Leslie Sharp

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

OK I see your point, the Lafitte datebook refers to the Walker shot, if its authentic that would be relevant to Walker. If we had some bread we could have a ham sandwich, if we had some ham. To me it isn't relevant, because nothing in that Lafitte datebook is relevant or of interest unless it is vetted for authenticity first, because I assume it is inauthentic unless shown otherwise.

(I accept what you report on the physical notebook or instrument of the paper being 1963, which clears up that detail. It is also what would be expected in any case of an actual forgery not done by total amateurs--use paper of the correct ancient date which will carbon-date to the right age, etc. The single most important next question would be forensic identification of the writer of the handwriting, on the basis of comparative examples examined by handwriting experts. The absence of any expert analysis on the record stating it is Pierre Lafitte's handwriting makes more likely a reconstruction that it was someone other than Pierre Lafitte who wrote it, in a genuine datebook from 1963 that did belong to Pierre Lafitte. Incidentally, is the widow not willing to make a simple statement under oath stating specific dates and circumstances to the best of her memory of this item? Why not? Why should anyone in the JFK research community reasonably rely upon an artifact that no one else saw for decades if even the widow who produced it will not vouch for it?) 

You say "you've yet to acknowledge Hilaire du Berrier who stated he was at Walker's on November 22". First, I don't see what that has to do with April 10, 1963 and the Walker shot in terms of evidence I recognize, the question with which my paper dealt with. Second, I never heard of Hilaire du Berrier, the American Mercury (right-wing) correspondent, but I did look him up just now in the index of Coup in Dallas and found the information on pp. 428-29. He says he was staying at Walker's house on Nov 22 when Walker was gone to Shreveport. The only connection of him with April 10 comes from the Lafitte datebook, which to me should not be considered until the authenticity issue is resolved. So you have to take that up with others, I'm not your person for that. 

I was just sharing with a friend that I'll be leaving the forum today.  It's the last day of Women's History Month, somewhat an auspicious milestone considering the experience. It happens that we plan to publish a facsimile of the Lafitte datebook with a brief narrative per entry so the time spent here will be better applied to that project.  As I told the friend, this isn't a fight or flight scenario, nor is it a taking my toys and storming home drama but instead, "I did what I came to do." 

Someone else suggested that those behind Hank's investigation 100% are  "well meaning" and "best intentioned".  That's something one might say about a poor performance or a debate gone awry.  We will continue to argue the facts revealed in Lafitte's records, not bullets, window sills, not distance from Lee Parkway to the church. The Lafitte datebook and records are fact and represent possibly the most significant breakthrough in decades. 

As even the team of examiners have noted, authentication can often become a canard. In our case, "I won't take anything seriously Hank uncovered, regardless of the revelations, because I haven't seen a document saying I can trust the datebook."  A red herring?

@Greg Doudna @Tom Gram
Delving into the Ed Forum 'way back machine,' the following is a solid foundation from which to resume the question of Surrey's motives.

Sounds very interesting, Corey. As for Walker and Surrey -- they were early critics of the Warren Commission ("Impeach Earl Warren!") and they also provided the original Conspiracy Theory -- namely, that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for a Communist Conspiracy.

It was astounding to Walker and Surrey, IMHO, that J. Edgar Hoover devised the "Lone Nut" theory before 11/22/1963 was over -- and nobody in the Mass Media wanted to hear anything but this FBI doctrine anymore.

Hoover's "Lone Nut" doctrine spelled FAILURE for Walker and Surrey, who had hoped that the JFK murder would result in the invasion of Cuba and the toppling of Fidel Castro.

So, Walker and Surrey gathered all the newspaper data they could from the week of the JFK murder to try to make their case again -- that the COMMUNISTS really killed JFK. They failed again. Their book was not a best-seller as they hoped -- and the most publicity it ever received was from the Warren Commission.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Well, Steve, it appears you have arrived at about the same conclusion as Dr. Jeff Caufield in his recent book, "General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy" (2015).

For Caufield, too, a 'false flag event' had been plotted with the intent of sparking an invasion of Cuba and the assassination of Fidel Castro. If the Radical Right (led by General Walker) had been successful, then Cuba would have been Capitalist again by 1964.

However -- as history turned out -- the entire Red Plot theory, of which Oswald was at the center -- fell on its face when J. Edgar Hoover proposed the Lone Nut theory to LBJ, Allen Dulles and Earl Warren -- and they accepted it.

We have FBI evidence that Hoover announced his Lone Nut theory as early as 3pm on 11/22/1963, in records of his telephone calls with RFK. Dallas officials were pushing the idea of a Red Plot with Oswald at the center in the FPCC and the CPUSA -- however, J. Edgar Hoover had a fat file on Oswald in New Orleans, showing that Oswald was really working in a bogus FPCC run by Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street.

Also, J. Edgar Hoover had complete files on every Red in the USA -- and Oswald's name wasn't on that list. So, Hoover called RFK at about 3pm to report that Oswald was (1) not officially in the FPCC; and (2) not officially a Red.

In my reading of Caufield's new book, J. Edgar Hoover figured out General Walker's Red Plot theory of the JFK assassination within 2.5 hours. Why risk WW3 over General Walker? That was the issue of the day -- and LBJ sided with Hoover. 

The result was a Lone Nut theory that was promoted by the USA as Unquestionable Dogma (in the interest of National Security). It is still effective today, as many Journalists continue to repeat the myth that Oswald was a Red.

We apparently agree that before 4pm on 11/22/1963, the Red Plot theory of General Walker had fizzled out. This tells us more about the genius of J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI files than about the folly of General Walker.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Leslie, I was not meaning at all to "erode general faith in Dick’s expertise" as you are trying to make me out. I came to a different opinion on a matter on which reasonable people will disagree. That does not mean someone is criticizing someone else's expertise. To answer your question, I did not read every word of Coup in Dallas (never claimed to, and doubt I ever will, for reason explained below). 

