Who Wrote the Walker Letter?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Greg,

Thank you. For confirming what I believe (I may be wrong). Which is that if a trial of LHO had occurred, all the evidence would have been circumstantial. Which is fine. Individuals have been convicted in the U.S. only on circumstantial evidence. Even in death penalty cases.

Fact is, there is no verifiable fact (forget the rules of evidence) that ties Marina's husband to JFK's killing.

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

Thank you. For confirming what I believe (I may be wrong). Which is that if a trial of LHO had occurred, all the evidence would have been circumstantial. Which is fine. Individuals have been convicted in the U.S. only on circumstantial evidence. Even in death penalty cases.

Fact is, there is no verifiable fact (forget the rules of evidence) that ties Marina's husband to JFK's killing.

Jon,

I didn't realize you were specifically referring to a case against Oswald. He was never going to trial if they could help it. But let's say he did, and he managed to get a lawyer from outside the sphere of influence of Wade and the DPD - and who was at least semi-competent. How does that trial look? Just about all the physical evidence is challenged - mainly (but not only) on grounds of chain of possession. Same goes for many of the alleged facts. Oswald's adamant denials of those allegations would require them to be challenged. This would include rifle ownership, the BYP, living on Neely St and ever making that trip to Mexico City. I doubt that would be the end of the challenge on facts, either. Even if a corrupt judge and jury still convicted, the damage would be done with elements of the frame and perhaps even of the plot, exposed to the world.

Lone Nutters can ignore the legacy of Wade and the DPD in all of this and maintain they had an airtight case against Oswald, but I doubt they are fooling themselves. Most of them aren't stupid. As pointed out by one of them here, their target audience is lurkers.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I'm sure Wade and the boys would have wrung a "confession" out of LHO eventually.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, I'm afraid I'll just have to wait for you to find the specific reference, I certainly don't think you can say something that specific is implicit in his writing. I had the opportunity to spend a good deal of time with Gaeton, discussed the Odio affair at length with him and specifically talked about who might have visited Odio. Certainly he thought Odio was telling the truth and was sincere. However I cannot recall any point at which he stated he believed that Hall and Howard had been the individuals visiting her - I recall a very different opinion on his part about Hall and Howard. However if you can find that specifically in his book I will fault my memory and cede the point.

-- Larry

Well, Larry, I find I need to back-pedal on this point. I can't locate the text from "The Last Investigation" that I had in mind when I wrote that Gaeton Fonzi held Loran Hall under suspicion. Here's the closest I came to that text:

"Based on background and character alone, Silvia and Annie Odio were highly credible witnesses. They story held up through my subsequent heavy checking and I was absolutely convinced they were telling the truth." (Fonzi, TLI, p. 113)

It was vital to all readers to learn that Silvia Odio had told at least three people about the OSWALD incident before the JFK murder. Fonzi continued:

"First: If the incident did occur as Odio contended, then understanding it was key to grasping the truth about Lee Harvey Oswald and the John F. Kennedy assassination. No theory of the assassination would stand without somehow accounting for it. Second:

That was the very point the Warren Commission itself quickly recognized. Therefore, it was forced to pummel the facts about its investigation of the incident into lies that would confirm its Lone Nut assassin conclusion. The Warren Commission was hampered, of course, by the FBI's initial bungling in investigating the incident. Silvia Odio had provided good physical descriptions of her visitors and details about their car. The FBI simply did not vigorously pursue those leads, and instead spent valuable time questioning people about Silvia's credibility and her emotional problems." (Fonzi, TLI, p. 114)

In this same context, Fonzi raises the FBI interview of Loran Eugene Hall on 26 November 1964. Fonzi fails (as everybody else has failed) to explain why the FBI tagged Loran Hall in the context of Silvia Odio. He glosses right over this crucial point.

Anyway, Gaeton Fonzi does mention that Loran Hall was an Anti-Castro "guerrilla" and that he was one of those arrested at No Name Keys for running guns to Cuban Exile paramilitary activists, in cooperation with the International Anti-Communist Brigade and their leaders, Gerry Patrick Hemming and Frank Sturgis. (Fonzi neglected a further point -- that Loran Hall was also connected with Ex-General WALKER multiple times in 1963.)

My old question rose again: why did the FBI approach Loran Hall in this? How could Gaeton Fonzi just gloss over this surprise move? Indeed, even Gaeton Fonzi takes it for granted, as perhaps most researchers have.

Anyway, Larry, it was Gaeton Fonzi's strident defense of the Odio Incident that gave me the hasty impression that Fonzi had held Loran Hall specifically under suspicion. He didn't.

In fact, when Fonzi retold that Loran Hall recanted his story to the FBI that he and Larry Howard visited Silvia Odio with William Seymour instead of Lee Harvey Oswald, he contrasted Silvia Odio's truth with Loran Hall's many lies. That was his handling of it.

Gerry Patrick Hemming is famous for his many lies -- and I think that Gaeton Fonzi placed Loran Hall in the same category -- just another big xxxx seeking guns, funds and drugs in support of Anti-Castro Cubans.

