Who Wrote the Walker Letter?

[Greg Parker]

Ron Ecker,

Assuming Marina showed her husband the letter, which I doubt, she should have said to him: "You have written this letter in poor Russian. What am I to make of it? Please tell me."

In which case, Marina's husband, skilled in speaking Russian but deficient in writing Russian, should have said:...

Jon (commenting on your response to Ron Ecker):

Please keep in mind that Marina was already jumpy and uncomfortable about Oswald having ordered a rifle.

Now, with that in mind. . . also keep in mind her puzzlement when (on the evening of 4/10) she saw that note.

Her reaction was not: "The grammar is wrong" or "the syntax is wrong."

Rather, her reaction (almost certainly) was; "What the hell has my 'crazy husband' done now?"

Then, (I am tempted to write "CUT TO" because this really sounds like a bad screenplay):

Lee rushes in and says he has just attempted to murder General Walker.

What does she do?

No, she does not say "The grammar in this letter you wrote is wrong, you idiot!"

Nor does say: "Someday, a genius named Greg Parker will appear, and prove that you did not write this! There are ortho-whatever mistakes. . so it was not you who wrote this! Where is the author, Lee? Is he hiding in the closet?"

Nope. None of the above.

So. .. what does Marina say?

She says: "Who is General Walker?!"

That's right: that's what she asks: "Who is General Walker?"

At that point, Lee holds forth that Walker was an American fascist, who deserved to die--and that's why he did it. That's why he attempted to murder the man.

Marina, mortified, responds along the lines of: "You have no right to kill another human being just because you don't agree with his politics!"

etc etc.

Anyway, that's what happened on the night of April 10, 1963.

Lee's behavior marked a major turning point in their marriage.

From that point forward, she was deeply shaken --Lee was not Mr. Nice Guy (who she met in Minsk). Rather, she was concerned she had married a man she really didn't know.

So what is really going on here?

I'll tell you what I believe: In plain English, Lee had successfully gas-lighted Marina (See the movie "Spellbound"if you want to know more about that term; or just Google the term).

Of course, these are subtleties that are beyond Mr. Parker. Greg Parker is ready to head a lynch mob, falsely accuse Ruth Paine, and string her up for a crime she did not commit. And he is wallowing in a false sense of certainty; but, unfortunately, he has this whole matter analyzed incorrectly. All wrong.

For those who doubt my analysis--and especially anyone who is involved in a marriage or other serious relationship--it is a testable hypothesis. Only half-humorously, I suggest the following:

1. Go and order a gun

2. Put the gun in your residence within easy view of your wife.

3. One evening, retrieve the gun, and leave a note (akin to the Walker note, and with grammatical errors).

4. Come running into the house, later in the evening, and say you have shot at someone--e.g., President Obama, or perhaps Vice President Joe Biden, who was visiting your city.

Now here's the proposition to be tested:

Which of the following occurs?

(a) Your wife says: Joe, what's wrong with you? This letter has grammatical errors!

( b ) Your wife says: Joe, have you gone mad? Why are you shooting at a public figure?

(c ) She says: "Joe, Please leave the premises. I never liked you; and I never want to see you again!"

IMHO: It was that kind of a moment, and of one thing I am fairly certain--the answer will not be (a).

DSL

4/22/15 - 5:30 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Will you address the claim by Greg Parker that the letters Oswald wrote earlier in Russia were written in a far superior Russian than the letter Oswald allegedly wrote to Marina regarding the Walker shooting?

I'm not sure how we can accomplish this but, I would dearly love to see all of these letters analysed by an impartial party, fluent in Russian.

Robert:

Re: Letters written by Oswald --in Russian--and in a "far superior style"

In a previous post, you raised this question:

QUOTE:

Shouldn't we be trying to compare the Walker letter with the letters Oswald wrote while in Russia that Greg speaks of? It seems odd that everyone is quietly ignoring this small but significant item. UNQUOTE

In a later post (immediately above) you ask: "Will you address the claim by Greg Parker that the letters Oswald wrote earlier in Russia were written in a far superior Russian than the letter Oswald allegedly wrote to Marina regarding the Walker shooting"?

My response (for now): While in the Soviet Union, Lee Oswald engaged in correspondence with his mother, his brother, and the American Embassy. (There was also a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, who he mistakenly thought was John Connally, and which was forwarded to Fred Korth). All of these letters--which can be found in the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission--were written in English.

Therefore, in order to address your question, I request that you specify what communication (s)--written by Oswald while in the USSR--you are referring to. In other words, please specify the letters to which you are alluding (and that are being used as the basis for this comparison) that were written by Oswald while Oswald was in the Soviet Union and that were written in Russian.

Thanks.

DSL

4/23/15 - 12:30 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0109a.htm

Knock yourself out.

[Thomas Graves]

Ron Ecker,

Assuming Marina showed her husband the letter, which I doubt, she should have said to him: "You have written this letter in poor Russian. What am I to make of it? Please tell me."

In which case, Marina's husband, skilled in speaking Russian but deficient in writing Russian, should have said:...

Jon (commenting on your response to Ron Ecker):

Please keep in mind that Marina was already jumpy and uncomfortable about Oswald having ordered a rifle.