I have just reread Dick Russell's Foreward (pp. v-vi) and "The Lafitte Datebook: A Limited Analysis" (ix-xiii), in Coup in Dallas. In "A Limited Analysis", here Dick Russell expresses belief in authenticity of the Lafitte datebook in the second sentence bolded below, and gives his explanation in that same sentence ("based on the entries I have seen"):

"Pending verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts, I have carefully reviewed the 1963 datebook allegedly written by Jean Pierre Lafitte. Based on the entries I have seen, cryptic as many of them are (no doubt intentionally), this is a crucial piece of new evidence indicating a high-level conspiracy that resulted in the assassination that November 22 of President John F. Kennedy. Many of the names are familiar to me ... A number of these names, however, were not [Russell's bold] known publicly in 1963 and for more than a decade thereafter. Thus, assuming the datebook entries were indeed set down at that time by Lafitte, this adds substantial credibility to the likelihood that the document contains never-before-revealed information about a conspiracy involving..." (bold added)

The first sentence with bolding is a caveat. The second sentence with bolding is a statement affirming authenticity citing a reason: "based on the entries I have seen". 

The apparent basis is the existence of names dated in the datebook to 1963 which only became known in JFK assassination documents and to researchers in later times. To some (such as me) that increases the question as to authenticity. To others, apparently including Russell, that becomes an argument weighing the other way, in favor of authenticity. In his Foreward, Russell states that the Lafitte datebook is authentic ("contains the strongest evidence ever published ... I state that unequivocally ... adds corroboration ... of immeasurable importance"), giving no reasons in the Forward for the belief in authenticity. But as noted, he did give a reason in "A Limited Analysis", above.

Here is the problem: the first verified knowledge of existence of the Lafitte datebook's writing occurred decades later, after those names familiar to researchers were known and familiar. So far as I can tell, Albarelli does not give an exact date for when he first saw the Lafitte datebook but says at some point widow Rene Lafitte showed it to him (pp. xv-xviii), with indication that this occurred sometime after he met her which was before he finished his book published in 2009, A Terrible Mistake. The question of the Lafitte datebook's writing's existence in 1963, as the writing internally claims, is what is in question and remains unverified. (No handwriting analyses, witness affidavits, ink analyses, etc. of which I am aware, unless you have something of this nature.) 

Even if the physical notebook were itself verified authentic from 1963 in date of its paper or manufacture or sale, the issue is whether the writing is from that year. Even if the handwriting were authenticated as written by Pierre Lafitte (who died sometime earlier than 2009)--my understanding is not even that has been done--that would rule out other forgers but would not rule out forgery, e.g. by Pierre Lafitte later in life. Instead, the logic of this project progresses from a start with a caveat statement (expressed by Dick Russell); then the rest of the book ignores that caveat, either concludes or assumes the Lafitte datebook writing is authentic to 1963; then saying, idiomatically put, "trust us"; then on to hundreds of pages of complex labyrinths of analysis and details based upon the premise that the authenticity of the writing in the datebook in 1963 has been established.

To me this has every red flag of suspected forgery, which are so very, very common in the world of literature, art, and history. Books are written about forgeries of this kind of genre. Most commonly, though not always, the motive is financial, in which if experts with reputations can be found to vouch for authenticity, an appraisal value can be documented which can be monetized, sometimes in the form of a tax deduction for a donation, other times in outright sale or appraised value. Sometimes it is a long process over years to obtain status of authenticity from experts. I am not saying this is the case here. I am saying I suspect it is, and know of no sound cause not to suspect such. Typically in such forgeries very sincere persons become advocates who are not themselves knowledgeable of any wrongdoing.

The whole thing is circular until there is that "verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts" that Dick Russell mentioned. If you would like to start a new thread on this, I am willing to continue this discussion with you there provided you agree to attempt to stick to substance and avoid ad hominem as will I to the best of my ability. However my preference would be not to discuss this, out of self-interest of not wanting a war with you. I am offering this only to get this, which has nothing to do with the Walker case, moved off of DiEugenio's page which is about the article in Kennedys and King dealing with the Walker case. 

Greg, if you're reading my post carefully, I have repeatedly emphasized that the datebook, and the Walker shooting, are symbiotic so in my opinion, there is no reason to move this conversation.  If Jim di prefers that we do, I'm amenable; otherwise, I hope you will stop suggesting that the questions are distinct from one another.  Walker and Datebook.  I haven't yet added the rest of Lafitte's entries that implicate Walker fully in the Skorzeny plot. It's precisely because of those entries I asked why you had never pursued the motivation of No. 1 and brother to take a shot at Walker?  And you've yet to acknowledge Hilaire du Berrier who stated he was at Walker's on November 22. Du Berrier is in the Lafitte datebook just days before the shot at Walker in Dallas in April.

If you're pursuing the investigation in good faith, I ask that you set aside your somewhat knee-jerk assessment of Hank's investigation and consider the aforementioned. And I hope you will reconsider reading the book you attacked eight days after it was published.  I think that was unconscionable, regardless of who authored the book.

46 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Leslie, I was not meaning at all to "erode general faith in Dick’s expertise" as you are trying to make me out. I came to a different opinion on a matter on which reasonable people will disagree. That does not mean someone is criticizing someone else's expertise. To answer your question, I did not read every word of Coup in Dallas (never claimed to, and doubt I ever will, for reason explained below). 

I have just reread Dick Russell's Foreward (pp. v-vi) and "The Lafitte Datebook: A Limited Analysis" (ix-xiii), in Coup in Dallas. In "A Limited Analysis", here Dick Russell expresses belief in authenticity of the Lafitte datebook in the second sentence bolded below, and gives his explanation in that same sentence ("based on the entries I have seen"):

"Pending verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts, I have carefully reviewed the 1963 datebook allegedly written by Jean Pierre Lafitte. Based on the entries I have seen, cryptic as many of them are (no doubt intentionally), this is a crucial piece of new evidence indicating a high-level conspiracy that resulted in the assassination that November 22 of President John F. Kennedy. Many of the names are familiar to me ... A number of these names, however, were not [Russell's bold] known publicly in 1963 and for more than a decade thereafter. Thus, assuming the datebook entries were indeed set down at that time by Lafitte, this adds substantial credibility to the likelihood that the document contains never-before-revealed information about a conspiracy involving..." (bold added)

The first sentence with bolding is a caveat. The second sentence with bolding is a statement affirming authenticity citing a reason: "based on the entries I have seen". 

