Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Baron and the Paines...


Steve Duffy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Paul:

No I didn't address it to you.I addressed it to Bill. I have addressed this point to you before and I am convinced that you are convinced about it. So there is no real point in arguing it with you. I am addressing it to Bill, because I like a lot of what Bill has done so far. And I understand he is trying to get a book published. And I wish it to be a good one, since it has the ingredients to be that. And we need more good books on this case. I didn' t like waiting three years for the Douglass book after Breach of Trust.

Therefore I don't wish him to include this stuff about Walker, which, in my view is mainly WC/FBI hokum which simply does not stand up to scrutiny on multiple angles.

OK, Jim, now I understand.

I mean even Bugliosi said that fundamentally, the case against Oswald for the Walker shooting comes down to Marina. And because his book was at least partly inspired by David Phillips, he chose to believe her. (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, p. 364) I don't. SImply because her stories changed so often, she was under too many negative influences, pressure was applied to her in more than one way, and in a court of law, in all probability, she would not have testified. The only time she was ever even softly cross examined, she did not do very well...

Jim, I don't agree with Bugliosi that the Oswald/Walker case comes down to Marina only. The testimony of George De Mohrenschildt confirms it. The testimony of Volkar Schmidt confirms it. Even the heavily doctored photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald inadvertently lend strong evidence to the Oswald/Walker case.

I do admit that the only direct witness we have is Marina's testimony, and I suppose that one may resort to reductionism to pull things down to that level -- but then it becomes a question of which researcher knows Marina better than the others.

You (and many) say that Marina changed her story often. I see only two phases: (1) when Marina was terrified of the FBI and the situation she found herself in by surprise; and (2) when Marina calmed down and took the oath of a witness. Then she told the truth.

In phase 1 Marina denied everything. That sounds normal to me. That would be the normal human reaction in those strange circumstances. However, in phase 2 Marina came to trust the FBI and the Warren Commission and she told them the truth as she knew it. My evidence for this is that she never changed her story -- ever -- after she entered phase 2.

I'm not promoting the Warren Commission -- I'm disappointed in their rigid conclusions and their deliberate neglect of much evidence. Yet I'm not so one-sided as to imagine that everything they published must therefore be rejected as pure lies.

In order to solve the JFK assassination the researcher must demonstrate that he or she knows Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina Oswald very well. I think researchers in general treat the Oswalds with too much haste. Everything depends on their psychology, their circumstances, their reactions and their motives.

Marina was worried about being deported, penniless, with her children. She stopped worrying when the FBI told her that the American public had sent her many thousands of dollars in sympathy for the cause of a young mother. When she saw that the FBI behaved more honestly and civily than the Russian KGB, she calmed right down and cooperated fully. That's my take on it.

If somebody believes that Marina lied, I always challenge them to prove the charge. So far, no proofs have surfaced, as far as I can tell. I'm always open to firm evidence.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jim - Do you think the backyard LHO photos are fakes?

Paul - what is your source on the gathering where Volkmar Schmidt turns LHO towards Edwin Walker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim - Do you think the backyard LHO photos are fakes?

Paul - what is your source on the gathering where Volkmar Schmidt turns LHO towards Edwin Walker?

So, Paul B., I'll first answer the question addressed to me. My source for the gathering where Schmidt turns Oswald against Walker is the 1995 interview of Volkmar Schmidt by William (Bill) Kelly, who is so active on this FORUM. Here's the URL:

http://jfkcountercou...-interview.html

In 2008 William Kelly also reviewed the movie, Valkarie, but his review was centered around his former interview of Volkmar Schmidt. So this movie review was transformed into an elaboration on Kelly's take on the Schmidt involvement with Oswald. Here's the URL:

http://www.truthmove...orum/topic/1344

I find William Kelly's approach to Schmidt and his interpretation of events to be cogent, cohesive and comprehensive. This is a major clue in the JFK assassination, in my opinion.