Now, with that in mind. . . also keep in mind her puzzlement when (on the evening of 4/10) she saw that note.

Her reaction was not: "The grammar is wrong" or "the syntax is wrong."

Rather, her reaction (almost certainly) was; "What the hell has my 'crazy husband' done now?"

Then, (I am tempted to write "CUT TO" because this really sounds like a bad screenplay):

Lee rushes in and says he has just attempted to murder General Walker.

What does she do?

No, she does not say "The grammar in this letter you wrote is wrong, you idiot!"

Nor does say: "Someday, a genius named Greg Parker will appear, and prove that you did not write this! There are ortho-whatever mistakes. . so it was not you who wrote this! Where is the author, Lee? Is he hiding in the closet?"

Nope. None of the above.

So. .. what does Marina say?

She says: "Who is General Walker?!"

That's right: that's what she asks: "Who is General Walker?"

At that point, Lee holds forth that Walker was an American fascist, who deserved to die--and that's why he did it. That's why he attempted to murder the man.

Marina, mortified, responds along the lines of: "You have no right to kill another human being just because you don't agree with his politics!"

etc etc.

Anyway, that's what happened on the night of April 10, 1963.

Lee's behavior marked a major turning point in their marriage.

From that point forward, she was deeply shaken --Lee was not Mr. Nice Guy (who she met in Minsk). Rather, she was concerned she had married a man she really didn't know.

So what is really going on here?

I'll tell you what I believe: In plain English, Lee had successfully gas-lighted Marina (See the movie "Spellbound"if you want to know more about that term; or just Google the term).

Of course, these are subtleties that are beyond Mr. Parker. Greg Parker is ready to head a lynch mob, falsely accuse Ruth Paine, and string her up for a crime she did not commit. And he is wallowing in a false sense of certainty; but, unfortunately, he has this whole matter analyzed incorrectly. All wrong.

For those who doubt my analysis--and especially anyone who is involved in a marriage or other serious relationship--it is a testable hypothesis. Only half-humorously, I suggest the following:

1. Go and order a gun

2. Put the gun in your residence within easy view of your wife.

3. One evening, retrieve the gun, and leave a note (akin to the Walker note, and with grammatical errors).

4. Come running into the house, later in the evening, and say you have shot at someone--e.g., President Obama, or perhaps Vice President Joe Biden, who was visiting your city.

Now here's the proposition to be tested:

Which of the following occurs?

(a) Your wife says: Joe, what's wrong with you? This letter has grammatical errors!

( b ) Your wife says: Joe, have you gone mad? Why are you shooting at a public figure?

(c ) She says: "Joe, Please leave the premises. I never liked you; and I never want to see you again!"

IMHO: It was that kind of a moment, and of one thing I am fairly certain--the answer will not be (a).

DSL

4/22/15 - 5:30 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Will you address the claim by Greg Parker that the letters Oswald wrote earlier in Russia were written in a far superior Russian than the letter Oswald allegedly wrote to Marina regarding the Walker shooting?

I'm not sure how we can accomplish this but, I would dearly love to see all of these letters analysed by an impartial party, fluent in Russian.

Robert:

Re: Letters written by Oswald --in Russian--and in a "far superior style"

In a previous post, you raised this question:

QUOTE:

Shouldn't we be trying to compare the Walker letter with the letters Oswald wrote while in Russia that Greg speaks of? It seems odd that everyone is quietly ignoring this small but significant item. UNQUOTE

In a later post (immediately above) you ask: "Will you address the claim by Greg Parker that the letters Oswald wrote earlier in Russia were written in a far superior Russian than the letter Oswald allegedly wrote to Marina regarding the Walker shooting"?

My response (for now): While in the Soviet Union, Lee Oswald engaged in correspondence with his mother, his brother, and the American Embassy. (There was also a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, who he mistakenly thought was John Connally, and which was forwarded to Fred Korth). All of these letters--which can be found in the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission--were written in English.

Therefore, in order to address your question, I request that you specify what communication (s)--written by Oswald while in the USSR--you are referring to. In other words, please specify the letters to which you are alluding (and that are being used as the basis for this comparison) that were written by Oswald while Oswald was in the Soviet Union and that were written in Russian.

Thanks.

DSL

4/23/15 - 12:30 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0109a.htm

Knock yourself out.

That doesn't look like Oswald's handwriting. Much too consistent, straight, and easy to read (for a Russian).

--Tommy

[David Lifton]

You've got me there, Dave. This is the first time I've ever looked at this part of the assassination and, until Greg Parker mentioned them, I was unaware of letters written in Russian by Oswald while he was in Russia, let alone that they were written in a far superior Russian.

I'm just hoping that if I keep bringing the topic up, Greg or someone else will actually post some of these letters, and we can get the ball rolling on analyzing them. Maybe you're right, they might not even exist.

Robert:

Thanks for your prompt reply.

Yes, I was trying to be diplomatic: frankly, I do not think any such letters exist. To put it differently, I have no idea what writing (of Oswald) that Greg Parker is talking about. Maybe there is some letter that Lee wrote that I have forgotten about (and if so, please specify and send it to me).