The apparent basis is the existence of names dated in the datebook to 1963 which only became known in JFK assassination documents and to researchers in later times. To some (such as me) that increases the question as to authenticity. To others, apparently including Russell, that becomes an argument weighing the other way, in favor of authenticity. In his Foreward, Russell states that the Lafitte datebook is authentic ("contains the strongest evidence ever published ... I state that unequivocally ... adds corroboration ... of immeasurable importance"), giving no reasons in the Forward for the belief in authenticity. But as noted, he did give a reason in "A Limited Analysis", above.

Here is the problem: the first verified knowledge of existence of the Lafitte datebook's writing occurred decades later, after those names familiar to researchers were known and familiar. So far as I can tell, Albarelli does not give an exact date for when he first saw the Lafitte datebook but says at some point widow Rene Lafitte showed it to him (pp. xv-xviii), with indication that this occurred sometime after he met her which was before he finished his book published in 2009, A Terrible Mistake. The question of the Lafitte datebook's writing's existence in 1963, as the writing internally claims, is what is in question and remains unverified. (No handwriting analyses, witness affidavits, ink analyses, etc. of which I am aware, unless you have something of this nature.) 

Even if the physical notebook were itself verified authentic from 1963 in date of its paper or manufacture or sale, the issue is whether the writing is from that year. Even if the handwriting were authenticated as written by Pierre Lafitte (who died sometime earlier than 2009)--my understanding is not even that has been done--that would rule out other forgers but would not rule out forgery, e.g. by Pierre Lafitte later in life. Instead, the logic of this project progresses from a start with a caveat statement (expressed by Dick Russell); then the rest of the book ignores that caveat, either concludes or assumes the Lafitte datebook writing is authentic to 1963; then saying, idiomatically put, "trust us"; then on to hundreds of pages of complex labyrinths of analysis and details based upon the premise that the authenticity of the writing in the datebook in 1963 has been established.

To me this has every red flag of suspected forgery, which are so very, very common in the world of literature, art, and history. Books are written about forgeries of this kind of genre. Most commonly, though not always, the motive is financial, in which if experts with reputations can be found to vouch for authenticity, an appraisal value can be documented which can be monetized, sometimes in the form of a tax deduction for a donation, other times in outright sale or appraised value. Sometimes it is a long process over years to obtain status of authenticity from experts. I am not saying this is the case here. I am saying I suspect it is, and know of no sound cause not to suspect such. Typically in such forgeries very sincere persons become advocates who are not themselves knowledgeable of any wrongdoing.

The whole thing is circular until there is that "verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts" that Dick Russell mentioned. If you would like to start a new thread on this, I am willing to continue this discussion with you there provided you agree to attempt to stick to substance and avoid ad hominem as will I to the best of my ability. However my preference would be not to discuss this, out of self-interest of not wanting a war with you. I am offering this only to get this, which has nothing to do with the Walker case, moved off of DiEugenio's page which is about the article in Kennedys and King dealing with the Walker case. 

Quickly, to put this to bed once and for all, I have a written testimonial from the executive (just starting out in his father and uncle's business in 1963) in charge of the 1962 Christmas / New Year annual promotion launched by their New England-based, national food distributorship Sweet Life Foods.  He confirms that the datebook was printed for the purpose of gifting the company's favored clients, most of whom were chefs. Although he was too young at the time to have traveled to personally hand out the datebooks, his uncle — approaching his mid-90s — didn't remember Pierre Lafitte by name or photo, but said it was likely Pierre [Jean Martin?] picked up the blank 1963 datebook either in the restaurant in up state NY or at a food expo held in New Orleans.

The instrument itself has been authenticated.

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

I can’t speak for Greg, but until the datebook is fully authenticated by independent experts, it will not be taken seriously by a large portion of JFK community, let alone the general public. If you want people to stop thinking the datebook is a fake you need to prove it isn’t fake. It’s as simple as that. 

If something seems too good to be true, it probably is, so you can’t blame people for having doubts about a datebook with such comically incriminating entries like “rifle into building”, etc.

If the datebook is ever authenticated, and that’s a big if, it would instantly become one of the most important items of evidence in the entire JFK case. Everyone and their brother would obsessively analyze the entries until their eyes bled, and Coup in Dallas would sell like Twilight. If I were you I’d drop everything and put all my energy into arranging for an in-depth forensic examination.

Based on a cursory Google search, a new method for the absolute Carbon dating of paper just came out last year, and was tested with extremely accurate results (<3yrs) on paper samples from 1950-2018: 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35195289/

Of course, the entires could have just been written on old paper, so you’d need to take it a step further to really convince people. Here’s a Nov. 2021 literature review of forensic analytical approaches to document dating that should contain everything you’d need to know to authenticate the datebook: 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0026265X21008080

Thanks, Tom.  There's no reason for you to be aware of the "water under the bridge" (which is by now DEEP GREEN $$$$) related to authentication. Assuming you haven't read Coup, I'll provide a brief summary momentarily.  (and I trust you realize that Hank, and (on his behalf), I have turned stones you haven't thought of.)

Before I do, I think it's only fair that in addition to your opinion of how we should proceed, you would address the issues raised in my response to Greg Doudna related to the Walker shooter and the Lafitte datebook entry that confirms the current working hypothesis. 

Would you be willing to do that before I recap what is in print in Coup related to the provenance and authentication — in Hank's own words, not mine?

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I've never seen a problem with Dick Russell's accuracy in reporting of his interviews. Its been a while since the conversation over Coup in Dallas to which you refer and this is from memory, but I am sure I did not focus on the content of the Lafitte notebooks or read word for word the discussions of the contents of those notebooks, because I looked for the discussions on authenticity, and expressed skepticism on that. I am not convinced it is genuine JFK assassination foreknowledge or that Lafitte was project manager of the assassination and I don't buy the case for authenticity, didn't see that forensic examination of the artifact by outside experts had been done. I realize Hank Albarelli believed it was authentic and Dick Russell does and I realize you do but I was not convinced. I have tried to stay out of those discussions since.  

I hope the host of this thread will indulge a lengthy response to Greg.  It's related to the Walker shooting although that's not fully evident until the end.