Now, Paul B., I know you addressed the first question to Jim, but I'd like to insert my two cents. There are at least three different poses of Oswald's backyard photograph. Marina was very certain that she took only one photo that day. She could not explain why she was later shown multiple poses. I believe Marina, so my conclusion is that one of the Oswald backyard photographs was genuine, and all the others are fakes.

There is plenty of scientific evidence that proves that most of those photographs are fakes. Where did the fakes come from? I believe they came from Lee Harvey Oswald himself. I believe Oswald made the fakes at the Jagger/Chiles/Stovall photograph processing shop where he worked, and I believe it was exactly this personal use of the company equipment that got him fired.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well thought out theory. What do you make of the copy found by DeM later with Oswald's writing 'hunter of Fascists ha ha'?

Paul B.,

I think it's been established that Marina Oswald wrote the "Hunter of Fascists -- Ha Ha" on the back of that photo. I'm too tired to look for my source on that right now. Maybe another forum member will chime in here...

--Tommy :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well thought out theory. What do you make of the copy found by DeM later with Oswald's writing 'hunter of Fascists ha ha'?

Paul B.,

I think it's been established that Marina Oswald wrote the "Hunter of Fascists -- Ha Ha" on the back of that photo. I'm too tired to look for my source on that right now. Maybe another forum member will chime in here...

--Tommy :sun

Paul B., I agree with Tommy here -- we have two sources that are fairly authoritative. The first source is the HSCA testimony of Marina herself, in which she admitted that the handwriting is hers, although she didn't remember writing it. The second source is George De Mohrenschildt (DM) in his booklet, I'm a Patsy, I'm a Patsy, in which he ascribes the inscription to Marina Oswald. Following are George DM's own words:

"Here Marina was again making fun of her husband, jeering Lee's very serious anti-fascists feelings, which we knew so well and described in several chapters of this book...The man of such anti-fascist inclinations could not be the assassin of the most liberal and race-conscious President in the history of the United States."

George DM continually insisted that Lee was innocent -- from his Warren Commission testimony until his HSCA subpoena when he delivered this booklet in lieu of testimony.

Yet this was contradictory -- George DM also admitted that Lee Harvey Oswald blamed JFK for the Bay of Pigs disaster. How are we to explain this?

It seems, psychologically, that Lee Harvey Oswald was always in sympathy with the underdog. If the American blacks were oppressed, Oswald would speak up for them. And if Cuban Exiles felt betrayed, Oswald would speak up for them. Yet this is the thinking of an immature person -- since actually the Cuban Exiles acted as allies of those who oppressed blacks in the South. So, simply siding with the underdog would twist a person into pretzel positions in politics.

George DM did not seem to think this through, either. In any case, Paul B., my take on George DM's copy of the 'backyard photograph' is as follows:

(1) Marina took one and only one photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald dressed in black and holding his guns and The Militant. That is what she remembers.

(2) Lee Harvey Oswald used the photo equipment at Jagger/Chiles/Stovall to make variations on that single photograph. He did this for fun, possibly, but also for plausible deniability, in case the police ever found one of these photos. That is, Lee knew aforehand that he could prove that these photos were 'fake' and therefore inadmissable as legal evidence. (This, IMHO, is the "Occam's razor" explanation for the whole series of 'backyard photographs.')

(3) Lee signed one of those photos on the back. That handwriting has been verified.

(4) The added inscription, "Hunter of fascists, ha ha ha," was written by Marina, although she doesn't remember writing it -- yet she admits it is her handwriting.

(5) George DM said that Marina gave him the picture. Also, he said it was in her character to make sarcastic remarks about Lee.

(6) George DM received this picture on 5 April 1963. In only five more days, on 10 April 1963, somebody would shoot at ex-General Edwin Walker, the alleged "fascist."

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. JFK's assassin did 'shoot an apple.'.

2. Where was Walkers head in relation to the sill? What was the LOS from the shooters position?

Dissonance.