Now, let me "move on" to another matter, and I would like your help --Robert Prudhomme--and perhaps that of Jon G. Tidd, as well.

I hardly have the time to be on the Internet, but I did spend some time writing these posts about the Walker letter (and about LHO's Russian fluency). Late last night--in my time zone here in California--I turned on my computer and there was a long and inflammatory response from Greg Parker addressing my recent critique of his "Walker hypothesis" (and by that I am referring to his allegations that Ruth Paine was the true author of the Walker note).

I was too tired to respond, and decided that my response would be "another matter" and "for another day."

Today, I turn on the computer, and find that Greg Parker's lengthy post has disappeared.

That's right; its gone. No trace of it.

Might either of you have downloaded it? If so, please forward it to me by private email, and use this address: dsl74@Cornell.edu

I found his response seriously deficient--i.e., seriously flawed--but he posted it, and I would like to respond to it.

So if you have it--please do send it along.

Meanwhile, I am going to respond to it, purely from memory.

ITEM: Parker asserted that the assertion that Oswald was the Walker sniper first became public because of a statement by Walker to a German publisher on 11/29/63. Its true that Walker had a transatlantic phone call with the German publisher (of a right wing news magazine); but that conversation (and any publication that followed) hardly qualifies as "going public" in the sense that I used the term. "Oswald as the Walker sniper" (my quotes) first was announced by the Dallas Police Department on Friday, December 6, and was the page one news story in the NY Times of Saturday, December 7, 1963. (So, from the standpoint of the "major media" that's when the story "broke" in the United States).

ITEM: Parker implies there was a causal connection between Ruth Paine dropping off the cookbook with the Walker note at the Irving, Texas police department on Saturday (11/30) or Sunday (12/1) and the Walker transatlantic phone call a day or two before. He wrote that Ruth Paine appeared with the cookbook "on cue." In fact, there was no causal connection whatsoever. That's a connection that apparently existed in Parker's mind--but not in reality. Further, and in general, that fact that B follows A (i.e., that A preceded B does not mean that "A" caused "B". As every law student learns (in classes on evidence) that fallacy is referred to as "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

ITEM: Having engaged in this fallacy, Parker then compounds his error by implying that Ruth Paine somehow would have had anything whatsoever to do with the screwball antics of General Walker. Ruth Paine was a pacifist. The notion that she was involved in a plot to frame Oswald and that --somehow--she was working in concert with General Walker (who would place the phone call on Saturday, and then Ruth Paine would turn in the cookbook, containing a note that she fabricated) a day or two later, is ludicrous. In any event, it is without any logical or evidentiary foundation. This is a creation of Greg Parker's mind; it is not grounded in any credible evidence.

ITEM: Greg Parker's false inferences based on the Paine search which involved "shaking" books.

Marina said that she placed the note inside a cookbook. When the Dallas Police searched the Paine residence on November 23, 1963, one of the detectives (according to Ruth Paine) shook one or more books, apparently "looking" for something. This fact was first noted and mentioned by Sylvia Meagher in her 1968 book Accessories after the Fact. Parker picks up on this, and draws a false inference. He implies that because the Walker note was not found--during a search which involved "shaking"--therefore, it must not have been there (inside the cookbook, waiting to be "found" in that manner).

But just a minute. Let's examine that proposition more carefully.

I would not deny that "shaking" took place; the issue is how to interpret that fact.

The alternative is that the note wasn't found because the right book(s) weren't searched, or the searcher perhaps didn't shake the book hard enough. But Parker (apparently) didn't consider this possibility. He infers (falsely, imho) that the fact that the note wasn't found on 11/23 means that the note wasn't there.

Sorry, but that does not exhaust the possibilities. At all.

Another possibility he apparently didn't consider is that someone knew that Marina had placed the note inside a book, and that someone at the Dallas Police department was tipped off as to the location of the note, and that is the reason why a DPD detective was going around "shaking"books in the house, as if "looking for something." But the police detective involved simply did not conduct a thorough enough search.

Parker apparently didn't envision that possibility.. So he cites what he apparently believes was a very competent Dallas Police search of the Paine house (rather than a contrived "search")--as the basis for falsely inferring that the note was not inside the cookbook on 11/23. However, the alternative is that the note was indeed inside the cookbook, and simply was not found.

Moreover, had it been found--then no doubt the detective would have brought back the note to Captain Will Fritz saying something like "I can't read this. Its not in English!" . At which point the note would have been translated, and Marina would have been confronted with the note, and at that point, Marina would have come forth with the same story she told SS Agent Gopadze on December 3, 1963, only on November 23 or November 24. In other words, the whole "Oswald as Walker sniper" story would have been revealed much sooner--almost two weeks earlier than it actually was--had the note been found on 11/23; and the whole world would have been treated to the story that the man accused of having shot JFK was also the same person who had shot at Walker the previous April 10.

But Greg Parker, convinced of Ruth Paine's guilt (as fabricator of the Walker note) never thought of that possibility. He simply never conceived of the possibility that the Walker note was intended to function as a trigger, or fuse, to the entire "Oswald as Walker sniper" story; and so he has gone off half cocked and accused Ruth Paine of being involved in a conspiracy (!). Bottom line: he just doesn't "get it".