So, Gaeton Fonzi brilliantly saw the central, crucial role of the Silvia Odio story as a key to the solution to the JFK murder, yet he overlooked the possibility that Loran Hall's first story to the FBI was two-thirds true -- that he and Larry Howard did visit Silvia Odio -- only actually with Lee Harvey OSWALD.

Silvia Odio said that there was a Cuban looking one -- that was Loran Hall, a half-Cuban guy from Kansas -- and there was a Mexican looking one -- that was Larry Howard, a Mexican-American from Los Angeles -- both bad-ass mercenaries in the Cuban paramilitary game. She said they used their war names, and Loran and Larry continually used their war names when on the road.

Why didn't Silvia Odio recognize them from FBI photographs? Well -- how do we know that the FBI showed her the right photographs? Yet if they did, then the explanation for Odio failing to ID them might related to this report from Gaeton Fonzi:

"What I recall most about the first meeting I had with Silvia Odio is her fear. It was still very much with her after all those years." (Fonzi, TLI, p. 115)

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 5, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo,

I'm aware the Warren Commission did not examine certain autopsy materials and instead relied on, for example, the Rydberg drawing(s).

It's not clear to me why this was the case.

I believe that if the Commission had insisted on examining all the original autopsy materials, it could have gotten the materials through its subpoena power.

I'm still looking for a verifiable fact.

Well, Jon, in my theory, the Warren Commission was constructed with one purpose -- to push the "Lone Nut" theory in the interest of National Security in 1963-1964 and beyond -- for as long as the Cold War lasted.

This is a clear explanation for hiding the JFK brain and x-rays -- they provided absolute and undeniable proof of multiple shooters.

There is no other reason to suppress them. There has never been a case in US legal history, I daresay, in which medical evidence which was available was kept out of court, and hand-drawn pictures, calculated to blame a "Lone Nut" shooting from behind, were substituted.

There is even an "arrow" in one of the hand-drawn pictures, to indicate the path of the bullet, in case anybody didn't get it.

There is no other rational reason. Hiding the medical evidence is a clear confession that the "Lone Nut Shooter" theory could never withstand the everyday evidence.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Greg,

Thank you. For confirming what I believe (I may be wrong). Which is that if a trial of LHO had occurred, all the evidence would have been circumstantial. Which is fine. Individuals have been convicted in the U.S. only on circumstantial evidence. Even in death penalty cases.

Fact is, there is no verifiable fact (forget the rules of evidence) that ties Marina's husband to JFK's killing.

OK, Jon, I see where you're coming from. You're recognizing that there was no "eye witness" of LHO shooting JFK.

That's right.

In fact, the entire case against OSWALD was to be made by his rifle on the 6th floor -- and hiding the medical evidence that would have shown different bullets from different weapons.

Luckily for the prosecution, the Tippit murder would be brought to bear on the jury, showing "inclination" if not motivation -- and then the WALKER shooting of April 1963 would add extra weight to this, to portray OSWALD as a wild, homicidal maniac.

It's most unfortunate for the OSWALD family that the US Government used Lee Harvey OSWALD in this way. Yet J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles saw this one choice -- either sacrifice OSWALD, or risk rioting, Civil strife, a Civil War, and perhaps World War Three.

Based on this, they sacrificed OSWALD. Once the Truth comes out in 2017 about the JFK conspiracy, and it becomes admitted that OSWALD was only the Patsy in a larger Conspiracy, I propose that our US Congress should award the OSWALD family with Medals of Honor in appreciation for saving the USA from a Cold War catastrophe.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 5, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

This isn't quite right, Paul.

He did explain his methodology and give some examples of errors:

About my methodology: I will rewrite it in Russian as it is (and as I can read it), and then I will give a version, how the same sentence should look if written correctly (or at least more correctly); I also will mark mistakes with bold. If needed, I also will give verbatim translation to show where way of expression is incorrect. Here also I would to remark that WC translation given under each note, while is correct in terms giving the meaning of text, however, it does not reflect `clumziness` of language and idiomatic mistakes.[/size]

Walker note, Chapter 1:[/size]

Эта клуч почтовый ящику почтам главнем, находиться городу, на улице [/size]ERVAY тот же улице где апека где ты всегда стояла. 4 блоков от апека на эту улицу к почтаму там наидёш наш ящику. Я платил за ящику прошем месяце, так ты не переживаеш об этом.[/size]

Now, the more correct version: Эт[/size]о к[/size]люч [/size]к почтов[/size]ому ящику [/size]в главном почтамте, [/size]который находится [/size]в городе, на улице[/size]ERVAY [/size]- [/size]та же улица, где ап[/size]тека, где ты всегда [/size]ждала. 4 [/size]кварталов от ап[/size]теки на [/size]той же улиц[/size]е к почтам[/size]ту ты на[/size]йдеш[/size]ь наш ящик. Я [/size]заплатил за ящик в прош[/size]лом месяце, так [/size]что не [/size]волнуйся об этом.[/size]

So, if translate original text in English, keeping its actual meaning, it would sound something like this: "This is key mailbox main post office located city, on [/size]ERVAY [/size]street same street where is drugstore where you always stood. 4 blocks from drugstore this street to main post office there you'll find our mailbox. I did pay for mailbox last month, so you are not emoting about it."[/size]

