not know -- she did not know at the time that General Walker found out about the April shooting - way back in April - and started a plot with Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Jack Martin to punish Lee Oswald for that crime. The punishment would be to make him the patsy in this conspiracy. Marina did not know it -- and Oswald didn't know it, either. On the issue of Webster - I'm still skeptical - let's not read into his claims more than he claims. Marina could speak English? Does that mean she could say, 'hello, thank you, please and excuse me?' Does it mean considerably more? What evidence do we have beyond Webster's claims? Did Marina take English courses while in college? We have those records. Marina was no dummy - she was a chemistry graduate. But even chemistry graduates do not automatically master English. This should not be difficult to disprove. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

In my opinion, Lee, the shot was meant to kill, and only Fate saved Walker when he moved suddenly, exactly at the right split second. In Marina's opinion (FWIW) that was, as she said, 'proof that he was meant to live.' (She really didn't want Oswald to try it again. It bothered her, because this was a new Oswald, a different Oswald, than the one she married.) You're right - it should have been an easy shot, but Fate sometimes steps in with a 'coincidence'. I believe Marina's testimony on this point. (And yes, I allow her a little bit of leeway under the circumstances, whereas strictly speaking in our judicial system, none at all is allowed.) Best regards...

Thanks for the response, Lee. You say that Marina's stories evolved over a period of months - but this makes sense under her circumstances of intense pressure in those days. Secrecy was how she lived her life. Coming out of her shell took time. Yet when she confronts her Warren Commission interrogators, she seems to have calmed down quite a bit. The FBI had stopped threatening to deport her, evidently, and everybody calmed down. Also, Marina received lots and lots of money from sympathetic people around the USA who pitied a young widow with two babies, facing a possible prison term. She had security - she had money - her children were being cared for. Finally, she would tell the truth. She started with her life story - in written form - which she submitted to the Warren Commission. It included her family background and her Russian experiences with Lee Oswald. Also, Lee had changed in Dallas. He never hit her in Russia. Suddenly, he began hitting her; really frightening her, in this far-away land. So, yes - I guess what I'm saying is that initially she lied to the authorities, but later - during the Warren Commission, she came clean on everything - even with those false starts that Martin identified. I believe she eventually came clean. As for the Robert Webster connection in the USSR, the data is inconclusive, so I find no implications, yet. But as for previous boyfriends in the USSR, her returned letter to one of them was the reason that Lee first beat Marina, according to her Warren Commission testimony. Best regards...

Paul, The whole case against Oswald (as far as the Walker attempt goes) all hinges on Marina's testimony and I'm astonished to find anyone could find it believable. One of my favourite moments is when she testifies that Oswald took his rifle out of the house and buried it somewhere 3 days after the shooting but then realises how absurd this is so changes her mind immediately: Mrs. OSWALD: Three days after the attempt--3 days after this attempt, he took the rifle from the house, took it somewhere and buried it. Mr. LIEBELER: Three days after the attempt? Mrs. OSWALD: Yes, yes. Mr. LIEBELER: So that he actually took the rifle out of the house and took it away and hid it somewhere? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. Mrs. OSWALD: No; the day Lee shot at Walker, he buried the rifle because when he came home and told me that he shot at General Walker and I asked him where the rifle was and he said he buried it. (11H293) The whole idea of Oswald taking a shot at Walker is only believable if he had an accomplice anyway. I mean, he didn't drive so, what, did he take his rifle on the bus? Or was he walking the streets with it? As far as the hard evidence goes, there is none because the bullet recovered from the scene was quite clearly switched for one fired from Oswald's rifle. The real bullet that was recovered from Walker's home was so badly mutilated that the Dallas Police Department said they were unable to run any ballistic tests on it. However the police report (found in CE 2001 24H39) did note that the bullet was a "steel jacket." I invite you to look at a colour photo of CE 573, the bullet entered into evidence by the commission, for it is immediately obvious that bullet is not steel jacketed. No one with any knowledge of firearms would describe it as such. Walker himself, a 30 year career army officer with extensive combat experience, knew that CE 573 was not the bullet fired through the window of his study for he had held the real bullet in his hand on the evening of the shooting. When Walker saw CE 573 on television in 1979 he was so outraged that he began a campaign to have the government "withdraw the substituted bullet." Martin, thanks for the response. I have some questions about your doubts, here. Allen Dulles once suggested that all the truth about the JFK conspiracy is contained within the Warren Commission documents - if we 'split hairs'. My questions have to do with Marina's fumbling about the Walker shooting. We notice Jeanne DeMohrenschildt fumbling about the incident, also, even worse than Marina. We notice George DeMohrenschildt changing his testimony, too. But their fumbling betrays the events they tried to hide, I believe. Look at Marina's change of testimony -- she was looking at mental image picture of something that happened approximately "three days" after the April 10th shooting. According to the collective testimony, what event was that? It was the visit by George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt to the Oswald home at 10pm on Easter Sunday (or perhaps the Saturday before, as some testimony avers). Yes - Marina fumbled - but she finally spat out the truth. Oswald buried the rifle the night of the shooting. But why did she begin to lie about it? The clue is the "three days" time period. The DeMohrenschildt visit was far more revealing to everybody concerned than the uncomfortable silences conveyed. Marina at that time knew that George and Jeanne knew; and in a way she was relieved that somebody with a more stable head than Lee Oswald was now part of the picture. Days later, when (as my theory goes) Banister and Ferrie invited Oswald to NOLA for an immediate covert project, he jumped at it, and Marina was relieved to get him out of Dallas. This was when Marina realized that the man she married had changed to the point of no-return. Lee had snapped, for some reason -- maybe it was because, as Jeanne DeMohrenschildt said, George Bouhe was buying Marina too many dresses (as Jeanne testified) and visiting Marina when Lee wasn't at home (as George testified). But he snapped. So, yes, she began to lie according to her habitual secrecy, but then she stopped herself, remembered where she was, and told the truth. OK - second point - as for that bullet. Although General Walker himself confirmed that the bullet fragments he found in his house did not match the bullets found in Oswald's rifle - General Walker still believed that Oswald was his April shooter, and maintained that position for the rest of his life. His explanation about the difference in bullets is that there were two shooters, and he always suspected that the CIA supplied the second shooter (and the other rifle). The Briscoe Center for American History has lots of examples of Walker's papers on this topic. Best regards...

Many thanks for the distinction, William. I was getting these two mixed up. Best regards...

Tragically Paul, this could be the longest thread here if everyone gives just one example... I'll get the ball rolling... From Marina's HSCA testimony.... Mrs Porter: We had a short wave radio, I believe that is what you call, when you can listen to the foreign stations. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=38623 From FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 101 An examination of the radio and power supply was made by SA Winton P Walter, Electronics... the dial of the radio is marked "DB" (long wave) and "CB" (medium wave)... the radio will not receive short-wave radio broadcasts... http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62388&relPageId=15 Thanks for the response, Greg. Yet the example you shared might be considered a mistake, rather than a deliberate lie. It is possible for somebody who is trained in chemistry (as Marina Porter was) to be ignorant about electronics. The differences between short-wave, medium-wave and long-wave radio are not known to everybody. I myself wouldn't count that as a lie. Best regards...