ITEM: Parker's Mistaken Conception of Marina Oswald's Psychology

Parker promotes a completely false view of Marina's behavior and psychology, and does not seem to grasp the effect the Walker incident had on Marina's view of her husband. In fact, it marked a major turning point, because it changed her perception of who he "really" was. Prior to the Walker event (April 10, 1963), Marina may have had her problems with Lee--it perhaps was not the ideal marriage--but she certainly didn't see him as someone capable of murder. However, after that event--i.e., after he came rushing into the apartment and "confessed" that he had attempted to murder General Walker, her view changed. (How could it not?) If Lee was putting on a big act, then it certainly worked, because it seriously affected his wife's view of who he really was.

When Lee was first arrested, Marina was frightened, and worried whether --somehow--he had gone off the deep end, and this was a "repeat" of the behavior to which she had been exposed the previous April. Initially, she just couldn't believe it. She knew from personal experience how much Lee admired Kennedy. But over a period of days and weeks and months, and based on pressure from various agents (mainly, Secret Service, but also FBI), she came to believe (that is "accept") that Lee had indeed assassinated Kennedy.

Over the course of many years, however, that view changed. I met Marina in January, 1981 (approx) and I think the change had already begun. Certainly, it had run its course by 1988. At that time, around September/October 1988, Marina gave an extensive in-person interview to Myrna Blyth, the editor-in-chief of the Ladies Home Journal, and that led to a cover story in the November1988 issue (the 25th anniversary of the JFK assassination) in which Marina "came out" and publicly stated that she no longer believed the Warren Report; and that she had been brainwashed.

* * *

POINT OF INFORMATION: Around 1991/92, Marina was approached by David L. Wolper to buy the film rights to her story. Originally the story was to be about her being married to a crazy person who was an assassin. As a consequence, in part, of my advice and intervention, Marina stood up to David Wolper and refused that original design of the project. I don't remember the exact details at this writing, but the result was that the project was handed over to his son, Mark Wolper; and then came a major change in the design of the projected film. Producer Bernard Safronski got involved, along with Director Robert Dornheim, and writer Steve Bello (of Hill Street Blues fame). From interviews with Marina, it became clear the role I had played in the evolution of Marina's views; and I was asked to assist. At some point, a decision was made to actually have me portrayed in the drama. In the resultant film: Marina was played by Helena Bonham Carter; Oswald, by Frank Whaley, and I was portrayed by Robert Picardo (who later became well known from his role in ABC's China Beach, Star Trek, and other major film projects).

Most important (to me): I assisted Steve Bello in developing the basic view of the Walker shooting as a staged affair. Steve wrote dialogue that captured that idea, if only briefly, and it was the first time that, to my knowledge, the Walker affair was publicly explained in that fashion. As contrived.

"Fatal Deception: Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald" was released in October/November 1993. As described in Wikipedia, "The story focuses on the Kennedy assassination from the point of view of Marina Oswald." By the time Fatal Deception was released, i had been involved in JFK research for almost 30 years, and by that time, Best Evidence was being published by its fourth publisher.

Now back to Greg Parker: according to a biography he himself wrote, he dropped out of school at about age 14 (sorry, Greg), knocked around for years, ran an employment agency, and first got seriously interested in the JFK case in the late 1990s, some five years after the release of Fatal Deception, and after reading Tony Summers' book CONSPIRACY. Parker has since engaged in a lot of research, has a website (at which he used to sell T-shirts and beer mugs) and apparently considers himself an expert in numerous areas of the case. In fact, I happen to agree with him in the area of John Armstrong, but, I must say, he has the Walker case,and Marina Oswald, and Ruth Paine, and the Oswald analyzed quite incorrectly. I'll just leave it at that (for now).

Again, back to my original reason for writing this post: sometime in the last 24 hours, Parker published an angry rebuttal to my latest writing criticizing his entire approach to the Walker note. I read it late last night, and intended to reply, but now it has disappeared.

In this post, I have responded to his many incorrect statements --from memory.

If anyone has the full text of what he wrote (and apparently has made to disappear), please send it to me at: dsl74@cornell.edu

Thank you.

DSL

4/23/15 - 5:05 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles,California

Edited April 24, 2015 by David Lifton

[Greg Parker]

That doesn't look like Oswald's handwriting. Much too consistent, straight, and easy to read (for a Russian).

--Tommy

The rare use of lined paper by LHO probably helped a deal....

[Thomas Graves]

That doesn't look like Oswald's handwriting. Much too consistent, straight, and easy to read (for a Russian).

--Tommy

The rare use of lined paper by LHO probably helped a deal....

Excellent point, Greg.

--Tommy

[Robert Prudhomme]

David

What time did you see the post last night? I am in British Columbia and I believe we are both in the Pacific Standard Time Zone. I was up quite late, too, and, from time to time, I was checking this forum for new posts, and there did not seem to be any by Greg Parker until I checked the forum again today. Are you sure he deleted the post? I tried that with a post here once (a real boner that was the result of assumption) and I could not remove it. All I could do was remove the text, but the post was still there.

Anyways, you don't seem to need the post, as you are doing quite well quoting him from memory.