Greg, in your November 24, 2021 critique of my statement on the provenance and authenticity of the 1963 datebook maintained by the enigmatic Pierre Lafitte, colleague and friend to George Hunter-White of the FBN and CI James Angleton, which you posted just eight days after the publication of the 700++ page book Coup in Dallas, you wrote,

To cut to the chase, Dick Russell gives no reason for believing it is genuine other than it contains important information if it is. Based on that--the significance of its contents if true--Dick Russell concludes "this is a crucial piece of new evidence", i.e. genuine, not forged. (The apparent logic being that surely no forgery would have such interesting content, therefore it is genuine.) Leslie Sharp says her reasons for believing are similar to Dick Russell's. None of the other writers in the book address the issue of authenticity.

My reaction is it sounds too good to be true.

This warrants renewed dissection in light of the renewed interest in the Walker incident on April 10.

GD. To cut to the chase, Dick Russell gives no reason for believing it is genuine other than it contains important information if it is.

That is simply not true, and your remark is the equivalent of Bill Barr’s misrepresentation of the findings presented in the Mueller Report. As we know, Barr launched a campaign to mislead Americans which fueled distrust of government. Similarly, your twist of the facts may have misled some forum members and fueled distrust of Hank’s investigation.

Can you tell me if you read Coup cover to cover prior to posting your critique?

For the record, Dick Russell made clear that because much of the information in the datebook corroborates what he had uncovered in the process of writing The Man Who Knew Too Much, he had reason to believe the datebook is authentic, pending professional authentication. His caveat is to be respected … that because he was not the investigator who gained access to the datebook, nor had he seen the physical instrument, he could not personally attest to authentication. Simple, succinct, logical. Had you read carefully, Dick also underscored that certain detail in the Lafitte record from 1963 was not known publicly prior to the mid-to-late ‘70s. I hope you will give that serious thought.

GD. Dick Russell concludes "this is a crucial piece of new evidence", i.e. genuine, not forged.  

You repeat your subtle attempt to erode general faith in Dick’s expertise. And again, you fail to acknowledge that Dick quite deliberately assigned a caveat to his limited analysis of the datebook, as he should have under the unique circumstances. He also indicates that based on his considerable knowledge of the investigation, which I venture surpasses your own in most areas, this [datebook] is a crucial piece of evidence for the reasons stated.

GD. The apparent logic being that surely no forgery would have such interesting content . . .

A ludicrous assessment, Greg, and another insult to Dick. He did not suggest he found the entries in the datebook to be “interesting” [a word search of Dick’s contributions to Coup does not produce the word “interesting.” Yet another example of your editorializing couched as fact.] 

Once again, Dick observed that certain entries — which he enumerated, btw — contain detail that wouldn’t appear in the public domain for another twelve to fifteen years. 

GD. Leslie Sharp says her reasons for believing are similar to Dick Russell's.

Are you quite certain that is my wording? Did I not stress that my reasons for trusting the authenticity and provenance were unique? 

G. None of the other writers in the book address the issue of authenticity.

Allen Kent, coauthor and trusted colleague of Hank Albarelli since 2013, had no reason to address provenance and authenticity in his contributions to the book, nor did Charles Drago — another of Hank’s trusted confidants, or @Anthony Thorne who I invited to the project to represent the continuity of the Coup in Dallas with his essay. I believe if you emailed any one of these gentlemen, they would readily supply you with reasons they chose to add their names to Hank’s effort.

GD/ My reaction is it sounds too good to be true.

Which leads me to your most recent exposé related to the Walker shooting.  

“There is no other candidate for Coleman's No. 1 to my knowledge. In favor of Bob Schmidt as No. 1 is the plausibility of vet Bob Schmidt known to be in Dallas and in Robert Surrey/Walker circles in early 1963 via his brother Larrie, possible need for money (reflected in the Larrie Schmidt letters), and there is the decades-later hearsay claim.”

In other words, Greg, you applied deductive reasoning? It seems you reject the process when it's employed by other investigative journalists.

You then write, “And then the long narrow face.”

And here you venture into facial recognition which is hardly a science unless one uses professional instruments.  Presumably you have access to said instruments and ran an analysis on that “long narrow face”?  OR, are you asking us to go along with your speculation simply because it’s yours? An appeal to authority —because you’ve studied the Dead Sea Scrolls?

You continue, “When I saw the long narrow face I said to myself, "Self, I think this may be a match." Anyway that's my best guess at identity of No. 1. Robert L. Schmidt seems to check most of the boxes as at least possible for No. 1--if this isn't a false positive.”

Apparently you’ve drawn a fairly subjective conclusion, based on the trajectory of your pursuit of No. 1.  It happens to be plausible imo, and you provide us with a step by step of how you arrived at your guess, but to assert it is “scholarly” is a stretch imv.  I think more accurately, it is an impressive bit of gumshoe detective work.

So, with all respect warranted, on the heels of your publication and in spite of your self-acknowledged guess at the identity of No. 1, esteemed journalist Jefferson Morley recently opined, The breakthrough came on March 11, when Greg Doudna, a JFK researcher from Bellingham, Washington, posted a 79-page paper about the Walker incident on his Web site, scrollery.com. The story is corroborated and fleshed out by the research of Gayle Nix Jackson, the granddaughter of Orville Nix, a bystander on November 22 who filmed JFK’s assassination.”

He continues,

I have only recently made Doudna’s acquaintance but the quality of his scholarship is obvious to anyone who reviews it. Want to know about the Dead Sea scrolls? Doudna is your dude.

I must ask whether In the instance of this recent limited post of yours on EF, you’re entirely comfortable with his reference to the overall quality of scholarship when you close with “it’s a guess” (paraphrasing).

I see no reference to this guess in the article.  I do see that he invoked Gayle Nix Jackson, who I highly respect fwiw, but can she corroborate your findings any more credibly than Dick Russell — who favorably analyzed the Lafitte datebook (with caveat), corroborating Hank’s primary source material to the extent he was willing to put his reputation on the line? 

For this reason, I recently joined with Jim di Eugenio to ask, “why now”? I hope you can stay with me on this . . . 

As Jeff is aware having been invited by me to peruse first-hand the Lafitte datebook — and as highlighted by Dick Russell in his limited analysis — one of the most significant entries in the Lafitte book dated April 7 — three days before the shots were fired at the Walker residence in Dallas — reads,

Walker — Lee and pictures. Planned soon — can he do it? Won’t.