Jim, I'm new to the Education Forum, and have been searching for threads that approximate my own theory. Your comments are interesting because you address most of my main concerns: (1) the April 10th shooting at General Walker; (2) Marina's testimony about the Walker shooting, including the letter she identified as Lee Oswald's in WC evidence; (3) George DeMohrenschildt's testimony about the Walker shooting. I find Marina's testimony believable (all of it, actually; I would like to see hard proof if I'm mistaken about this.) DeMohrenschildt's testimony confirms Marina's testimony. I feel I am on solid ground as I build my theory on this starting point. I'd add two more concerns: (4) Volkmar Schmidt's testimony that at a party he tried to convince Lee Oswald that General Walker was pure evil; and (5) DeMohrenschildt's written statement to the HSCA (viz. his article, "I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!") in which he said he also tried to convince Lee Oswald that General Walker was a bad person, and called him 'General Fokker' as a nickname to Lee Oswald, who laughed and also started calling General Walker 'General Fokker'. Anyway, George DeMohrenschildt did not admit during his 1964 Warren Commission testimony that he urged Lee Oswald to hate General Walker. He was going to admit this to the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977 -- and did in writing -- but then he committed suicide instead. Also, in part of his testimony, George de Mohrenschildt said that he and Oswald were close with Volkmar Schmidt, and they saw him often, and they called him 'Messer' Schmidt as a nickname. Volkmar Schmidt is on video - a number of times - admitting that he spent a long time at that party convincing Oswald how bad Walker was - calling him a 'fascist' and so on. (This raises another concern: (6) Lee Oswald's signed photo to George DeMohrenschildt with the joke, 'Hunter of fascists, Ha Ha' written on the back.) I'd like to ask Schmidt more about this, because Schmidt came to Texas from Munich specifically to work for Walker full time! What changed his mind? Is it possible that General Walker (who was a lifetime bachelor) stepped out of line with Schmidt? I have read such things. But Schmidt at one point admired Walker, and then turned against him sharply. That's what the evidence suggests. Here's my theory; George DeMohrenschildt told the WC that he and Jeanne found out about the Wed10Apr63 shooting at Walker on Easter Sun14Apr63. His written testimony to the HSCA admitted that he and Jeanne suspected it before they visited the Oswalds at 10pm on Easter Sunday, and that Jeanne wanted to search for the rifle on the pretext of touring the Oswald's new apartment (and Jeanne flubbed this testimony to the WC, very obviously). When they found the rifle, they quickly left the Oswald's apartment and never saw the Oswald's again - ever. It frightened them. That's their story. I find the combination of their WC and HSCA testimony believable. But I still think it is incomplete. What's missing is the further connection with General Walker. I believe that George and Jeanne told somebody about Oswald and the Walker shooting that very night. (Maybe Dymitri; maybe the CIA.) And whoever they told called General Walker that very night, and that is when Oswald became the patsy. General Walker demonstrated many times in his personal correspondence that he knew Oswald was his shooter long before Marina told the FBI. Walker's archives in the Briscoe Center for American History at UT Austin document the many times he tried to convince people that Oswald was his shooter. This even came out in the Warren Commission testimony, as Liebeler tried to get Walker to explain how a German newspaper that interviewed Walker on the night after the JFK assassination, knew that Oswald was Walker's April shooter before anybody else did.. Best regards...

In Morris Bealle's, GUNS OF THE REGRESSIVE RIGHT, we have a fictional account of a Presidential Assassination. President Joe Smith (i.e. JFK) is in conflict with the John Spruce Society (i.e. JBS). The 'Establishment' of 'Invisible Men' is in-between them - promoting communism in Latin America in order to produce chaos so that their Corporations can move in under the pretext of restoring order. President Smith and his younger brother (i.e. RFK) are raising so many barriers for their international plot that they hire a foreign expert 'Santos' to develop a plan to assassination the President. Santos hires a professional hit man Sammy Tata, for $100,000 (where 1963 dollars are worth ten times more today). He also hires Grant Osteen (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald), a disgruntled ex-Marine with a dishonorable discharge for once defecting to Russia, for $50,000. He also hires a coordinator, Colonel Mark McClay, a WW2 veteran and an expert in the US bureaucracy (i.e. Walker?) and finally, a member of the mafia, Bimstein, to eliminate both the hit-man and the decoy on the get-away boat (i.e. Ruby). Everything goes according to plan until Osteen is arrested unexpectedly. The writing is good, and I am impressed at how many pieces Bealle correctly guessed in 1964. Best regards...

This is most interesting - I didn't know this about your work, Mr. Lifton. Robert Morrow tells me that you've compiled a lot of information about Lee Oswald - and I didn't know that about your work, either. I would like to hear your views about a difference of opinion between myself and another researcher. I happen to believe, well, everything that Marina Oswald told the Warren Commission. After reviewing her testimony several times, I consistently come away impressed by her sincerity. After all, she repeatedly said that the Warren Commission would not let her see all the evidence, and that Lee Oswald consistently withheld facts and basic truths from her, and without that evidence she was bluntly unsure of what to think. Still, based on the evidence she was allowed to see, it did appear that Oswald was (at least) one guilty party in the JFK assassination. I think that's an honest approach. However, the person debating with me does not believe anything Marina said -- he thinks she lied about everything, especially the following: 1. That Marina took (at least one of) those pictures of Lee Oswald holding a rifle, a handgun and commie newspapers 2. That Lee Oswald gave George de Mohrenschildt one of those photographs marked, 'Hunter of fascists, ha ha,' and signed by Lee. 3. That Lee Oswald showed Marina his photos of General Walker's house which he had compiled into an assassination plan book 4. That Lee Oswald wrote a letter of instructions, telling Marina what to do in case Lee got arrested 5. That Lee Oswald confessed to her that he tried to shoot General Edwin Walker on April 10, 1963 6. That four days later, George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt guessed that Lee was Walker's shooter, the last time they ever saw each other. These six vital events in Lee Oswald's biography were sworn to be true by Marina Oswald (now Marina Porter), but are doubted by those who believe that the FBI and perhaps General Walker and others faked all those photographs, faked the letter, faked the Walker connection -- all to frame Oswald. In my opinion, if Marina is tellling the truth, then these facts support my theory, namely, that Oswald's shooting at General Walker was the motivation suffered by Walker & Company in their decision to make Oswald their patsy. What do you stand on these six points, Mr. Lifton? I'm most curious. Best regards...

Robert, I'm impressed with this new insight. This is more ground-level than your usual HL Hunt focus. Today we seem to agree on the Pentagon as the level at which the scope of the Dallas hit would be properly managed. The Secret Service lacks this wide a scope; ditto the CIA proper; they were bit-players. A General, especially one with Special Operations experience, has a scope wide enough for the planning, the execution and the long-term cover-up. Lansdale? Your letter from Fletcher Prouty was like cold water in my face. Contrary to Canfield and Weberman in their book, COUP DE ETAT IN AMERICA (1975) the three tramps were not the November shooters. (That should have been clear because the tramp who looked like Howard Hunt was short, while the tramp who liked like Frank Sturgis was tall.) Prouty and Krulak, two men who knew Lansdale personally, say the man with his back to the camera in the tramps photo was General Lansdale. And as Canfield and Weberman already pointed out, the policemen guarding the tramps were bogus (they were posing for the camera and didn't know how to hold their weapons or dress properly). So, Fletcher Prouty is right - the tramps were another decoy. But why were they led by a Military General?!? Prouty successfully placed Lansdale at the Dallas scene -- but that is barely circumstantial evidence. Prouty failed to give Lansdale a believable motive for the JFK hit. However, a second General at the Dallas scene could give weight to my proposal that General Walker (who had a powerful motive) was the center of the cyclone. Military Generals stick together; that could be an adequate motive for Lansdale to be in Dallas; to support Walker by leading a team of decoys. Best regards...