Now, let's think about this note a little before we draw too many conclusions. I always believe in looking both ways down the road, as it is just as easy getting run down from the east as it is from the west.

"Marina said that she placed the note inside of a cookbook."

Just when, and to whom, did Marina say this? Was that part of the "acceptance" program she went through?

Here is what I think about this notion. Marina had just arrived in America from a totalitarian state in which innocent people regularly were "disappeared" to the gulags in the middle of the night, and often never seen again. Often, these people were denounced by some citizen with a grudge or some ambitious person wishing to curry favour with the state, and the charges brought were inevitably groundless and contrived. Innocent people lived in constant fear, so where would that leave someone with something to actually hide?

Needless to say, Marina would have learned, from a very early age, not to keep anything with any potential to incriminate herself or anyone around her. Something like the Walker note, if found by the authorities in Russia, would not only earn LHO a one way ticket to the camps, it would also guarantee Marina a long sentence in a camp as well, for not immediately denouncing her husband as an enemy of the state.

Do you really think any of us here with even ten working brain cells would consider for one second that Marina, a child of the Stalinist era, would put the Walker note away for safekeeping in a cookbook?? For what reason? As a keepsake to hand down to their children some day?

No, if LHO wrote the Walker letter, I can guarantee you it would have been burnt or shredded within hours (or minutes) of Marina reading it.

[Greg Parker]

You've got me there, Dave. This is the first time I've ever looked at this part of the assassination and, until Greg Parker mentioned them, I was unaware of letters written in Russian by Oswald while he was in Russia, let alone that they were written in a far superior Russian.

I'm just hoping that if I keep bringing the topic up, Greg or someone else will actually post some of these letters, and we can get the ball rolling on analyzing them. Maybe you're right, they might not even exist.

Robert:

Thanks for your prompt reply.

Yes, I was trying to be diplomatic: frankly, I do not think any such letters exist. To put it differently, I have no idea what writing (of Oswald) that Greg Parker is talking about. Maybe there is some letter that Lee wrote that I have forgotten about (and if so, please specify and send it to me).

How many times does it have to be linked for you, David?

Here it is again

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0109a.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0109b.htm

Whoever wrote that was NOT the author of the so-called Walker letter. And since there is no reason to believe the 1961 letter was forged....

Now, let me "move on" to another matter, and I would like your help --Robert Prudhomme--and perhaps that of Jon G. Tidd, as well.

I hardly have the time to be on the Internet, but I did spend some time writing these posts about the Walker letter (and about LHO's Russian fluency). Late last night--in my time zone here in California--I turned on my computer and there was a long and inflammatory response from Greg Parker addressing my recent critique of his "Walker hypothesis" (and by that I am referring to his allegations that Ruth Paine was the true author of the Walker note).

I was too tired to respond, and decided that my response would be "another matter" and "for another day."

Today, I turn on the computer, and find that Greg Parker's lengthy post has disappeared.

That's right; its gone. No trace of it.

Might either of you have downloaded it? If so, please forward it to me by private email, and use this address: dsl74@Cornell.edu

I found his response seriously deficient--i.e., seriously flawed--but he posted it, and I would like to respond to it.

So if you have it--please do send it along.

Meanwhile, I am going to respond to it, purely from memory.

Well, James? Can you see your way clear to put it back? I mean, David obviously never made a complaint and is asking to be able to directly respond to it. Do I really have to go through all the posts and quote all the derogatory and condescending remarks directed at me to demonstrate the one-sidedness of this?

ITEM: Parker asserted that the assertion that Oswald was the Walker sniper first became public because of a statement by Walker to a German publisher on 11/29/63.

Wrong. The conversation took place on Nov 24. Publication was on Nov 29.

Its true that Walker had a transatlantic phone call with the German publisher (of a right wing news magazine); but that conversation (and any publication that followed) hardly qualifies as "going public" in the sense that I used the term.

But we are not talking about YOUR sense of anything, When something "goes public" it is made known to the public.

Let's put this to rest here and now... I suspected that the DMN had ran a story on it prior to the 29th, but couldn't find the details. I have now - From the Dallas Morning News, 11/23/63, p 15 “Officials Recall Sniper Shooting At Walker Home” From the story itself, “Police Friday were not overlooking a possibility that President Kennedy’s assassin may have been the mystery sniper who shot at Maj. A. Walker last April…”

"Oswald as the Walker sniper" (my quotes) first was announced by the Dallas Police Department on Friday, December 6, and was the page one news story in the NY Times of Saturday, December 7, 1963. (So, from the standpoint of the "major media" that's when the story "broke" in the United States).

But the public linking commenced on Nov 23.

ITEM: Parker implies there was a causal connection between Ruth Paine dropping off the cookbook with the Walker note at the Irving, Texas police department on Saturday (11/30) or Sunday (12/1) and the Walker transatlantic phone call a day or two before. He wrote that Ruth Paine appeared with the cookbook "on cue." In fact, there was no causal connection whatsoever. That's a connection that apparently existed in Parker's mind--but not in reality. Further, and in general, that fact that B follows A (i.e., that A preceded B does not mean that "A" caused "B". As every law student learns (in classes on evidence) that fallacy is referred to as "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Funny thing is I address that on my Amazon page:

From his time in New York City, there is a distinct pattern of activities fitting sweetly into just those curious little boxes. In the field of logic there is a fallacy known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this"). Basically, it states that correlation does not imply cause and effect. However, logic also dictates that a long pattern of correlation considerably shortens the odds in favor of just such an implication.