============

''By the way, it wasn't a silhouette, since there was no shade, it was hot outside and the window was open, and the light was on inside. The target was in clear sight.'' -hmm ...even better. ? . How is that not supportive of my contention?

John, I simply find it difficult to believe that anybody is a good enough marksman to shoot a rifle from the 40 yard line of a football field, and deliberately hit a window sill on the 4 yard line, in order to deflect his shot just enough to miss his target's head by a couple of inches.

To your point (and to the best of my knowledge) Walker's head was directly past the sill, perhaps 12 feet. The window was open and the target was in plain view because the light was on inside, and the shooter could not be seen from inside the house.

Nevertheless, in my personal opinion, a deliberate miss under those conditions isn't just trick shooting, that's virtually impossible. A person who would even try such a thing would not care whether his target would be killed or not.

So, if the shooter cared nothing for his target, then why not just accept that the shooter tried to kill the target, but simply missed because the shot was deflected by an accidental hit on the window sill?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well thought out theory. What do you make of the copy found by DeM later with Oswald's writing 'hunter of Fascists ha ha'?

Paul B.,

I think it's been established that Marina Oswald wrote the "Hunter of Fascists -- Ha Ha" on the back of that photo. I'm too tired to look for my source on that right now. Maybe another forum member will chime in here...

--Tommy :sun

[...]

(1) Marina took one and only one photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald dressed in black and holding his guns and The Militant. That is what she remembers.

[...]

Paul,

I seem to remember Marina's saying that she took two photos of Lee and that he had to advance the film for her between the two exposures. (I do realize that it's probably just my imagination....)

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q. Did you hold it up to your eye and look through the viewer to take the picture?

A. Yes.

Q. And after you took the picture what did you do after you took the first picture?

A. I went into the house and did things I had to attend to.

Q. How many pictures did you take?

A. I think I took two.

Q. When you took the first picture you held it up to your eye?

A. Yes; that is what I recall.

Q. What did you do next?

A. I believe he did something with it and told me to push it again.

Q. The first time you pushed it down to take the picture?

A. Yes.

Q. And the first time, what happened before you took the second picture?

A. He changed his pose.

Q. What I am getting at is, did you give the camera to him so he would move the film forward or did you do that?

A. He did that.

Q. So you took the picture and handed the camera to him?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he do?

A. He said, "Once again," and I did it again.

Q. So he have you back the camera?

A. For the second time; yes.

Q. Did he put the rifle down?

A. You see, that is the way I remember it.

Q. Did he put the rifle down on the ground between--

A. I don't remember. I was so annoyed with all this procedure so the sooner I could get through, the better, so I don't recollect.

Q. But you do remember taking the picture?

A. Yes; I am the one who took the picture and the weather was right.

Q. What did you say?

A. Somebody speculated the picture couldn't be taken; the weather was wrong.

Q. I am not interested in what people speculated.

A. There is nobody to blame for it but me.

Q. When you took the first picture and you gave him the camera, did you walk over to him and give him the camera or did he walk over to you?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Are these the only two pictures you ever took in your life at least up to that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you taken any pictures since then?

A. I try at home, to photograph the kids at home with a Poloroid camera. They didn't come out right.

Q. When you took the picture did he tell you to hold your hands steady?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you try to do that?

A. Yes.

Q. After you took the two pictures-were there just two that you took?

A. Yes; as far as I remember.

Q. When you say as far as you remember, could there have been more than you took?

A. I don't think so. You mean the same day, if that is the only pictures?

Q. The same day at the same time you sure you only took two?

A. I remember I clicked the thing twice. If it was four times or six times, I don't have any more pictures to prove it. I remember definitely two.

Q. Could it have been more than two?

A. If it could be more, I would tell you I remember, it was four times or a whole hour.

Q. I am asking are you sure it was two or are you not sure, or it was at least two?

A. At least two. I am not sure because I do not remember all the details. I remember definitely two and it wasn't clothers changing and another session.