Hopefully, Bill Kelly can tell you a little about Jack Martin, although there are several, but you are referring to the Jack Martin who filmed in Dallas on November 22, 1963.... And let me tell you from having a detailed examination of this guy, he is in the middle of everything.... It would not be an exaggeration in the least to say that he had a "sixth sense" about the importance of Lee Harvey Oswald, and yes, I am being facetious....Or rather, I believe he was just too "in the right place at the right time," that day for it to be "dumb luck." The guy even had New Orleans connections....He is, how do you say, "all over the place." Regarding the title of this thread and it's "seemingly incompatibility to a plot that was hatched by CIA Cold Warriors and provided a role to the Secret Service and Army Intelligence and local right wingers;" the whole essence of the JFK assassination is summed up in one revealing insight. There is not a point of historical reference to the type of assassination that resulted in JFK's death.... Although the Lincoln assassination.....if you believe John Wilkes Booth didn't have confederates and there was collusion within Lincoln's cabinet, is something of that nature. The point I am trying to make, is that for the sake of argument, IF and count me among those who believe the premise; IF the assassination of JFK was a massive conspiracy.....the planners and specifically those who controlled those at the lower level, were black ops specialists.... In other words, think of it as, can the average American even conceptualize what kind of cast of characters from A to Z would be involved in such a thing...No! Another point and I detest using the following as analogous, but it just fits too well. The scene in the movie JFK where Senator Long [Walter Matthau] is on the jet with Jim Garrison [Kevin Costner] and the quote: If I were investigatin', I'd round up the 100 best riflemen in the world and find out which ones were in Dallas that day." The point is, if the braintrust of the US Government had acted as they should, [and read Manchester's Death of A President, to understand all the bigwigs in Washington were extremely worried as soon as Oswald was arrested that the Dallas Police Department would not ensure Oswald's safety; period.] The possibility of a Soviet or Cuban plot was ostensibly the dominant fear, to read the official histories, but the persons who knew black ops never voiced a concern over a black operation or a banana republic style coup d'etat. But what should have happened is what did eventually happen in the Philippines after Marcos' ouster in the "peaceful revolution" which resulted in the ascension of Benito Aquino's widow Corazon Aquino. She ordered an investigation and [bTW, there are striking similarities between the assassination of Benito Aquino on the tarmac of the airport in Manila and what happened in Dallas] When Corazon Aquino convened the investigation, it led directly to the conviction and imprisonment of a large number of Marcos' General's and members of the intelligence network. What should have happened is our government should have had enough integrity to investigate ALL the Intelligence agencies and the Cabinet. With what we know now and what could have been done, the same result could have happened as what took place in the Philippines in the aftermath of the short administration of Cory Aquino, as a matter of fact it was that event which led me back to doing JFK research. I realize their are a lot of people who just read the books and examine the theories, but what I am really trying to say is that the assassination of JFK WAS a black op, and if the proper response had taken place, C.D. Jackson, Allen Dulles, David Atlee Phillips, and Richard Helms should have been detained and treated as suspects...... But the rub is, is that there was so many who knew in advance and who wanted it to happen of that group that the idea that those sacred cows in the intelligence agencies would even be questioned, let alone detained, was as about as possible as Goldwater defeating JFK in 1964 had JFK lived. Because to a great degree, THEY WERE THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, albeit Dulles had been fired by JFK over the BOP, he did get a pretty nice cameo as a member of the Warren Commission That Germanic themes pop up everywhere in the whole post assassination investigation is a clue in itself... Thanks, Rob Howard, for your feedback. I'd like to respond to a few of your interesting points: 1. It would be great to learn more about Jack Martin in this thread; I mean the Jack Martin who worked for Guy Banister, who was pistol-whipped by Guy Banister on 11/22/1963, who complained to Jim Garrison about it, and who eventually told Garrison everything he knew about 544 Camp Street on the condition of lifetime anonymity. This is the biography I want to explore more, because in my opinion, this same Jack Martin made the "Jack Martin Film" or home movie. If I'm wrong about this, I'd like to know how. 2. You suggest that the essence of the JFK assassination can be summarized in a sentence: that there is no precedent in history for it. I tend to agree; the first parallel that comes to mind is Nero's assassination in ancient Rome, when he was given up by his Praetorian Guard. But even with Nero, nobody proposed a patsy for it. Also, whenever any US President was assassinated, the assassin always boasted loudly to the press that he did it, that the President deserved it, and that he would do it again. The JFK assassination didn't have that common scenario. It seems, rather, that whoever killed JFK was ashamed of it, and they wanted to hide their involvement at any cost. So this was a sort of underhanded, sneaky kind of assassination. Also, because of the many loose ends that were so quickly tied up, it necessarily involved large numbers of people, and they planned each step meticulously. The closest examples I've read about were Italian mob hits that included patsies who were quickly killed. Also, the burning of the German Reichstag, probably by the Nazi Party, used a retarded patsy who could not defend himself and was quickly executed. So, the closest parallel to an assassination of this kind, that I can think of, is the ZR/Rifle plan by CIA agent, William Harvey. (Now, I'm not saying that William Harvey was part of the ground-crew, only that the plan to hit Kennedy resembles his plan to a significant degree.) 3. In your theory, Rob, the conspiracy to hit JFK was a Black Op, and the planners and supervisors of the ground-crew were Black Ops specialists. This also agrees with Fletcher Prouty, who was very close to the events. Yet, for me, even Black Ops specialists take orders from superiors, like the Military Commandos who standardized the procedures during WW2. I think you recognized, Rob, that the Secret Service isn't placed highly enough to coordinate all the loose ends of an action of this magnitude. Their manipulation was indispensible, but their control of the entire procedure would have been impossible. Yet the Pentagon is surely placed highly enough. I don't accuse the Pentagon, directly. Yet the Pentagon is so large that its bureaucracy is as unweildy as any Corporation bureacracy, and bad guys can sneak around in a large bureacracy for a long time. All that were needed inside the Pentagon were a few highly placed bad apples, perhaps friends of an ex-General (like Walker) who had a strong, justifiable vendetta against the Kennedys. This is not either/or. Fletcher Prouty also cited the General from whom he himself took orders. It was definitely a group effort. 4. You cited Senator Long, Rob, when he told Garrison that he'd round up the 100 best riflemen in the world and find out which were in Dallas that day. I would add an obserrvation. I would say that 100 of the best riflemen in the world lived in Dallas! There were so many members of the NRA, so many members of the Ku Klux Klan, so many members of the Minutemen, so many ex-Military men, including those who had served under General Walker, that nobody needed to go outside Dallas to find superb shooters with the utmost loyalty to their paramilitary leaders. This is a distinct possibility, in my theory. 5. The difference in the experience of LBJ and Corazon Aquino is this: Corozon knew she had a segment of the military on her side - a segment large enough to make the arrests of the assassinating Generals in her country. LBJ did not have this, because, I suspect, JFK did not have it. JFK had alienated the Pentagon for so many sequential months that his support dwindled to near-zero. The same applies to JFK's alienation of the FBI, of the CIA (i.e. Cord Meyer), of the Secret Service (i.e. those who procured girls for him), and so on. So, anybody who knew about this Dallas plot could fairly safely presume that nobody anywhere in the Government would break the silence. It was nearly unanimous - JFK had precious few friends in his own Government. 6. Was it Black Ops? Of course - but this does not link it onlyto the CIA. There are plenty of trained marksmen in the USA who practice with their rifles on a daily basis, and who are always available for a patriotic emergency. At this point, it is a matter of grasping their politics and their definition of a patriotic emergency. 7. And with a leader like General Edwin Walker, who was fiercely right-wing, the climate was too dangerous in Dallas for JFK to have ventured into that motorcade. That's my theory. Best regards...

It is just this post-JFK assassination behavior by Gen. Edwin Walker that makes me think he was NOT directly involved in the JFK assassination. He is stirring the pot a bit too much, writing letters, talking about Oswald supposedly shooting him, writing letters to the HSCA ... the real killers would just SHUT UP and not draw attention to themselves. I think Walker was probably personally friends with the murderers of JFK, but they did not let him into the plot or tell him about it. I am thinking of H.L. Hunt. By the way, I do not think at all that Oswald shot at Walker. I think that concept is ridiculous and just disinfo that the government tried to wrap Oswald with. Actually, Robert, I think that your doubts are interesting and deserve a lot of consideration; which is the very reason that I favored this thread by Chris Halbower, who more than 2.5 years ago posed the problem unusually well: In order for Oswald to be innocent of shooting at Walker, then Walker (and/or his confederates) had to plant a lot of evidence, and he had to do it at the extreme earliest, a few hours after Kennedy was shot and killed. I say this because we have material evidence that can hardly be doubted -- namely, a German newspaper in Munich that published an interview between a reporter and Edwin Walker taken the day after Kennedy was shot, where Edwin Walker was already telling the reporter that Oswald was his shooter! On November 23rd! Now - how likely is Chris' item 'B' above, such that Walker would: {a} take all these photos of his house; {b} write a fake letter framing Oswald; {c} plant these among Marina's possessions; {d} request J. Edgar Hoover and his men to force Marina to say that Oswald was his April shooter; and {e} do all this before his 11/23/1963 interview with the Deutsche Nationalzeitung? For simplicity I will boil the choices down to the two extremes: * Readers who say it is unlikely agree with me -- that Oswald was the shooter, that Walker found out about it months before Marina told anybody in the world, and this was his (and/or his confederates) motivation to frame Oswald as the patsy. * On the other hand, Robert, readers who say it is likely agree with you. Yet let's proceed slowly: you seem to suggest that by calling all this inordinate and superfluous attention to himself, that he is simply trying to push himself in front of the camera for no good reason . Yet there is so much of this pot stirring that what I find hard to believe is that there is no reason for it! On the contrary - let's say, for the sake of argument, that Edwin Walker made up the whole April-shooter-Oswald story, and then took enormous trouble to plant all this evidence, and arrange with the FBI to accept his story and sell it to Marina and the world. Yes, that is what your position must eventually imply Robert. Now, doesn't this extreme and bizarre behavior suggest the behavior of a guilty person? Is this not classic cover-up behavior? Who covers up so intensely except the guilty party? Best regards...