 Dick writes,

·       The name of WALKER appears more than once, initially concerning the shooting attempt on his life that Oswald was later accused of. “April 7 – Walker – Lee and pictures. Planned soon – can he do it? Won’t.” (it’s possible that the word is ‘Wait.’) The indication is, someone was setting up Oswald to do this, but he didn’t want to. The shot was fired at Walker on April 10. Later references indicate that General Walker was in fact aware of, if not in on, the plot to kill JFK.

Admittedly, I continue to harbor frustration that in 2013, Hank provided Jeff with details of two entries in the Lafitte datebook — August 16 and August 21 that reference Joannides; one references a meeting at Antoine’s in New Orleans; one identifies Martello and Quiqley as well as Labadie (I assume you know the significance of all of these names); Hunter-White; Siragusa; and [J.C.] King; however, for reasons known to Jeff and Hank, Jeff failed to pursue the Joannides lead Hank handed him on a platter. I believe the current working theory is that the last batch of withheld documents will include proof that Joannides initiated an operation in NOLA that involved Oswald three months before the assassination ... late August. Surely you grasp the significance, and why it might be concerning that Hank's source material, shared with Jeff in 2013, may well serve to confirm those documents. And please consider that if the documents have been locked away for 60 years, how could Lafitte have known about Joannides in New Orleans at Antoines discussing Oswald?  And, according to Lafitte, Wm. King Harvey, Joseph Silverthorne, and Santo Trafficante showed up  in NOLA just days prior to the first Joannides entry?

To conclude, I hope you can appreciate that it’s mildly concerning that Jeff meets you and within a few weeks, designates your guesswork which included amateur facial recognition to be scholarly, while you both remain skeptical of Hank’s primary source material that — and herein lies the confusion caused by a refusal to apply logic — actually supports the current hypothesis that the Walker shooting was staged.  Isn't it far more logical to maintain an open mind instead of jumping to, that datebook is just “too good to be true”? I’m perfectly willing to indulge your guesswork because “logic” suggests that facts are converging to indicate we're all pursuing significant evidence the Walker shooting was indeed staged, and Oswald was somehow involved.

 

On 3/29/2023 at 4:44 AM, John Cotter said:

Not in any great depth, Leslie. I've read a few posts about it - mainly at ROKC as far as I can recall. Do you know of any more extensive online source?

I had spent months researching the Robert S. Lovett dynasty of Huntsville, Texas (Union Pacific RR) in context of the Houston-based law firm Baker, Botts which was founded by the father of GHWB's Sec State James Baker. Robert S. Lovett's son Robert A. was the Yale roommate of John J. McCloy (of the WC), a partner in Brown Bros. Harriman (whose primary account was Union Pacific) and almost exclusively selected Kennedy's cabinet.

Huntsville was also home of an infamous juvenile detention center and a state prison, the former often invoked by parents to scare their rowdy teenage boys, "I'll send you to Hunstville if you don't shape up".

I believe Buell may have spent a brief period at Hunstville detention. 

Ultimately, as simplistic as it might seem, it was Buell's sister, Linnie Randle who orchestrated Lee's hiring at the Texas School Book Depository building resulting in his presence there on Friday, November 22.  Make of it what you will. I dismissed the coincidences until the incident in Austin related to a conversation her husband had with the receptionist surfaced. My interest was renewed, but I've not taken the line of inquiry far enough along to share publicly.

10 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I don't follow the question or controversy of your second paragraph, sorry. I do not personally believe Oswald got his haircuts in Shasteen's barber shop; mistaken identification. Maybe this is getting a little afield from Gil's topic?

Are you not aware that a large element within the community insists Oswald was never in Mexico City?

I believe Shasteen said something like, "I don't care what you believe, I stand by my statements."

Surely Gil will erect guardrails if we venture too far off topic.  I would posit that your lengthy and somewhat impassioned defense of Ruth has little to do with the garage.

17 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Don't mislabel Angers' story as if it is an account of Dick Russell. The story comes from Angers claiming that is what Larrie Schmidt told him. Dick Russell reported it but it is not Dick Russell's account nor does Dick Russell have anything to do with whether the story is true or not (assuming Russell accurately reported the Angers interview). That is like evaluating whether a letter you receive in the mail is to be believed based on how well you judge the character of the mailman--has nothing to do with it. Nothing to do with Coup in Dallas (no offense intended).  

6 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Well that is Ruth's testimony. It is clear Michael Paine was on a first-name basis with Odum who also lived in Oak Cliff. When that acquaintance began I don't think is known. I have thought, even though there is no direct evidence of it, that it is plausible Michael might have notified the FBI at the time he agreed to go along with Ruth taking Marina into their house in Irving. Ruth would have discussed taking Marina in with Michael who still owned half the home even though not living there. So I could see FBI contact from Michael prior to Nov. 1. Ruth testified Hosty on Nov 1 was her first meeting with an FBI agent. But to my knowledge Michael was never asked that question, of when he first became acquainted with Odum, or of contact with the FBI.

On the Soviet embassy letter, I agree it would be natural for Ruth to call or think of calling the FBI (in this case Hosty whom she had met and liked). According to both Ruth and Michael, when Ruth tried to tell Michael how concerned she was over the contents of Lee's embassy letter Michael blew it off and told Ruth to let it go because it was none of their business. Ruth testified she resolved to show the letter to Hosty the next time he returned (implying she anticipated Hosty would be back).

And in that letter, Lee divulges he had been in MC.  

Do you recall whether Ruth was asked about the MC trip, a controversy among researchers and journalists that has spanned decades? Did she publicly confirm Lee had been in MC within a few days of the assassination? 

Re. SA Odum. Ruth refers to him as "Hart". If she only knew him through Michael and never actually met him until after the assassination, wouldn't she have called him "Bob" during testimony?

You're probably familiar with barber Shasteen's story that he cut Oswald's hair, and that Odum frequented the same barber shop.   