Noted statistician, Edward R Tufte, goes so far as to suggest that the oft-quoted maxim "correlation is not causation" is incomplete and therefore innacurate. According to Tufte, the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is, "correlation is not causation, but it sure is a hint."

With that in mind, this book, where it is not concentrating on various types of evidence, is a journey through those correlations: hints for future inquiries to ponder and investigate.

Hmmm. Tough call, but I think Tufte is more believable than someone who once claimed snipers hid in fake trees.

ITEM: Having engaged in this fallacy, Parker then compounds his error by implying that Ruth Paine somehow would have had anything whatsoever to do with the screwball antics of General Walker. Ruth Paine was a pacifist. The notion that she was involved in a plot to frame Oswald and that --somehow--she was working in concert with General Walker (who would place the phone call on Saturday, and then Ruth Paine would turn in the cookbook, containing a note that she fabricated) a day or two later, is ludicrous. In any event, it is without any logical or evidentiary foundation. This is a creation of Greg Parker's mind; it is not grounded in any credible evidence.

It has nothing to do with the "screwball antics" of Walker. It has to do with setting Oswald up as a "lone nut'. And now that we have the DMN story, she needn't have been working in concert with him - or anyone in particular.

ITEM: Greg Parker's false inferences based on the Paine search which involved "shaking" books.

Marina said that she placed the note inside a cookbook.

Only AFTER it was found in a cook-book... which Ruth Paine handed in on the flimsy pretext that Marina desperately needed it because she used it every day.

When the Dallas Police searched the Paine residence on November 23, 1963, one of the detectives (according to Ruth Paine) shook one or more books

What, she lost count after one? She couldn't tell the difference between "one" and "many" or - heaven forbid, "all"?

, apparently "looking" for something. This fact was first noted and mentioned by Sylvia Meagher in her 1968 book Accessories after the Fact. Parker picks up on this, and draws a false inference. He implies that because the Walker note was not found--during a search which involved "shaking"--therefore, it must not have been there (inside the cookbook, waiting to be "found" in that manner).

Apparently "looking" for something???? ROFL. That is part of a STANDARD police search. Yes - they were looking for SOMETHING. it's called EVIDENCE! You wrote a book with that word in the title and yet you don't recognize a routine police search for it?

But just a minute. Let's examine that proposition more carefully.

Ooops. You forgot to label it ITEM!

I would not deny that "shaking" took place; the issue is how to interpret that fact.

You crack me up. Hmm how to interpret police shaking books in a search of a house... hmmm... another tough one....

The alternative is that the note wasn't found because the right book(s) weren't searched, or the searcher perhaps didn't shake the book hard enough. But Parker (apparently) didn't consider this possibility. He infers (falsely, imho) that the fact that the note wasn't found on 11/23 means that the note wasn't there.

Lawdy lawdy lawdy... the DPD KNEW which books to shake for evidence and which to leave alone.... except... oops... they got it wrong! your friendly DPD!

Sorry, but that does not exhaust the possibilities. At all.

No, you're right. I'm sure we can squeeze Elvis and UFOs into your scenario somehow.

Another possibility he apparently didn't consider is that someone knew that Marina had placed the note inside a book, and that someone at the Dallas Police department was tipped off as to the location of the note, and that is the reason why a DPD detective was going around "shaking"books in the house, as if "looking for something." But the police detective involved simply did not conduct a thorough enough search.

What? I thought you said she knew she put it in a cookbook! Still, it's fun to flail in the dark when you're bereft of anything meaningful to add.

Parker apparently didn't envision that possibility..

You're right. Nor did I consider Elvis or UFOs. Remiss of me, but I'm sure your upcoming book will address the issues.

So he cites what he apparently believes was a very competent Dallas Police search of the Paine house (rather than a contrived "search")--as the basis for falsely inferring that the note was not inside the cookbook on 11/23. However, the alternative is that the note was indeed inside the cookbook, and simply was not found.

Funny how none of the really good evidence wasn't found by the cops but by Ruth--- just in the nick of time. Photos, letters, Mex memorabilia...

Moreover, had it been found--then no doubt the detective would have brought back the note to Captain Will Fritz saying something like "I can't read this. Its not in English!"

Gee? Ya think? I bow to your wisdom, Sir!

. At which point the note would have been translated, and Marina would have been confronted with the note, and at that point, Marina would have come forth with the same story she told SS Agent Gopadze on December 3, 1963, only on November 23 or November 24. In other words, the whole "Oswald as Walker sniper" story would have been revealed much sooner--almost two weeks earlier than it actually was--had the note been found on 11/23; and the whole world would have been treated to the story that the man accused of having shot JFK was also the same person who had shot at Walker the previous April 10.