Good questions, good leads, John. I'll look these up. It will take some time, as the Walker archives are stored offsite, and must be specially ordered, and can only be viewed during limited hours. Also, they are all still in folders in cardboard boxes, and not completely indexed yet. So, as I say, it will take some time, but eventually I expect to answer your question, one way or the other. Best regards...

The proposed testimony of George de Mohrenschildt (DM) to the HSCA was disappointing, as the man was in 1977 a wreck, having lost his lucrative Haiti contract due to the scandal caused by his subpoena to testify before the Warren Commission in 1964, his subsequent poverty, and his wife's leaving him. But his testimony to the Warren Commission is worth repeating. He sympathized with Oswald, and defended him as a patsy - even in 1964. But he also showed his true colors many times. When he spoke about the Hedonist Club in Dallas, for example, he admitted that he once repeated the views of a famous Nazi. He knew this upset one of his Jewish associates; but he didn't care. He also admitted to taking hiking to South America in 1959 to take pictures and drawings of the site of the Bay of Pigs! He had been arrested on charges of spying numerous times. The testimony of his wife, Jeanne DM, showed her true colors as somebody who 'preferred to live among whites,' and who was disappointed with New York City because she 'expected more from white people.' In other conversations she suggested George DM had served the Nazis. George DM also admitted that he and Volkmar Schmidt tried to convince Oswald that Walker was a terrible person. (In his essay, I'm A Patsy!, George DM and Oswald would call Walker, General Fokker.) For this reason, Volkmar Schmidt once said he felt somewhat 'responsible' for Oswald's attempt to kill Walker. Perhaps George DM shared that responsibility, too. Why was somebody like George DM, from a wealthy and noble family, enormously educated, well-connected, spending so much time with Oswald and Marina? The reasons might be shocking. George DM was a womanizer, and not ashamed of it. When George DM and George Bouhe first decided to pay the Oswald's a visit (as they had heard of their presence in Fort Worth through the Russian Emigre grapevine) they simply drove over to the Oswald residence uninvited, unknown, in the mid-afternoon when Lee Oswald was not at home. They were more interested in Marina. Marina did invite them in and offered them a glass of wine. George Bouhe was smitten with Marina. Over the course of the next several weeks, according to Jeanne DM, George Bouhe would give Marina "more than a hundred dresses," and when questioned she insisted this was no exaggeration, since she helped Marina pack when she would embark on one of her many address changes in Fort Worth and Dallas. This was not ordinary American culture in Dallas in 1963. This all came out in the Warren Commission (WC) testimony, but the lawyers did not press these points of impropriety - because these were not germane to the case being heard. Or were they? Jeanne de Morhenschildt believed that Oswald was driven into a jealous rage by all these gifts for Marina, especially by George Bouhe, whom he began to threaten, so that Bouhe felt intimidated. It seems George DM was playing a shameless game of cat and mouse with Oswald. But Lee seemed to really enjoy it. He genuinely liked George DM, and seemed to like very few other people in Texas then. He tried to please George DM, and called him his friend. Insofar as Oswald was still connected with extreme right-wing Marine ideals, he began to complain to George DM and Volkmar Scmidt (whom George and Lee called, 'Messer Schmidt'). Lee complained about the Bay of Pigs and the great tragedy of the Cuban Exiles who were abandoned by the USA. But to take his mind off that, George DM and V. Schmidt taught Oswald about General Edwin Walker. This was a truly wicked man - a fascist - they taught him. They may have whipped Oswald up to such a state of suggestion that he was driven by their arguments to assassinate Walker on 4/10/1963. (Schmidt said he thought this was the case.) If so, this would best explain why George DM had a copy of that famous photo of Oswald and firearms, and signed on the back, "to my friend George from Lee Oswald - Hunter of Fascists." I believe this theme comes through the WC testimony if we engage in some creative 'hair splitting'. Anyway - everything reaches an apex on 4/10/1963 when Oswald (and possibly one other person, now unknown) attempted to kill General Walker. We've become numb to this, but in its day it was important news. Especially in Dallas - as the would-be assassin was still on the loose - there was daily talk about the April 10th shooting. As the testimony of George and Jeanne DM tell it -- they decide to visit the Oswalds on Easter Sunday (4/14/1963) at about 10pm. They have a toy rabbit for the baby - who will not be awake because it is so late. They knock on the Oswald's door and there's no answer. So they bang on the door. The lights go on, and one of them (Jeanne says she cannot remember which one) comes to the door in PJ's. This is just a friendly Easter visit...but Jeanne wastes no time in asking for a tour of the apartment. Yet in her testimony, Jeanne DM could not remember if this was her first visit there or not! She got nervous and the attorney noticed it. She then explained that this *must* have been her first time there, otherwise, why would she ask for a tour? Such rationalization is typical of lying behavior. Yet since the attorney let this slide, let us overlook it for now. The fact remains that Jeanne insisted on a tour of the apartment. The search came to a halt when Jeanne noticed the rifle in the closet. 'Why do you have a rifle?' 'Well, Lee likes to have one, to shoot leaves in the park when he takes the baby for walks.' Such a ridiculous answer escaped nobody. Yet Jeanne herself hesitates here. She was surprised, she claimed, since she was not used to seeing these guns, or rifles, or whatever they are called, with these knicknacks or telescopic sights on them. Although, she also admitted, her father was a rifle-buff and had a large collection, so she was raised around guns and rifles all her life. Besides, she loved skeet shooting: "absolutely loved it." In any case, she stops the tour there, and calls out to George that she found a rifle in the apartment. The mood is tense as a hush fills the apartment. Then George DM breaks the silence with a joke - 'Lee, did you take a pot-shot at General Walker?' There is a little more stunned silence - and then George DM breaks out in a laugh, as if to say, 'only joking!' At this point everybody is relieved and has a good hearty laugh - except Lee, who chuckles suspiciously. Then the evening is quickly ended and the visitors leave. Now - when Marina first told this story to the WC, it was different. When the de Mohrenschildt's first entered the house George immediately joked to Lee, 'Lee, how is it that you missed Walker?' Marina said that Lee looked at her, as if to say, did you tell him? And she looked at Lee as if to say, did you tell him? No, was their silent answer to each other, so after a moments hesitation, they all laughed if somewhat nervously. (But when Marina was asked by the WC about the discrepancy in the stories, she said with conviction that her account was rushed and nervous, and that George DM's account was the correct one.) There is an interesting addition to this story in George DM's 1977 essay, "I'm a Patsy, I'm a Patsy,' namely, that on the drive over to the Oswald's home, the de Mohrenschildt's worried out loud whether Lee was the shooter at General Walker! This never came out in the WC testimony, but it is so revealing. I believe it is the single most revealing item in the entire testimony of George and Jeanne DM, namely, the Walker shooting episode. Their discovery that Lee was that sort of a hothead would prompt them to break all ties with the Oswald's, and avoid them as far as possible from that moment on. Furthermore, George's discovery that Lee was Walker's shooter could not have ended there. George and Jeanne were ultra-conservative and well-connected. George told *somebody* about this, even if it was only his brother, Dimytri von Mohrenschildt (or Anastase Vonsiatsky). But Dimytri was well connected. Like a wildfire this report from George de Mohrenschildt would reach the ears of General Walker, Guy Banister and David Ferrie - and all the people they trusted. Best regards...