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Steve - your research is appreciated. I wish you would apply your considerable skills to Coup in Dallas. The authors are well meaning, not out for a buck or fame, and they’ve done their best to use a magnifier to actually look at the European fascists and their connections in the states. As you know it’s no easy task. Hank Albarelli was a tireless researcher and digger for truth. Leslie and Alan have done their best to bring Hank’s research forward in difficult circumstances. 

Thank you, Paul.  

Hank pursued the leads as they surfaced, and it happens they led us to an international angle of the assassination which is revealed in Lafitte's records.  I trust it's obvious to the reader that Hank's investigation was a professional journalistic endeavor to get to the truth and transcends having good intentions.  

11 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Yes I thought I explained how it would fit. In my paper I argued Coleman's man No. 1 was part of the staged shot (as a signaler to the shooter, not as shooter), and so if that was Larrie Schmidt's brother Robert Schmidt, that would be the involvement. In the Angers story, Larrie told him Robert knew Oswald, that over a few beers they decided as a lark to just off General Walker. Oswald volunteered he had a rifle; Robert drove, presumably to where the rifle was, to a bridge over Turtle Creek (presumably Oswald picked up his rifle there); then in the Larrie/Angers version, Robert with Oswald proceeded on foot to the front of Walker's house and shot at Walker through a front window and missed. I am suggesting this sounds like a version of the staged shot on behalf of Walker, not an attempted murder, and Angers, who was a raconteur and may have been speaking from memory, got details wrong (or maybe Larrie Schmidt did not have the details straight when he told the story to Angers). The actual shot was taken from the alley in the back of the Walker house, not the front. The reconstruction would be Robert may have assisted Oswald that evening, then was alone with car No. 1 in the church parking lot seen by Kirk Coleman, acting as a signaler both to the house and to Oswald in the alley. The engine left running of the car of No. 1 when No. 1 was out of the car at the time of the shot possibly could have been for an expedited getaway if needed but Oswald ran the other way. 

Angers at one point may have attempted to use some knowledge of the story he had from Larrie Schmidt, which Angers told Dick Russell he had on tape, to blackmail Walker for money. This was in 1969. Here is Walker's version of what Walker interpreted as Angers' blackmail or shakedown attempt (https://ia601302.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/6/items/eawalkerdataset/Edwin Walker.zip&file=19691212_EAW_on_Curry.pdf). According to Walker, Angers (who was friends with Dallas Police Chief Curry) wanted a donation of $10,000 (in 1969 dollars) to assist in South American distribution of Chief Curry's newly-published book on the JFK assassination, and Angers pointedly told Walker twice in the course of making the request for that voluntary donation that they had Walker's "police file at Chief Curry's house". Walker interpreted that as a reference to the Walker shot of April 10, 1963 and an attempted shake-down. Walker did not clarify what could be in his Dallas Police file that Angers might think Walker would pay $10,000 not to have become public. 

As Angers told the story to Dick Russell (The Man Who Knew Too Much [1992], 325-27), Angers taped Larrie Schmidt ca. early 1964 telling the story of Larrie's brother's complicity with Oswald in the Walker shot, and Angers said that was taped with Larrie's consent. Larrie when asked in later years denied the story, though confirmed he had known Angers. I find it difficult to believe that Larrie would knowingly or willingly incriminate his brother on tape that way, which is why I believe if there was such a tape (none has ever surfaced; Angers died in 2016) it would have been a taping without Larrie's knowledge. 

One of the most surprising postscripts of the Angers story is that Dick Russell then went to General Walker with that story and asked Walker for his reaction. Russell was stunned when Walker told him, Russell, that "several people" had "raised that possibility" to him, Walker, already, and that it was "natural to suspect" that. (Of course the version of the story Walker was referring to was that it was an attempted murder.) Walker thought it was "natural to suspect" that a young man he employed in Oct and Nov 1963 to be in his house and drive him as his chauffeur (Robert Schmidt) would have tried to knock him off earlier in April but not in Oct or Nov 1963. 

Greg, I'm glad you emphasize Dick Russell's accounts as being substantive because it provides an opportunity for me to emphasize that Dick provided a "limited analysis" of the Pierre Lafitte datebook for both a film company in Australia and our publisher, Skyhorse, which no doubt you recall from reading Coup in Dallas cover to cover.  

Dick writes,

I believe, presuming the datebook is verified as having been written by Lafitte in 1963, that this constitutes probably the strongest evidence that has ever come to light of a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. (emphasis added)

·       The name of WALKER appears more than once, initially concerning the shooting attempt on his life that Oswald was later accused of. “April 7 – Walker – Lee and pictures. Planned soon – can he do it? Won’t.” (it’s possible that the word is ‘Wait.’) The indication is, someone was setting up Oswald to do this, but he didn’t want to. The shot was fired at Walker on April 10. Later references indicate that General Walker was in fact aware of, if not in on, the plot to kill JFK: 

46 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I think because he had good reason to move from autism to the general vaccine safety as the world was coerced to take them for C19. The autism / MMR argument stands from RFK Jr and people like Del Bigtree. The US government has data on those who have  had zero vaccines (pre C19 pandemic), around 30% of the US population and the other 70% that have had vaccines for all manner of things. He says; just show us the data that our (Americans) taxes paid for. It will either prove his case, or prove their safety. The US government will not release the data. My conclusion is that the data either shows they do cause higher rates of autism, or they show something else that is equally egregious. 
 

“The Real Antony Fauci” did really well but, if he runs for the presidency he’ll have exactly the same issue that he did during the pandemic, that MSM will be weaponised against him. The reason for this is that is that he attacks big business and institutional corruption. He’s an idealist and committed to that. 
 

He is exactly what America and the world needs IMO. I just think the system is setup to make sure he doesn’t get near the presidency, and if he does, something will happen. I think if something happens, it may be the straw that breaks the camels back.  

I tend to agree, Chris.

He will have my vote should he decide to challenge Joe Biden.  We need another generation of rational Democrats to take up the mantle.  No doubt this will be controversial, and likely inconsequential for most, but I would like to understand his wife's suicide more than I currently do. I believe Trump will be an attack dog should he and RFK Jr. end up in a race to the finish.  There is so much irony in this, considering how we close Coup in Dallas. 

Is there a chance that this indictment will open the floodgates?