And just why did she have to admit it was about Walker? Where does it mention Walker? How was she supposed to cash Lee's check? What is it about those landmarks that don't feel right? Why would Lee think the "embassy' would intervene to help in a local murder case? Why would the Red Cross help? The letter makes no sense as being written about the Walker incident, and on the face of it, no sense as a letter written to incriminate - for all the same reasons. But in fact, there is a way it makes sense as a planted letter. And if you were me you could figure it out!

But Greg Parker, convinced of Ruth Paine's guilt (as fabricator of the Walker note) never thought of that possibility. He simply never conceived of the possibility that the Walker note was intended to function as a trigger, or fuse, to the entire "Oswald as Walker sniper" story; and so he has gone off half cocked and accused Ruth Paine of being involved in a conspiracy (!). Bottom line: he just doesn't "get it".

Praise the Lord!

ITEM: Parker's Mistaken Conception of Marina Oswald's Psychology

Parker promotes a completely false view of Marina's behavior and psychology, and does not seem to grasp the effect the Walker incident had on Marina's view of her husband. In fact, it marked a major turning point, because it changed her perception of who he "really" was. Prior to the Walker event (April 10, 1963), Marina may have had her problems with Lee--it perhaps was not the ideal marriage--but she certainly didn't see him as someone capable of murder. However, after that event--i.e., after he came rushing into the apartment and "confessed" that he had attempted to murder General Walker, her view changed. (How could it not?) If Lee was putting on a big act, then it certainly worked, because it seriously affected his wife's view of who he really was.

When Lee was first arrested, Marina was frightened, and worried whether --somehow--he had gone off the deep end, and this was a "repeat" of the behavior to which she had been exposed the previous April. Initially, she just couldn't believe it. She knew from personal experience how much Lee admired Kennedy. But over a period of days and weeks and months, and based on pressure from various agents (mainly, Secret Service, but also FBI), she came to believe (that is "accept") that Lee had indeed assassinated Kennedy.

ITEM: Oh dear! You really have gone off the deep end. Please look up the word "blatherskite". Then look in a mirror.

Over the course of many years, however, that view changed. I met Marina in January, 1981 (approx) and I think the change had already begun. Certainly, it had run its course by 1988. At that time, around September/October 1988, Marina gave an extensive in-person interview to Myrna Blyth, the editor-in-chief of the Ladies Home Journal, and that led to a cover story in the November1988 issue (the 25th anniversary of the JFK assassination) in which Marina "came out" and publicly stated that she no longer believed the Warren Report; and that she had been brainwashed.

* * *

POINT OF INFORMATION: Around 1991/92, Marina was approached by David L. Wolper to buy the film rights to her story. Originally the story was to be about her being married to a crazy person who was an assassin. As a consequence, in part, of my advice and intervention, Marina stood up to David Wolper and refused that original design of the project. I don't remember the exact details at this writing, but the result was that the project was handed over to his son, Mark Wolper; and then came a major change in the design of the projected film. Producer Bernard Safronski got involved, along with Director Robert Dornheim, and writer Steve Bello (of Hill Street Blues fame). From interviews with Marina, it became clear the role I had played in the evolution of Marina's views; and I was asked to assist. At some point, a decision was made to actually have me portrayed in the drama. In the resultant film: Marina was played by Helena Bonham Carter; Oswald, by Frank Whaley, and I was portrayed by Robert Picardo (who later became well known from his role in ABC's China Beach, Star Trek, and other major film projects).

Most important (to me): I assisted Steve Bello in developing the basic view of the Walker shooting as a staged affair. Steve wrote dialogue that captured that idea, if only briefly, and it was the first time that, to my knowledge, the Walker affair was publicly explained in that fashion. As contrived.

"Fatal Deception: Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald" was released in October/November 1993. As described in Wikipedia, "The story focuses on the Kennedy assassination from the point of view of Marina Oswald." By the time Fatal Deception was released, i had been involved in JFK research for almost 30 years, and by that time, Best Evidence was being published by its fourth publisher.

Now back to Greg Parker: according to a biography he himself wrote, he dropped out of school at about age 14 (sorry, Greg), knocked around for years, ran an employment agency, and first got seriously interested in the JFK case in the late 1990s, some five years after the release of Fatal Deception, and after reading Tony Summers' book CONSPIRACY. Parker has since engaged in a lot of research, has a website (at which he used to sell T-shirts and beer mugs) and apparently considers himself an expert in numerous areas of the case. In fact, I happen to agree with him in the area of John Armstrong, but, I must say, he has the Walker case,and Marina Oswald, and Ruth Paine, and the Oswald analyzed quite incorrectly. I'll just leave it at that (for now).

Ah, yes... it was only a matter of time before you slimed your way to my lack of formal education. I'd rather sell t-shirts and beer mugs advertised as t-shirts and beer mugs than your mutton-headed ideas falsely sold as "best evidence".

Again, back to my original reason for writing this post: sometime in the last 24 hours, Parker published an angry rebuttal to my latest writing criticizing his entire approach to the Walker note. I read it late last night, and intended to reply, but now it has disappeared.

In this post, I have responded to his many incorrect statements --from memory.

If anyone has the full text of what he wrote (and apparently has made to disappear), please send it to me at: dsl74@cornell.edu

Thank you.

Please! Someone grant him his wish!