Chris, more than two-and-a-half years ago you asked some interesting questions without finding answers in this thread. I wish to address your questions again. This year the Briscoe Center for American History in Austin, TX opened more of its Edwin A. Walker archives. I pass that library on my way to work, so I spent some time there last summer. What I found there might shed some light on these questions. 1. You may already be aware from General Walker's Warren Commission Testimony that attorney Liebeler failed to get an answer from Walker regarding how he knew that Oswald was his April shooter before 11/23/1963, when he spoke with Hasso Thorsten of the Deutsche Nationalzeitung on that day with that bit of news. 2. Liebeler had Walker on the ropes, because the evidence was clear - the newspaper had been printed - and the story was there. Here is how it opened in Munich on 11/29/1963: "The murderer of Kennedy made an attempt on General Walker's life early in the summer when General Walker was sitting in his study. The bullet missed Walker's head only by inches. Oswald was seized. The following investigation, as it was reported, was stopped through the influence of the US Attorney General, Robert Kennedy. If Oswald had been investigated, he eventually would have been imprisoned for many years, and so he would not have been in a position to commit the murder of the US President, Mr. John F. Kennedy." 3. It is interesting that Walker told Thorsten that "Oswald was seized." Walker repeated this story many times over the decades, sending it to many newspapers, even into the 1990's. 4. Walker believed that Jesse Curry had Oswald in custody on 4/10/1963, the night of the shooting, but Robert Kennedy called the Secret Service in Dallas to pressure Curry into releasing Oswald! 5. Here's another snippet from Walker's personal archives. It appears along with sheets dated 10/1989. These pages are signed by Walker's own hand: "DEALEY PLAZA DALLAS - APRIL TO NOVEMBER: ...As the prime suspect in Dallas Police custody by midnight, following an "Attempted Assassination" at 9pm, April 10th, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was released from custody on Kennedy orders...the release was accomplished before working hours on April 11th 1963..." 6. Here's another snippet from an editorial by Edwin A. Walker, Dallas, to the Kerrville Daily Times on Sunday, January 19, 1992: "...The President went to Dallas knowing and protecting his November assassin Lee H. Oswald from prosecution for his April Crime - "Attempted Assassinati of the former General working at his desk in his Dallas home, 9:00pm, April 10." The Kennedy protection included an early-morning, secret release of the prime suspect Lee H. Oswald, from Dallas Police custody on Kennedy orders, April 11. The President did not live to know that he knew his assassin but everyone else lived to know that he did, and that his assassin could not be prosecuted for the November Crime bcause of his Kennedy protection for his April Crime..." 7. Walker was convinced that Oswald was his shooter -- and he did not need for Marina to announce it to the Warren Commission or the FBI in early December, 1963. How did he know?? That's the puzzle that Liebeler wanted to solve - but Walker would not tell him. 8. In fact, Walker misguided Liebeler and said that he really didn't believe that Oswald was his shooter! Yet Liebeler had proof to the contrary in the hard copy of the Deutsche Nationalzeitung of 11/29/1963, which provides a transcript of the phone conversation between Walker and Thorsten on 11/23/1963 - when Oswald was still alive in the Dallas jailhouse. 9. Much of this information is also available on the Mary Ferrell Foundation web site: (FBI Files on Edwin Walker, 116-165494 File, Section 2) 10. Now to address your question. Walker was convinced - from start to finish - that there were two shooters. 11. This is partly why Walker complained to the HSCA that the bullet they had did not match the bullet he saved from the April shooting. (The HSCA bullet had a copper jacket, and the Walker bullet had a steel jacket.) 12. But Walker was convinced that Oswald acted along with somebody else - probably the CIA or Secret Service or somebody sent by Robert Kennedy. 13. To the HSCA Walker also sent this fascinating letter on June 23, 1975: ------------- BEGIN QUOTE EDWIN A. WALKER --------- Dear Senator Church: The Warren Commission found and concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to assassinate the undersigned at his home, at 9pm. on April 10, 1963. The initial and immediate investigation at the time of the incident reported two men at my home, one with a gun, seen by an eye-witness -- a neighbor. Within days I was informed by a Lieutenant on the Dallas City Police Force that Oswald was in custody by 12pm that night for questioning. He was released on a higher authority than that in Dallas. There were two men, not a "Lonely Loner". Please inform me if the CIA was involved in this attempted assassination? Yours sincerely, Edwin A. Walker ----------- END QUOTE EDWIN A. WALKER ------ 14. So, this shows that Walker, twelve years after the incident, was still concerned that the CIA was a part of the plot to kill him, and he hoped that Senator Church and the later HSCA would confirm his suspicisions. 15. In another signed letter from General Walker, this one to Representative Lamar Smith in 1990, Walker requests the release of all JFK assassination files. This was to be in celebration of the Berlin Wall coming down, as well as in protest of the lockdown of JFK files for 75 years. Walker was quite aged at this time, but he wanted to see *everybody* who tried to kill him on April 10, 1963. There is more in the Briscoe Center, Chris, but I wanted to address your questions with this today. Best regards...

According to the article, 'Prince of Theives' by E. Burton Mercer (Probable Cause Australia, 11/1994) the true identity of QJ/WIN was the WW2 French Army captain, Michael Victor Mertz.

Peter, let's see if I can clarify the thread. Nobody has discounted the possibility of a Secret Service participation at some level. No conclusion has been agreed upon that the JFK hit was guided by foreign intelligence. Rather, the theme as I see it is to measure the extent to which foreign operators were involved, and how they would have been involved given the facts of the case, and the suspects considered. For example, Cuban Exiles were involved -- exiles from the former Batista intelligence are likely suspects. For example, Russian Exiles were involved -- children of exiles from the former Russian Monarchy (i.e. George de Morhenschildt) For example, German ex-Nazis were involved -- not necessarily at a command level, but perhaps at an advisory level. For example, foreign Mafia were involved -- i.e. Carlos Marcello was not a U.S. citizen All of these foreign nationals have been widely identified as having been involved at some level in the JFK assassination. Now - summing them all up, we have an extreme right-wing inside the USA. These were extremists by themselves, but combined together in their hatred for the Kennedy administration, we have a super-hatred. Was there one extreme right-wing American who could unite and persony that super-hatred? Did that person live in Dallas, with plenty of control over the local right-wing in Dallas? If so, that person could and should be a prime suspect for the planning and ground execution of the plan to assassinate JFK. This is more satisfying than asserting that "the government" ordered "the Secret Service" to kill Kennedy, because such a generalization does not name the ground-crew. This was always Allen Dulles' challenge to the conspiracy theorists -- if you can't name the ground-crew, then you really haven't solved anything at all. So, to identify the ground-crew, we first need to define their political orientation. With the evidence available, the extreme right-wing fits the profile best. I don't believe that reearchers have adequately explored General Edwin Walker. Would his extreme right-wing connections (not only in Dallas, or among the local Police, or the local oil barons, or even in Germany, but also in the local paramilitary, the official military and the Pentagon) be willing to coordinate under his supervision? I think so. So we're exploring this; this is the gist of this thread, in my view, Peter. Does this clarify the thread for you? Regards...