Q. What I am getting at is are you sure you didn't take three, for example?

A. No; I am not sure.

Q. Do you know what he did with the film after these pictures were taken?

A. No; I don't.

Q. Did there come a time when he showed you photographs? In other words, when he had the film developed and showed you the photographs?

A. I really don't remember that. He probably did.

Q. You don't remember if he ever showed them to you?

A. There is a lot of things I don't remember by now.

Q. I am just asking, I am not saying you should or shouldn't remember, I am just trying to clarify what you are saying. Are you saying you don't know if you ever saw these pictures while he was alive and you were with him?

A. Right now it is not clear in my memory. I have seen the pictures so many times, I don't know if it was the Warren Commission report, the news media, or I saw them at the apartment.

Q. You are not sure when you first saw the pictures?

A. I am not sure.

Q. Do you know if you ever saw them in his presence, that is Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. I do not remember right now. But I did, in the testimony before the warren commission, if I said I did, I did.

Q. But do you have any recollection now?

A. No; I don't

Q. Do you have any recollection of him ever saying anything about these particular poses or the photographs?

A. Let me turn back what strikes my memories, George de Mohrenschildt came--I am not trying to confuse you, you know, give you a false statement. I try to get my memory to go. What strikes me, I think I was surprised that he showed pictures to George de Mohrenschildt because I thought the rifle and the gun, first of all I was always against it so, if in my memory I remember being surprised at him showing pictures like that to George, so apparently I saw them at the apartment.

Q. You remember him showin the pictures to George?

A. Something strikes my memory that how dare he show pictures like that to a friend.

Q. Would you think about it for a few moments and tell me if you can remember anything else about him showing either or both of these photographs to George de Mohrenschildt?

A. I don't want to cast shadows on somebody that is maybe innocent and comments they maybe did not make.

Q. I am not asking you to say anything good or bad about Mr. De Mohrenschildt, just simply tell me if you remember that particular incident, him showing these pictures to George de Mohrenschildt.

A. It is so hard to dig in your memory 13 years ago.

Q. Take your time.

A. I vaguely remember because it still strikes my memory it surprised me that he showed them to him, so apparently it was at the apartment.

Q. When he was arrested and you spoke to him at the jail, did he say anything about these photographs?

A. No.

Q. May I be excused for a second?

A. At this time it is approximately 5 minutes after 12, and at the request of Mrs. Porter we will take a break for a few minutes. (A short recess was taken)

By Mr. KLEIN:

Q. I is now approximately 10 minutes after 12. I didn't speak to you at all during the break, did I?

A. No; I didn't see you during the break.

Q. You left the room?

A. Yes.

Q. The same people are present, Clifford Fenton, Mrs, McGrath, myself, and you, you being Marina Oswald Porter. When you took that break I was asking you some questions about these two photographs which we marked JFK exhibit 1 and JFK exhibit 2. I just wanted to clarify one thing. You said that Lee Harvey Oswald was the one who moved the film forward after you took the first picture?

A. Yes; I did.

Q. Do you recall exactly what happened? You snapped the first picture; did you give him the camera at the point?

A. I don't remember. I think I did. I probably did because I don't know what to do with it and he insisted on the second take so he had to do whatever had to be done with the camera.

Q. So you didn't.

A. I didn't know the procedure to take one picture from the other.

Q. So to move it forward, you must have given him the camera; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall whether you were standing in the same place when you took both of these pictures?

A. I think I was.

Q. What is the address where these pictures were taken?

A. I don't know.

Q. Where was it?

A. It is in Dallas. I think it is the Oak Leaf area.

Q. You were also telling us that you remember that he showed one or both of these photographs to George de Mohrenschildt; is that right?

A. I vaguely remember or try to remember.

Q. Do you remember anything about that, what was said, who was present?

A. I do not remember what was said but I believe George and G-E-A-N-E-A, his wife, were there.

Q. What did you say?

A. I am trying to clear my memory. I do not remember the details of the conversation, but why I think I remember this incident was I was surprised at him showing these pictures to George.