Excerpt, Coup in Dallas

Conclusions

During lengthy debates over the rise of the alternative right being led by Donald Trump, the possibility of authoritarianism similar to pre-World War II was a logical extension of our research into a similarly volatile period of the early 1960s. The question arose: why, unlike the 1960s when leading conservatives like William Buckley disavowed fringe elements—especially the John Birch movement—had leaders of the GOP in 2016-2018 failed to intercede before another, stronger fringe element could split the country, perhaps irrevocably this time?  

The question was perplexing to say the least. The possibility of extreme pressure on key players was an obvious answer, and that possibility led naturally to the question of the ultimate pressure, blackmail. In light of the many national scandals that dominated the nation’s news cycles during the campaign of 2016, in the context of political blackmail, one in particular warranted attention. A sensational child sex trafficking case had been exposed in Florida in 2005 with New York financial investor and sybarite, Jeffrey Epstein, at the center. Suspicion that the cameras and film equipment scattered throughout his various enclaves were focused as much on his high powered guests, including political leaders and influencers, as his underage victims, the possibility of tried and true blackmail could not be easily set aside. Had Epstein perfected the playbook developed over the decades by fascist regimes and employed by Americans like Kohlberg, Hoover, Cohn, Gray, and GOP consultant and “dirty trickster” Roger Stone? And if so, on whose behalf?  In future, researchers and reporters will discover, or disavow, this speculation in the months and years to come.

1 minute ago, W. Niederhut said:

It will be interesting to track the coverage of Trump's indictment by Fox, Breitbart, and the right wing media.

My hunch is that they will focus on attacking and denigrating DA Alvin Bragg, in addition to what-about-ism (re Hunter Biden, Bill Clinton, etc.)

I've already received a what-about LBJ.

Doubt we'll hear a what-about JFK's sexual peccadilloes. 

33 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Good news, indeed.

Perhaps now Trump supporters will finally focus on the men who planned and incited the J6 mob attack on Congress.

(And women, if we include Sidney Powell and Ginni Thomas.)

Agree, W., as we should. 

I find poetic justice that the Stormy Daniels case resulted in Trump's first indictment, issued just under the wire of Women's History Month. Now, Thomas, Powell, Conway, Ms Ivanka, et al. must take responsibility for not only their support of this supreme misogynist, but their own complicity in setting back decades of progress toward equal rights for women.  

"WE DID IT Y'ALL. TEXAS OBSERVER WILL REMAIN OPEN!"  It seems only fitting!!!

https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-observer-no-layoffs-remains-open-board-vote/

24 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Where's the Party for Lady Justice?!!!

1 minute ago, Joe Bauer said:

A DATE THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY.

 

holy flyin' Flip!!!

On 3/29/2023 at 5:55 AM, Greg Doudna said:

No I meant I can’t remember anything in her testimony, letters to family, or interviews etc that refers to knowledge of that pre-nov 22. But I also did not ask her myself nor did the subject come up with me when I knew her.

I would not assume someone not living in New Orleans would know of the Oswald arrest in New Orleans unless told of it. 

Ruth testified that Hosty coming to her door Nov 1, 1963 to see Marina was the first time in her life she met an FBI agent. 

I'm certain Michael Paine acknowledged he knew SA FBI Bardwell Odum prior to the assassination, and referred to him by the nickname "Bob."

I've yet to pinpoint Ruth's reference to the same FBI agent in her lengthy testimony so that I can quote her directly, but she refers to him as "Hart" and implies they were on friendly terms.  So, I suggest she may be mistaken that Hosty was the first FBI agent she had met.

 I'm open to the possibility she met FBI agent Odum post November 1, so in that regard she may be technically accurate that Hosty was her first, but can we be certain she hadn't met "Hart" previously? Could she have met him through Michael? Did Bob and Michael meet before or after Ruth met Hosty on the 1st?  If either is the case, doesn't that open another proverbial can of worms.

On November 7, 8 ,9, Ruth and Michael read the letter Oswald had typed on her typewriter to discover that he had been in MC with a reference to the Russian Embassy. Might she have considered a discreet phone call to Hosty whom she had met on November 1? Or perhaps a call to her friend "Hart." Why didn't Michael touch base with "Bob"?

Wasn't Hosty in touch with New Orleans at some point following the August arrest of Lee?  Did he not ask, or at minimum advise Ruth of the incident in NOLA when he first met her on November 1, or did FBI Hosty only learn of the arrest following his visit with Ruth on November 1?

The aforementioned suggests to me that Ruth has been interviewed over the years by researchers who may well be sympathetic to her? 

15 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

RFK Jr makes his vaccine position more clear in the speech at the top of this thread. The press labels him anti-vax and everyone turns off. But is that the reason they marginalize him? I don’t think so. His children’s defense fund gave voice to the sizable numbers of parents who concluded that vaccines were causing autism. What he explains is that he doesn’t know what’s causing the epidemic among youth, but something is. I suggest everyone actually listen to what he says instead of buying into the media representation of it. 

I agree, Paul.  His initial foray was prompted by the question of autism.  Our publisher, Skyhorse, shared the concerns and launched his latest book on the issue. Our editor was tasked with editing Coup simultaneously with The Real Anthony Fauci  .. an irony lost on none of us. The books share a pub birthday, Nov 16, 2021.

It's my understanding that Jr. moved from autism specifically to the general issue that vaccines have not been regulated for decades — rush to profit has trumped safety. (pun intended.)

5 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

But Trump's voice is not weak or impaired. His speaking style is annoying because he phrases his sentences in a disjointed manner, but his voice is strong and clear. 

I admire RFK Jr.'s willingness to think outside the box, even on issues such as vaccination. It shows guts. I'd like to know more about his political views. I've only heard him talk about three or four issues.

I just think that his voice defect would be a major problem if he ran for office.  

Re. Trump's voice .. in the ear of the beholder.  

Practically speaking, a campaign could do great damage to RFK Jr., but to imply he should shy from running because of his voice seems "off" somehow.

Jr.'s outspoken defense of our environment should get him elected, but alas we know there are millions in the US who deny the global crisis. {1 gal. of clean water = $2.79 in many NM stores.)  

His recognition that vaccines are a necessary evil around the world could balance the insanity of the anti-vax movement.  It's unfortunate he's associated with those extremists.