Okay, I'll answer my own question. Or rather, John Simkin answers, with a tip of the hat, errr umbrella to Mae Brussell. Walker's good friend is Dr. Gerald Frey, the editor of the paper and associated with Gehlen's operation that debriefed refugees, with whom he must have been in contact with previously. Also, Schmidt and the guys who put together the full page ad were formerly soldiers under Walker in Germany who came to Dallas to take over some conservative organizations, which should be noted. It's certainly interesting that they named the hotel near the "Eagle's Nest," where the attempted assassination and coup took place in 1944, after Gen. Walker, as Volkmar Schmidt knew some of those guys, and mentioned that assassination attempt to Oswald, in relation to Gen. Walker. JFKcountercoup: Volkmar Schmidt Interview Which begs the question of whether Dr. Frey know any of these guys? BK JFKcountercoup http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrussel.htm (3) Mae Brussell, TheNazi Connection to the John F. Kennedy Assassination (November, 1983) The Eagle's Nest, now a mountain restaurant, was given toAdolf Hitler by nazi aide Martin Bormann for the fuhrer's 50th birthday. It isnot far from Hitler's former summer home in Berchtesgaden. Nearby is the Platterhof Hotel, built for guests when theycame to pay their respects. The Platterhof has changed its name to the General Walker Hotel. November 23, 1963,one day after Kennedy's death, Gen. Edwin Walker called Munich, Germany, from Shreveport, La. Walker'simportant story, via transatlantic telephone, was to the nazi newspaperDeutsche National Zeitung un Soldaten-Zeitung. Walkercouldn't wait to tell them in Munichthat Lee Harvey Oswald, the lone suspect in the Dallasmurders, was the same person who shot through his window in April, 1963. There was never one shred of evidence, or a reliablewitness, that could make this connection Dallaspolice and FBI were taken by surprise. In order to cover this over-exuberance of trying to link aMarxist assassin to this altercation, it became necessary to have Ruth Painedeliver that ridiculous letter to Marina Oswald on December 3, 1964. The delayed letter was to have beenwritten the night Lee was out shooting in Walker'shome. The only piece of bullet that remained in custody was neverpositively identified as coming from the 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano, and there isno proof Oswald even handled this rifle. Why was General Walker in such a hurry to get hisinformation printed in Germanybefore anybody in Dallas ever heardabout it? Kurt-George Kiesinger had just been installed as Chancellorof West Germany and Franz-Josef Straus as finance minister. Kissinger entered the radio propaganda division of NaziForeign Minister von Ribbentrop at age 36. He was then directing a world-wideradio propaganda apparatus with 195 specialists under his supervision duringthe war. He was the liaison officer, coordinating his department's work withthat of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. Richard Nixon and Kurt-George Kiesinger were soon, or maybe before, to becomepals. Nixon tried to hide his nazi past. But General Walker, now home from military service in Munich,knew the importance of such propaganda. He was calling the same people who,under Hitler, published and controlled the newspapers. There were two motivesfor this call. First, it gave international attention to the fact that Oswald,the Marxist gunman, was shooting at Walker as well as the President. GeneralWalker knew too many people in the Defense Department and in the Dallas-Fort Worth area that could be part of this assassination.He made himself appear as a victim instead of a suspect. The other reason, along with the expertise of RobertMorris's counter-intelligence and psychological warfare training, was to createa profile for Lee Harvey Oswald. No possible motive could explain why Oswald would reallywant to kill President Kennedy. By having Oswald appear to shoot the right-wingGeneral Walker with his John Birch connections, his militant anti-communiststance, then shoot John Kennedy, the same Commie-symp Walkerwas accusing of treason, it would appear that Oswald was just nuts. He didn'tknow right from left. The Munichnewspaper Walker called was linkedto the World Movement for a Second Anti-Komintern, part of the Gehlen and U.S.right. Some of Hitler's ex-Nazis and SS-men were on the Staff. The editor,Gerhard Frey, was a close friend with various nazi members of the WitikoLeague. The Witiko League and the Sudetendeutch Landsmannscraft wereorganizations for displaced refugees. By the summer of 1948 they formed largeorganizations and by 1955 Dr. Walter Becher was elected to the executive boardof the Witiko League. Becher was one of the kingpins of nazi frontorganizations. Sen. Joe McCarthy, Charles Willoughby, Gen. Edwin Walker,and Robert Morris' links to the German Nazis converged when Dr. Walter Becherset up offices in Washington, D.C.in 1950. By July 16, 1957,Becher, praised by American Opinion and other extreme right publications,started his policy of liberation. General Douglas MacArthur, Senator JoeMcCarthy, General Willoughby,members of the U.S. Congress or public officials then started openly to meetwith and cooperate with the Nazi resurgence. Dan Smooth, former Dallas FBI agent is the type of personwho kept strong Nazi ties with Dr. Becher in Munich,to Western Goals today. His printed sheets were identical to the Goebbelspropaganda years ago, or to Walker'sdisinformation one day after Kennedy was killed. Volkmar Schmidt came from Munich, Germany, to work fulltime for General Walker. How long did he work, and where was he on November 23, 1963, when Walkermade the call to the same city the CUSA imports came from? The YAF crowd in Dallaswas an interesting gang: Col. Charles Willoughby, intelligence Chief for S.Pacific, Robert Morris, U.S.counter-intelligence and psychological warfare, Gen Edwin Walker, brought homefrom Munich by JFK, WilliamBuckley, CIA in Japan,Mexico, andelsewhere, Sen. John Tower, who gave the okay for Marina Oswald. Many thanks for answering your good question, William, because I hadn't time to research it, but wish I did. Yes, it once again involves a European Nazi connection to the American extreme right. Your citing Mae Brussell on this thread is most welcome. So, the Dr. Frey that General Walker mentions in this interview with Hasso Thorsten is Dr. Gerhard Frey, the editor of the Deutsche Nationalzeitung newspaper for which Hasso Thorsten worked. As Dr. Frey was associated with former Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen (c.f. Mae Brussell) and since Gehlen was associated with Allen Dulles, we have a political connection that involves (without granting control to) international players. Mae Brussell wrote: "The Munich newspaper Walker called was linked to the World Movement for a Second Anti-Komintern, part of the Gehlen and U.S. right." The organization name, 'Second Anti-Komintern,' is poignant: Komintern stands for 'International Communist movement'. This anti-communist movement was the 'Second' because the Third Reich was the first. In other words, this was primarily (but not exclusively) a USA movement. I'm also glad your response raised the name of Volkmar Schmidt, who admits that he tried to convince Oswald that General Walker was truly evil, and who expressed a guilty conscience for his role in Oswald's reported attack on Walker on April 10th. Insofar as Schmidt came from Munich, Germany, and that he worked for Walker for a time, how and why did he come to hate Walker so much? Very interesting, William. Thanks for this. Best regards...