Q. Do you recall anything he said to George when he showed them to him?

A. No; I don't.

Q. Do you have any knowledge of what happened to the originals of these photographs?

A. I assume the Warren Commission or FBI or police have them.

Q. Do you have any knowledge of what happened to them after Lee Oswald had them developed?

A. What happened to them?

Q. What he did with them.

A. He probably kept them in his closet where he kept all his junk.

Q. Do you know that or are you just guessing?

A. I am just guessing because I didn't have them among my things or anywhere around, lying around the living room or bedroom.

Q. To your knowledge, were any copies make of these photographs before the assassination?

A. No; I don't. I can see the position of his hands are changed.

Q. Do you know whether Lee Harvey Oswald might have given a copy of this photograph to anybody?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did he ever speak to you about these photographs at any time after taking them?

A. No. What was there to talk about?

Q. And you never had a copy of either of these photographs?

A. Apparently they were in the apartment.

Q. I am saying did you have the original or a copy of these photographs before the assassination?

A. Apparently they were at the apartment.

Q. I am saying personally--

A. Me as a memento, no.

Q. Did you ever possess a copy of these photographs, have it in your possession?

A. For me to keep?

Q. Yes.

A. Not that I remember. I wasn't that enthused about these pictures. Q. Did you ever write anything on the back of either the original or a copy of one of these photographs?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever write a note or anything to George de Mohrenschildt on the back of the original or a copy?

A. No.

Q. Are you sure of that?

A. Yes.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/marinade.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernice, I appreciate that you posted part of Marina Oswald-Porter's testimony to the HSCA in 1976-1977. That was probably what Tommy had in mind when he recollected that Marina recollected that she took two photographs that day.

However, Marina also admits to being very confused about it, and the attorney seems to be grilling her very intently, putting pressure on her. I mention this because Marina was also very confused during her Warren Commiission testimony, when she could only remember taking one photograph.

Let's briefly review her original testimony:

-------------------- BEGIN excerpt of Marina Oswald's testimony to the Warren Commission on Monday 3 February 1964 -------------------

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can’t say exactly. Because I didn’t attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures. I don’t know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me if someone should ask me how to photograph, I don’t know.

Mr. RANKIN. Was it on a day off that you took the picture?

Mrs. OSWALD. It was on a Sunday.

Mr. RANKIN. How did it occur? Did he come to you and ask you to take the picture?

Mrs. OSWALD. I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and I was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.

Mr. RANKIN. And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time, was he?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

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 attelltion 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 af great significance for everybody, but for me at that lime 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.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with the prints of the photograph after the prints were made? That is, did you put them in a photographic album yourself?

Mrs. OSWALD. Lee gave me one photograph and asked me to keep it for June somewhere. Of course June doesn’t need photographs like that.

-------------------- END excerpt of Marina Oswald's testimony to the Warren Commission on Monday 3 February 1964 -------------------

Notice that she originally recalled taking only one picture. Then she was shown two different poses, so she concluded -- by logic and not by memory -- that she must have taken two. That confused her memory. Then, in 1977 when she was questioned again, she was shown three different poses, and she had to explain that she only "remembered" in 1964 taking two, but now she sees she must have taken three.

I don't think this was deliberate deception by the Government, although it could easily seem so. There were even more than these three, since sometimes the rifle scope appears on it, and sometimes it is absent!

What is clear is that somebody doctored one original photograph! We know this is true because experts have shown that the face of one photograph has been pasted onto a different bodily pose in at least one other photograph, and then even that second photograph was doctored.

Who could have done this? And why? A few JFK researchers have speculated that the Government did this as early as March, 1963, because they were already plotting the murder of JFK and to make Oswald the patsy. I disagree. It is a gargantuan stretch, and requires building a scenario out of thin air.

No, the most straightforward explanation is given to us by the fact that in early 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald was working at a sophisticated photographic laboratory named Jagger/Chiles/Stovall in Dallas, where he had been working since October, 1962. Lee was a camera buff, and he would use company equipment for personal projects, according to his co-worker. (For example, the phony ID card of Alek J. Hidell was created on the Jagger/Chiles/Stovall photography equipment.)