On 3/29/2023 at 8:29 AM, Greg Doudna said:

Ruminations on the identity of Kirk Coleman's man No. 1

I also think I know who Kirk Coleman's man No. 1 was, though I did not put that in my paper and it does not affect anything in the argument if this isn't right. Kirk Coleman gave a description of man No. 1 that had specific details: about 19-20 years of age, skinny, long hair, long narrow face, prominent nose.

In the odd story which appeared in Dick Russell from Brad Angers, Angers claimed that Larrie Schmidt told him, Angers, in early 1964 that Larrie's brother Robert "Bob" or "Robbie" Schmidt knew Oswald, drove Oswald the night of the shot, accompanied and assisted Oswald in taking the shot the night of the shot. Then the record shows Bob Schmidt happily went to work for Walker as Walker's chauffeur a few months later starting ca. later Oct 1963. Normal thing to do after helping Oswald take a shot which supposedly was attempted murder of General Walker, right?

On the hunch that Angers' strange story might reflect some strange decades-later hearsay version of the staged shot involving Surrey and Oswald as developed in my paper, naming a participation of Robert Schmidt and his car as assisting Oswald in that staged shot that evening, I wondered if Robert Schmidt in fact could be the missing identity of No. 1.

In my paper I wrote of the movements of man No. 1 seen by Kirk Coleman, of his standing outside of a car with the engine running (Coleman first sees him apart from his car in the parking lot walking toward an otherwise-empty car idling with its engine running and headlights on moments after the shot, then getting into the already-running car and driving away out to Turtle Creek Blvd) ... and man No. 1 from where he was standing away from his car with the engine running would have been standing with line of sight into the alley capable of eye contact with the shooter in the alley ... and that that all made excellent sense interpreted as No. 1 as a signaler in the parking lot part of the shot, capable of signal communication with both inside the Walker house and the shooter in the alley, i.e. No. 1 as part of the shot and not a car and person unrelated to the shot. However I left No. 1 unidentified in my paper apart from the argument that No. 1 too was involved in the staged shot, and was not some unrelated random church or other person standing like that, line of sight to the shooter in the alley, away from a car with its engine running, at the moment of the shot. 

From a passing mention in the WC testimony of Bernard Weissman, Robert Schmidt was 29 years old in 1963, a bit older than Kirk Coleman thought from seeing No. 1. But I found letters of Larrie Schmidt in 1963 on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site confirming that Larrie knew Robert Surrey since at least Feb 1963--moved in the same right-wing circles, Larrie mentions Robert Surrey by name in a letter of Feb 1963--and separately those letters confirm Larrie's brother Bob was in Dallas in early-mid 1963, no known employment, and that Larrie's brother Bob in fact months later began direct paid employment with General Walker as a chauffeur starting ca. late Oct 1963--brought into that paid employment for Walker by Robert Surrey.

I think Bob Schmidt is Robert L. Schmidt, 1934-1981, born and died Lincoln, Nebraska, 29 years old in 1963, US Navy vet in Korea, photo of tombstone here: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/74093487/robert-l-schmidt. 

I looked up Robert L. Schmidt's high school yearbook photo from his high school in Lincoln, Nebraska. That is the only photo known of Larrie Schmidt's brother Bob known to me in existence, nor was Larrie's brother Bob Schmidt ever interviewed by anyone re things 1963 or Walker or JFK assassination related. There is no known personal information, no obituary, no knowledge of whether he had wife or kids, no knowledge of employment, nothing about him even though his name is familiar in the Larrie Schmidt/CUSA documents and investigations following the assassination in Nov 1963. The one detail of interest learned from the photo of his tombstone (assuming this is the right person) is he was a Navy vet in Korea and not part of the Army vets in Gemany of the Larrie Schmidt and Weissman CUSA circles as generally assumed. On rechecking Larrie Schmidt's 1963 letters I cannot find any evidence Larrie's brother Bob served in Germany or in the Army, even though that has been assumed. 

Anyway, Robert L. Schmidt's high school photo, the only known photo in existence known to me for Larrie's brother Bob who was in Dallas in 1963--the same individual named in the strange Angers story in which Angers says Larrie told him ca. early 1964 (over a few drinks? with Angers, who was in the electronic surveillance business, recording Larrie without Larrie's knowledge as Larrie spun him a tall one?--who knows) ... that strange story says Larrie's brother Bob Schmidt was with and assisted Oswald the night of the Walker shot--Robert L. Schmidt's Lincoln, Nebraska high school photo struck me for having a long, narrow face, in agreement with Kirk Coleman's physical description of man No. 1.

The plausibility of some unemployed vet already in circles known to Robert Surrey in early 1963 who could be trusted to do a job and keep his mouth shut, being the missing identification of man No. 1 with Surrey in the staged Walker shot, came together as intriguing to me.

And the known months-later explicit employment of Larrie's brother Bob Schmidt, recommended to Walker by Robert Surrey for paid employment for General Walker says if Bob Schmidt was involved with the shot April 10, 1963 it was part of a staged shot working with Surrey, not actual intent to murder Walker. (Because Bob Schmidt did not try to kill Walker when he was later hired as chauffeur and had opportunity!!!!!!--because that Walker shot of April 10, 1963 never was about trying to kill General Walker!)

There is no other candidate for Coleman's No. 1 to my knowledge. In favor of Bob Schmidt as No. 1 is the plausibility of vet Bob Schmidt known to be in Dallas and in Robert Surrey/Walker circles in early 1963 via his brother Larrie, possible need for money (reflected in the Larrie Schmidt letters), and there is the decades-later hearsay claim.

And then the long narrow face.

When I saw the long narrow face I said to myself, "Self, I think this may be a match." Anyway that's my best guess at identity of No. 1. Robert L. Schmidt seems to check most of the boxes as at least possible for No. 1--if this isn't a false positive.

Greg, Have you developed this to include your hypothesis to explain Surrey's staging of the event? Have you pursued his history yet?

33 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Please show me your proof that Lajos Marton escaped from the prison at Re.

Steve Thomas

And you'll provide me evidence he was in prison on November 22? We know that he wasn't in mid-November.

Can you tell me who served as camp director of île de Ré in November?