It's a good question, Robert, and I'd like to see if I can make some progress with an alternative. I know the arguments claiming that Oswald never shot at Walker. One of those arguments came from Walker himself, in his Warren Commission testimony. Here's the well-known quote, so often taken out of context: -------- START WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY VOLUME 11 PAGE 426 ---- Mr. LIEBELER. That is when you gave him this information about Oswald having attacked you? General WALKER. I didn't give him all the information--I think the portion you are referring to, I didn't give him, because I had no way of knowing that Oswald attacked me. I still don't. And I am not very prone to say in fact he did. In fact, I have always claimed he did not, until we can get into the case or somebody tells us differently that he did. -------- END WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY VOLUME 11 PAGE 426 ---- If we add this testimony to Walker's complaint to the HSCA that they had the wrong bullet, it might sound convincing that Walker disbelieved Oswald shot at him. My response is: (1) that Walker deliberately lied to the Warren Commission; and (2) that his complaint to the HSCA was intended to show that Oswald had other weapons at his disposal. I will begin with (1). The context of the Warren Commission testimony is attorney Liebeler asking Walker to divulge the date when Walker told the German newsman, Hasso Thorsten, that Oswald was the April shooter. Liebeler had solid evidence that Walker told this to Thorston on 11/23/1963, the day after JFK was killed. The evidence was material - the Deutsche Nationalzeitung dated 11/29/1963, a newspaper in Munich, Germany. Now, Walker was not on trial - but if suspects were truly pursued, Liebeler would have had Walker cornered. Believing that Oswald really was the April shooter, Liebeler was puzzled that Walker knew about it on 11/23/1963, weeks before the Warren Commission and the FBI found out from Marina. But Walker would not give up his information. What other evidence do we have? The Briscoe Center for American History has recently General Edwin A. Walker's archives available to the public. I will type in snippets from documents typed and signed by Walker himself. The documents are not dated, but seem to be accompanied by a release bulletin of April 15, 1989. ------ BEGIN SNIPPET #1 BY EDWIN A. WALKER ------- THE DECEMBER COVER-UP: Reference the Secret Service Letter, Dallas, addressed to the Chief of Police, Jesse Curry, Dallas, a cross town letter initiated on December 2nd and dated December 26, 1963, one day after Christmas...In the censorship of the April crime the public would not know that the first official recognition and acknowledgment that Oswald was the April assassin was in April, not December, and not by the Secret Service or Marina. Tantamount to the Kennedy secret protection and release of Oswald from Dallas Police custody in April was the necessity to know his name, Lee Harvey Oswald, his custody as the prime suspect and his guilt. ------ END SNIPPET #1 BY EDWIN A. WALKER ------- The so-called December Cover-up letter was allegedly an order to Jesse Curry to deny that he had Oswald in custody on April 10, 1963, and that RFK via the Secret Service demanded Oswald's relese in April, 1963. Walker really believed this happened. He repeats it several times in his writings, and he calls it 'the April Crime'. He will later criticize Jesse Curry for hiding evidence that he knew to be true, in order to please the Secret Service. Here is another snippet showing this: ------ BEGIN SNIPPET #2 BY EDWIN A. WALKER ------- DEALEY PLAZA DALLAS - APRIL TO NOVEMBER: ...As the prime suspect in Dallas Police custody by midnight, following an "Attempted Assassination" at 9pm, April 10th, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was released from custody on Kennedy orders. In the Kennedy secrecy and urgency to protect Oswald from prosecution and in the intent to protect Jack Rubenstein (Ruby), George de Mohrenschildt and Marina, the release was accomplished before working hours on April 11th 1963...In their relief of Dallas Police responsibility for the April Crime in their protection of Oswald, the Kennedys had relieved all Official Agencies of responsibility for him...In the protection of a fugitive from justice there could be no doubt of a mockery of it and their participation of it. Who would, could, should or dared, to have any knowledge or pass any information regarding him, "A Ward of the Kennedy State"? ...Certainly seven months were adequate to confirm the stigma and intimindation of such a censorship and for Oswald to become the knowing-willing instrument, in the only means to break the bondage of his Kennedy protection, with its protectors... ------ END SNIPPET #2 BY EDWIN A. WALKER ------- That is a very clear accusation of Oswald as the April shooter, of Jesse Curry as covering it up, and of the Kennedy's as controlling the entire matter. It is also interesting that the name of George de Mohrenschildt was named in this regard, without further details. I find these snippets, and others like them, to be of enormous interest in the research of the JFK assassination. As for their late date, we have others that are of earlier dates - but none as early as the statment he made to Hasso Thorston on or about 11/23/1963. Now, once we concede that Walker believed that Oswald was his April shooter, we must doubt his sworn testimony before attorney Liebeler. After all, this was Chief Justice Earl Warren's Commission, and Walker spent many years convincing thousands of people that Earl Warren deserved impeachment and did not hold legitimate authority. Also, once we concede that Walker believed that Oswald was his April shooter, we must find some other explanation for (2), for his complaint to the HSCA that they had the wrong bullet. It was not to exonerate Oswald - clearly. Walker held Oswald guilty of the 'April Crime,' so the bullets that he found (which had steel jackets) which differed from the HSCA bullets (which had copper jackets) could only prove that Oswald had access to other weapons. From whom? Walker's implication is clear from these snippets -- from RFK himself. So - we seem to be faced with a choice: (i) either Walker made up the story that Oswald was the April shooter, and asked J. Edgar Hoover and his men to give Marina photographs of Walker's house, and force her to repeat Walker's story; or (ii) Oswald really was the shooter, and Walker found out from underground sources that he would never divulge. I am convinced of the latter choice. Finally, in my current theory, I believe George de Mohrenschildt was indirectly the source of Walker's information. The Warren Commission demonstrated clearly that George de Mohrenschildt found out about Oswald's shooting at Walker on Easter Sunday, 1963 -- four days after the shooting. I have little doubt that George de Mohrenschildt told someone about it (probably someone in the CIA), and that person told General Walker the same day. George de Mohrenschildt fled to Haiti that very week, earning General Walker's contempt. That's my evidence, Robert. I look forward to your feedback, in case I may have missed something.

I'm glad we can meet halfway on this, Robert. I'm also hesitant to propose an international plot - but that doesn't rule out international involvement at some level. I refer here to the neo-Nazi movement, which is not limited to one particular nation. For example, notice the anti-semitism that General Walker showed in his interview. Also, the newspaper that he communicated with in Germany on the night after JFK's assassination was an openly neo-Nazi newspaper. Growing up in Southern California, I was surprised at how many anti-semitic newspapers still circulated there, even in the early 1970's. So, anti-semitism (neo-Nazi) sentiment still believed it had a chance at political power in the 1960's. It seems to me that General Walker went over the deep end after his experiences in World War Two, and his tour of duty in Germany after the war. He seems to have made some ultra-right-wing contacts. Now - this doesn't mean they controlled him. Far from it. But he liked being the leader, and he grew up with a certain kind of folk, and he was used to leading that kind of folk. The USA demographic was changing fast after the war, but Germany was still old-fashioned, one might say. So yes, even though the new-rich among Texas oil-men were feeling their collective oats and reaching out for global political power, while the Germans were still bandaging their wounds from World War Two, the neo-Nazi connection appears to be live and well - even in Texas. General Walker was an extreme right-winger. This was not an act. He was an American patriot and a great US General in World War Two, but he turned, at some point, and became so extremely right-wing that he clashed with Eisenhower, and then he crashed with Kennedy. I think we tend to underestimate his influence in the South in 1963, because Texas oil has greater power today than it had in the 1960's, but General Walker is almost forgotten. In an amusing anecdote - General Walker led the Texas right-wing campaign to Impeach Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, and also against the United Nations. He called his opponents communists, of course, but also 'Antichrists', which was a euphemism in his anti-semitism. This made him no friends in high places, as you can imagine. But General Walker was stuck in the 1920's, one might say (when people fondly remembered that President Wilson advocated the KKK, and was nominated for the US Presidency largely because he successfully opposed the racial integration of Princeton University). I think General Walker really wanted to be President - of a different America than the one we saw in the 1960's. Anyway - back to the anecdote. RFK defended his psychiatric detention of General Walker in 1962 based on a United Press article that claimed that General Walker had incited the anti-integration riot at Mississippi University. General Walker sued UP and won several million dollars in damages. But UP took the case to the Supreme Court, and it came to the desk of Earl Warren! Earl Warren upheld UP's appeal and denied Walker one penny of that money. Best regards...