Since in the backyard photograph Lee was holding an issue of The Militant newspaper in which ex-General Edwin Walker accused of being a fascist like Hitler, we can plausibly speculate that Lee already had plans to shoot at Walker. Since that was a crime, we can also suppose that Lee planned for a plausible deniability for his photograph -- he would make 'fakes' of it so he could later prove they were 'fakes' in court, just in case the police ever found these photographs.

Poor Marina -- she had to explain all this to the Government but she had utterly no idea what Lee Harvey Oswald was up to. To protect her (and to control her) Lee lied to Marina every single day.

But the Government would not believe Marina -- they grilled her and grilled her. They had no patience at all with the fact that she had only recently taught herself to speak English. They had these multiple photographs, and she admitted to taking one photo -- but they had more than one! Surely she must be withholding vital information! But she wasn't. And all this chaos simply made her more confused about the topic over the years.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wont get involved in the backyard photos any more. My position is ous of the norm and I'm not going to repeat myself.

re the shot. The question is still where walker was in the lit room in relation to the snipers position. You misunderstand if I think the intent was to shoot to deflect. The point is that a kill shot was not dependent on shooting close to the window frame. In fact that is stupid. So either the shooter was not good and the shooter in DP very good or the shooter at walker was good enough to miss him and happened to hit the frame which further exagerated the miss. This cannot be resolved on assumptions. The only way is to see what the shooter could see and I think that that will show that the kill shot is not so that skirting the frame is in any way an essential risk. btw christmas and all that. I reiterate that I think you are closer to the solution than many but that ways of looking at evidence is a choice that can be tainted subjectively and that a plausible scenario arrived at that is built on some shaky foundations will always create puzzles with more choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wont get involved in the backyard photos any more. My position is out of the norm and I'm not going to repeat myself.

re the shot. The question is still where walker was in the lit room in relation to the snipers position. You misunderstand if I think the intent was to shoot to deflect. The point is that a kill shot was not dependent on shooting close to the window frame. In fact that is stupid. So either the shooter was not good and the shooter in DP very good or the shooter at walker was good enough to miss him and happened to hit the frame which further exagerated the miss. This cannot be resolved on assumptions. The only way is to see what the shooter could see and I think that that will show that the kill shot is not so that skirting the frame is in any way an essential risk. btw christmas and all that. I reiterate that I think you are closer to the solution than many but that ways of looking at evidence is a choice that can be tainted subjectively and that a plausible scenario arrived at that is built on some shaky foundations will always create puzzles with more choices.

Thanks for the clarification, John. I admit that your scenario remains in the realm of possibility. A master shooter -- as good as the grassy-knoll shooter at Dealey Plaza -- might have intended to scare the hell out of ex-General Edwin Walker.

The fact that the shot hit the sill might not have been the only reason that the bullet missed Walker's head. That all remains possible. Yet I still don't see any reason for trying to scare Walker. What would be the purpose? Perhaps I missed that.

As for the Backyard Photograph angle, I've moved my discussion to an older thread called "Backyard Pictures." The current thread was originally about the Baron and the Paines.

Happy Holidays,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, I've made my point. OK, we can move on to the answer to why.. Firstly. This decorated cold-hearted soldier was scared to hell? Simple: it was a risk. No biggie. His whole life is strewn with risks. Fatal, bodily and socially. What we are left with is the story that Walker was the target of an assassination attempt. He survived to tell a tale and you know well what a strange one that is. There is a purpose to all things. You know, one of the wierd things was later (berkley barb, reagan, governor), called The Reagan Ruckus. Strange how he was offered covert support from a significant group in the form of either support or the opposite, it was up to Reagan to say. That shows a repeat of a pattern which could hold the answer to that one. It even matches Oswalds own writing on the Minutemen and his personal take on a known strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible that Walker was in on the shooting? That he stood still to be shot at, possibly to incriminate Oswald, whom he is posited to have picked as JFK patsy?