I would like to remark most significant mistakes:[/size]

- lack of equivalents of English words `to`, `for`, `of` and `in` in original text;[/size]

- writing `stood` instead of `waited`, as it should be semantically;[/size]

- there is no word `блок` in Russian, if referring to [/size]city blocks. In Russian this meaning is expressed by word `квартал`. However, author uses `блок`, and it is nothing but russified English word.[/size]

- Author uses incorrect expression in very end of chapter. It is obviuos he wanted to say: `so you should not worry about it`, however he actually said: `so you are not emoting about it`. I.e., his choose of word is wrong - the word used by author translates in English as `emote`.[/size]

Walker note, Chapter 2:[/size]

Посылай посольстве информацию что со мной случилось и так же отрезай из газета (если в газета что-нибудь о мне пишет). Я думаю что посольство быстрее тебе поможит когда знало всё.[/size]Now, as the same should sound if written correctly: Посылай посольстве информацию, что со мной случилось, так же [/size]посылай вырезки из газет[/size]ы (если в газет[/size]е [/size]будут чего-нибудь [/size]обо мне писать). Я думаю, что посольство тебе быстрее помож[/size]ет, [/size]если будет зна[/size]ть больше.[/size]

However, this one chapter is better than previous, beggining of sentence is very good, in general there problems with text just before brackets. Obviously, author wanted to say: "send cuttings from newspapers to Embassy, too", however he actually said: "cut from newspaper, too", and `cut` in his sentence is verb, not noun. I am not sure, how significant is this difference in English, but in Russian it is.[/size]

Walker note, Chapter 3:[/size]

Я платил за дом на 2ои число так не переживаеш об этом.[/size]

Rescript: Я [/size]заплатил за дом 2[/size]го числ[/size]а, так что не [/size]волнуйся об этом.[/size]

Minor errors, however, mistake from chapter 1 with wrong word choice (`emote` instead of `worry`) reccurs here.[/size]

Walker note, Chapter 4

За води и газ тоже платил недавно.[/size]

За вод[/size]у и газ тоже заплатил недавно.[/size]

This one is really nice, only one mistake of orthography, however stylisticly clumsy (by the way, like other sentences, too). I guess in this case WC translation is good, stating `Recently I also paid for water and gas` - the very correct form of English should be `I also paid for water and gas recently`, right?[/size]

Walker note, Chapter 5:[/size]

Возможно что денги с работу будет, они посылает нашу ящику на почтам. Поидеш банк и[/size]

Возможно, что ден[/size]ьги с работ[/size]ы [/size]поступят, [/size]их посылает в наш ящик на почтам[/size]те. По[/size]йдешь [/size]в банк и.[/size]

Last sentence never ends on this page. The end of first sentence of original text verbatim means very close to: `they send our mailbox to main post office`. The very last sentence verbatim reads `Go bank and`.[/size]

He went on to do similar analysis of "in Russia' letters.[/size]

As for his opinion, here it is...[/size]

"However, now I think I can say for sure that first chapter of Walker note contains more mistakes than some of `While in Russia` notes in total. So, if they all are written by the same person, this person significantly lost his skills during 2 years period, from 1961 to 1963. Of course, I am not linguistic expert in any way, but for me Walker note does not look consistent with `While in Russia` notes, since last ones indicates better knowledge of Russian."

In short, Ruth's writing was the best, followed by the author of the "in Russian letters, and author of the Walker letter a distant third. He further was of the opinion that the author of the Walker letter was not the same person as the author of the "in Russia" letters. But as he states clearly, he is not qualified in this field, so you are free to dismiss part or all of what he says.

My personal opinion is that Ruth wrote the Walker letter and in doing so, tried to emulate what she thought was Lee's very poor grammar. She simply over did it. There is (again just in my opinion) more to it than what I am saying, but as others do, I am saving some things for my book.

Well, Greg, this is still not enough. He provided a transliteration of the WALKER letter, but not of the writings by OSWALD that were in Russian from his USSR period. That places the reader at a distinct disadvantage.

Also, your expert says: "that first chapter of Walker note contains more mistakes than some of `While in Russia` notes in total."

While that is valuable information, it remains abstract -- HOW MANY MORE MISTAKES? And what was the EXACT NATURE of each mistake?

He doesn't say. Because of that, we cannot process his claim that, "this person significantly lost his skills during 2 years period, from 1961 to 1963."

How big is "significantly," in this context?

Could it be explained by haste? ...By criminal anxiety? ...By circumstances?

Until we can get the EXACT number of errors, and the EXACT nature of each error, we cannot academically agree with your expert's conclusion, or draw any further conclusions.

Your own estimations, Greg, made the WALKER letter "a distant third" behind Ruth and the USSR writings. Yet until we can see with our own eyes the nature of these grammatical mistakes as translated into English, we will not be able to make such estimates.

Your own theory -- that Ruth Paine forged the WALKER letter -- while not impossible, remains, at the mildest, unproven.

An expert's opinion is required -- and as I recall, your expert did call for more analysis at a high priority.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 5, 2015 by Paul Trejo