Robert, I recently perused the General Edwin Walker archives through the Briscoe Center for American History at UT Austin, and found some good stuff about Walker and the Oswald incident. General Walker was convinced that Oswald tried to kill him - and he tried to publish this widely in several newspapers in the USA and in Germany. While it is true that General Walker told the HSCA that the bullet they had was NOT the one found in his house, this was meant to mock their sloppy work. General Walker personally LOVED the fact that Oswald tried to kill him, and failed, but was later successful in killing JFK. In his opinion - which is part of the latest news release he tried to publish - RFK knew all along that Oswald tried to kill General Walker, and the Dallas Police actually arrested Oswald, but RFK let Oswald go, presumably, wrote Walker, to try to kill Walker *again*. The fact that Oswald instead killed JFK (according to Walker) was ironic and poetic justice. Also, you imply that General Walker was socially linked to main JFK plotters, and you cite his good friend HL Hunt. But I find it a bit more likely that HL Hunt was the one who was socially linked to the main JFK plotter - General Walker. HL Hunt could only provide the money. That was something that many, many people could do (and most readers here know the long list). But only a very few people could provide the ground-crew. Best regards... Robert, I'm pleased that even though we may disagree about sundry details about the conspiracy to assassinate JFK, we can proceed with open minds when new information is obtained. I think it's right that I should share some details that support my current opinion. Here goes. As nearly everybody in this Forum knows, the Mary Ferrell Foundation web site is one of the most valuable and enduring sources of archives available to research the JFK assassination. I got the following article about General Edwin Walker from her web site (Re: FBI Files on Edwin Walker, 116-165494 File, Section 2). ---- START CITATION #1 FROM MARY FERRELL ---- On May 22, 1964, the FBI in Washington DC recorded a strange event that occurred in Munich, Germany on 11/23/1963, the day after JFK was killed. On the morning of 11/23/1963, Hasso Thorsten, reporter for the Deutsche Nationalzeitung und Soldztenzeistung (NZ) called Edwin Walker in his hotel room, seeking a story for its November 29, 1963 edition (No. 48, volumne XIII). The proposed story was to be, "The Strange Case of Oswald". Here is a translation of the first paragraph of that story: "The murderer of Kennedy made an attempt on General Walker's life early in the summer when General Walker was sitting in his study. The bullet missed Walker's head only by inches. Oswald was seized. The following investigation, as it was reported, was stopped through the influence of the US Attorney General, Robert Kennedy. If Oswald had been investigated, he eventually would have been imprisoned for many years, and so he would not have been in a position to commit the murder of the US President, Mr. John F. Kennedy." ---- END CITATION #1 FROM MARY FERRELL ----- Although these were the words in that German newspaper, I think General Walker himself sent them to the newspaper, because it is a prepared statement, and because the Briscoe Center archives on General Walker show that he sent this story to multiple papers in the USA over the decades. The Briscoe Center also has documents signed by Walker showing he sought to publish this same story as late as April 15, 1989 (just four years before his passing). Following is another snippet from the Mary Ferrell web site. This is a transcript of a part of the actual telephone call between German reporter Hasso Thorston and General Edwin A. Walker on 11/23/1963. This conversation sounds contrived, i.e. it sounds scripted to me. Judge for yourself, and bear in mind that this conversation occurs only one day after JFK was assassinated. ---- START CITATION #2 FROM MARY FERRELL - WALKER INTERVIEW ON 11/23/1963 approx. 22:00 CST ---- HT: Hello. General Walker. It looks as though you are the man most in demand in America now. EAW: Who is speaking? Are you calling from Louisiana or Dallas? HT: This is Hasso Thorsten of the Deutsche National Zeitung - I am calling from Germany. EAW: This is impossible...How did you find out? I left Dallas ten hours ago. Nobody knows... HT: General, you are staying at the Hotel Captain Shreve in Shreveport Louisiana. Your room number is 701. EAW: (laughing) Thorsten, it's [ten] o'clock, I am appearing on television in [nine] hours. HT: I give you my word that there are no television cameras hidden in your room, General. You can talk to your friends in your pajamas. EAW: You are the first, Thorsten, I mean it...but I must make sure. Give me your telephone number. HT: (furnishes the direct telephone line connection Munich and Hamburg) EAW: (Lauging) Okay! Let's have it. HT: The news of Kennedy's death has barely jolted the world, when the usual choir started to tell them the slayer is an ultra-rightist. EAW: The murderer was a well-known communist, one of the countless communits who have infiltrated our country. HT: Unexpected? A bolt from the blue sky? EAW: No. Kennedy's death did not come as a surprise, as is being claimed. Enough fuel has accumulated. It was only through the constant spreading of false reports that it had remained hidden. HT: The assassin is said to belong to a pro-Castro organization, isn't that so? EAW: Right! A trained Marxist. HT: I am not unsympathetic, General, but this story of a US President coming out of the left and assassinated by the left appears, to a middle-of-the-road man like myself, to have quick a macabre twist. EAW: Kennedy's death [came as no surprise]. HT: Are you going to say this on MEET THE PRESS tonight, General? Let us have, first of all, if you please, the official position you will take. EAW: I repeat, you are the first to hear it. The President's tragic death urgently and forcibly brings home the point that the dangerous circumstances by which we are surrounded cannot be underestimated. MISTER Kennedy's death is not the great surprise which is now being depicted. The sympathy I experience for the Kennedy family is not less than the sympathy I experience for the million families who have given one or more victims to the cause of the struggle of freedom against communism. I grieve over the losses they have suffered. The sacrifice of this member of the Kennedy family is but one of the many sacrifices which are being made by everybody for freedom. During these very sad hours, [our need must] be the absolute need for strong unity, averting the divisive effect of reciprocal accusations which can only bring about more differences. We must stand together more than ever in our national devotion to [freedom] and human dignity. HT: Dear General Walker, I thank you for those words. I thank you personally, regardless of their [obvious] worthiness. EAW: It's all right... <snip> EAW: We have been taking about this Marxist assassin...this Oswald...Lee Oswald. I have just learned that John Abt from New York has offered to defend him in court. HT: John Abt? Would you mind to spell it? EAW: Attorney John A-B-T. From New York. HT: This cannot be true. I had to make sure. Is it John Abt? EAW: Right. Mr. Abt is an American Jew who defends all big communist cases. HT: I will give our readers a short biography of Mr. Abt, General. EAW: This is extremely interesting. HT: How come you have one of them in your own 'Promised Land?' EAW: (laughing) We'll keep in close touch, Thorsten. Give my regards to my German friends, especially Dr. Frey. One of the results will be that Germany and America will be able to become true partners. The relations between our two countries will develop on the basis of a real friendship among the people instead of being the result of a 'propaganda' friendship. HT: Thank you, General Walker. ---- END CITATION #2 FROM MARY FERRELL - WALKER INTERVIEW 11/23/1963 approx. 22:00 CST ---- I have many problems with this so-called interview. It sounds scripted to me - as though Walker himself scripted most of it. Also, he refers to President Kennedy as MISTER Kennedy - which was also the term used in the Dallas Morning News full page Ad, charging JFK with communism. The anti-semitism of the Interview is patent, and in the 1960's there were still plenty of anti-semites in the USA moving about in politics. Mary Ferrell's web site proposes that General Walker sought to use this interview to take suspicion away from the extreme right and place it on the communists. This was the plan all along among the Cuban Exiles, the rogue CIA agents, the Mafia and other criminals who planned the JFK hit -- it was calculated to stir public hatred of the communists in Cuba, to spark a full-scale invasion of Cuba, and finish what the Bay of Pigs failed to finish. But why would General Walker show his hand so soon after the shooting? Oswald was still alive when General Walker concocted this interview. One day later, Oswald would be dead. At that point General Walker began to tell people that Oswald was his April 10th shooter. This is documented by the Briscoe Center, and by the Mary Ferrell Foundation. I trust this is enough detail to substantiate my claims for now, Robert. As an aside to Jim Phelps -- this evidence presented by the Mary Ferrell Foundation and confirmed by the Briscoe Center clearly brings the German neo-Nazi movement onto the scene -- making an international connection. Best regards...

Jim, I agree that General Edwin Walker was a hero of WW2 and deserves our respect. His angry clash with the Kennedys in 1962 divided the country with regard to our opinion about Walker -- we became for or against Walker in extremes. But he was a hero, and I tend to believe that the treatment he received at the hands of Attorney General RFK in 1962 was political -- because there seems to be no other reason to have committed him to an insane asylum, even if he did play an active role in the riots of Ole Miss in 1962 (which he always denied). That said - I believe this injustice that he suffered at the hands of the Kennedys in 1962 gave him a material motive to pursue a paramilitary-style justice in Dallas in 1963. Walker was a suspect named by the Warren Commission in the affidavits of Dean Andrews, Jack Ruby and Frank Ellsworth. Later, Gerry Patrick Hemming and Harry Dean expressed suspicions. Walker was unusually influential - even powerful - in Dallas in 1963. As any other rightist in Dallas, he was outspoken against the United Nations and called for the impeachment of Earl Warren, but Walker did this with a full-size billboard on his front lawn. Walker was a leader among the righists in Dallas. In early November, 1963, Adlai Stevenson, our UN representative, was battered by an angry mob in Dallas, because the night before Edwin Walker had whipped up the crowd with angry speeches against the United Nations. So, Edwin Walker wanted a role in politics - this seems very clear. In fact, General Walker resigned from the military after a brilliant career; notice that he didn't retire with a pension; he resigned *without* a pension. That was a hasty act. Why would an intelligent man do that? It was probably a protest against President Eisenhower criticizing any military personnel for making political speeches. Walker wanted to enter politics - and he ran for Texas Governor - but he lost to Connally. So he supported himself by making rightist speeches around the country to larger and larger crowds. He had an adoring fan base. It was in this context that Walker called for a massive march on Ole Miss to protest racial integration there. He had political ambitions, and he was not going to give up on his political drive. If he couldn't win office, then he would support somebody who could - either Goldwater or Wallace. His clash with the Kennedys was political, and one can make a case that the Kennedys made it personal. If so, I cannot envision Edwin Walker backing down from a fight. From the evidence I see, the former General Edwin Walker is my prime suspect for the crucial Dallas ground-crew leadership. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>