They did find criteria to put him in a mental hospital in the same period.

David, it's a fair question that has stood the test of time. It's relevant to the thread about "Baron" George De Mohrenschildt and Michael Paine, because the closest they come to the JFK assassination, I believe, is their social complicity with Lee Harvey Oswald during this controversial time of his shooting at ex-General Edwin Walker.

My reason for doubting that Walker himself staged his own shooting is that such a theory rests on weak premises and assumptions.

Firstly, the theory suggests that Walker chose Oswald as a patsy out of the clear blue sky. In April of 1963, Oswald had not yet made any public appearances as a phony officer of the FPCC. The only known motive to select Oswald in April, 1963 was that he had allegedly defected to the USSR in 1959 and brought home a Russian wife; not particularly compelling. (Also, this approach ignores Jim Root's evidence that Walker himself might have helped Oswald get into the USSR.)

Secondly, the theory does not tell us what Walker stood to gain by staging his own shooting. Attention? This motive further ignores the fact that while Walker was away on his "Midnight Ride" speaking tour with segregationist preacher Billy James Hargis, his live-in publisher, Robert Allen Surrey saw two men in a car prowling around the Walker house.

Thirdly, the theory attempts to rest on the premise that Walker might have been insane. That is a political opinion that was begun by JFK and RFK. Walker was indeed a political enemy of the worst kind to JFK. On 30 September 1962 Walker instigated a race riot at Ole Miss University in Oxford, Mississippi, where hundreds were wounded and two were killed. In response, JFK and RFK demanded that ex-General Edwin Walker be detained for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation in a military hospital.

That, however, was one of the great blunders of the JFK Administration. Neither the White House -- nor any political body -- is qualified to decide who is insane and who is not. Political psychiatry is a two-edged sword that could be played by both the right-wing and the left-wing if it ever became common practice.

The famous psychiatrist, Thomas Szasz, immediately protested this abuse of power, and the ACLU immediately joined Thomas Szasz to demand the immediate release of ex-General Edwin Walker from this travesty of justice. Walker was released after five days, and RFK all but apologized.

Now, one can understand the enormous personal frustration of JFK and RFK, since the Ole Miss riots happened at the peak of the Cuban Missile Crisis!! But personal frustration is no excuse for the violation of Habeas Corpus and other basic human rights.

So, no, Walker was not insane. Also, Walker had no solid reason to incriminate Oswald -- yet.

The actual criteria were: (1) George and Jeanne De Mohrenshildt (and possibly Michael Paine and Volkmar Schmidt, and also Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine) had ample evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter at ex-General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963; (2) they all declined to tell the Dallas Police about their evidence; (3) the Baron told his friends, the Voshinins on Easter Sunday 14 April 1963; (4) Mrs. Voshinin immediately told the FBI (as she later told Dick Russell); and (5) the FBI has rules about warning shooting victims.

It was only after Walker learned from the FBI (or other internal government agency, as he often said) that Lee Harvey Oswald was his April shooter -- only then did Walker have any reason to select Oswald as the patsy for a plot to kill JFK. It makes most sense to me that Walker selected Oswald out of revenge.

In other words, Oswald had to act first -- as the shooter on 10 April 1963 (as he confessed to Marina three hours later). Then Walker had to learn about the shooting four days later (through the FBI through Mrs. Voshin through George De Mohrenshildt). (Only this explains Walker's life-long obsession with what he called the "April Crime.")

Was Walker insane? We have no evidence that he was. Was Walker a deadly enemy of JFK and RFK? We have lots of evidence to affirm this.

Walker's close association with the John Birch Society and its guiding paramilitary arm, the Minutemen, continually repeated on a daily basis that JFK, exactly like every US President since FDR had been Communist, a traitor, and deserved the firing squad. Just this had been the message of the Walker-Hargis "Midnight Ride."

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...