GRP

24/4/15 - 2:01 pm AEST

Orange, New South Wales

DSL

4/23/15 - 5:05 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles,California

Edited April 24, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

David

What time did you see the post last night? I am in British Columbia and I believe we are both in the Pacific Standard Time Zone. I was up quite late, too, and, from time to time, I was checking this forum for new posts, and there did not seem to be any by Greg Parker until I checked the forum again today. Are you sure he deleted the post? I tried that with a post here once (a real boner that was the result of assumption) and I could not remove it. All I could do was remove the text, but the post was still there.

Anyways, you don't seem to need the post, as you are doing quite well quoting him from memory.

Now, let's think about this note a little before we draw too many conclusions. I always believe in looking both ways down the road, as it is just as easy getting run down from the east as it is from the west.

"Marina said that she placed the note inside of a cookbook."

Just when, and to whom, did Marina say this? Was that part of the "acceptance" program she went through?

Here is what I think about this notion. Marina had just arrived in America from a totalitarian state in which innocent people regularly were "disappeared" to the gulags in the middle of the night, and often never seen again. Often, these people were denounced by some citizen with a grudge or some ambitious person wishing to curry favour with the state, and the charges brought were inevitably groundless and contrived. Innocent people lived in constant fear, so where would that leave someone with something to actually hide?

Needless to say, Marina would have learned, from a very early age, not to keep anything with any potential to incriminate herself or anyone around her. Something like the Walker note, if found by the authorities in Russia, would not only earn LHO a one way ticket to the camps, it would also guarantee Marina a long sentence in a camp as well, for not immediately denouncing her husband as an enemy of the state.

Do you really think any of us here with even ten working brain cells would consider for one second that Marina, a child of the Stalinist era, would put the Walker note away for safekeeping in a cookbook?? For what reason? As a keepsake to hand down to their children some day?

No, if LHO wrote the Walker letter, I can guarantee you it would have been burnt or shredded within hours (or minutes) of Marina reading it.

Which is EXACTLY what she did with the ONLY (potentially, but not in reality) incriminating photo she had! She burned the damn thing.

[Robert Prudhomme]

David

What time did you see the post last night? I am in British Columbia and I believe we are both in the Pacific Standard Time Zone. I was up quite late, too, and, from time to time, I was checking this forum for new posts, and there did not seem to be any by Greg Parker until I checked the forum again today. Are you sure he deleted the post? I tried that with a post here once (a real boner that was the result of assumption) and I could not remove it. All I could do was remove the text, but the post was still there.

Anyways, you don't seem to need the post, as you are doing quite well quoting him from memory.

Now, let's think about this note a little before we draw too many conclusions. I always believe in looking both ways down the road, as it is just as easy getting run down from the east as it is from the west.

"Marina said that she placed the note inside of a cookbook."

Just when, and to whom, did Marina say this? Was that part of the "acceptance" program she went through?

Here is what I think about this notion. Marina had just arrived in America from a totalitarian state in which innocent people regularly were "disappeared" to the gulags in the middle of the night, and often never seen again. Often, these people were denounced by some citizen with a grudge or some ambitious person wishing to curry favour with the state, and the charges brought were inevitably groundless and contrived. Innocent people lived in constant fear, so where would that leave someone with something to actually hide?

Needless to say, Marina would have learned, from a very early age, not to keep anything with any potential to incriminate herself or anyone around her. Something like the Walker note, if found by the authorities in Russia, would not only earn LHO a one way ticket to the camps, it would also guarantee Marina a long sentence in a camp as well, for not immediately denouncing her husband as an enemy of the state.

Do you really think any of us here with even ten working brain cells would consider for one second that Marina, a child of the Stalinist era, would put the Walker note away for safekeeping in a cookbook?? For what reason? As a keepsake to hand down to their children some day?

No, if LHO wrote the Walker letter, I can guarantee you it would have been burnt or shredded within hours (or minutes) of Marina reading it.

Which is EXACTLY what she did with the ONLY (potentially, but not in reality) incriminating photo she had! She burned the damn thing.

I rest my case.

[Greg Parker]

From Marguerite's testimony...

So this is where the picture comes in.

While there, Marina--there is an ashtray on the dressing table. And Marina comes with hits of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it.

Now, that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy--not cardboard--what is the name for it--a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it completely.

[Thomas Graves]

From Marguerite's testimony...

So this is where the picture comes in.

While there, Marina--there is an ashtray on the dressing table. And Marina comes with bits of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it.

Now, that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy--not cardboard--what is the name for it--a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it completely.

Interesting, Greg.

I think I read it eons ago and forgot about it because I didn't realize it's potential significance.

--Tommy

[Robert Prudhomme]

From Marguerite's testimony...

So this is where the picture comes in.

While there, Marina--there is an ashtray on the dressing table. And Marina comes with hits of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it.

Now, that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy--not cardboard--what is the name for it--a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it completely.

Refresh my memory, Greg. Which photo is it that Marguerite testified to Marina burning?

[Malcolm Ward]

This one Bob,

We now return to what are loosely-termed the "backyard photographs" to examine the photograph which originally inspired this article. Mrs. Marguerite Oswald, mother of Lee Harvey Oswald, testified before the Warren Commission at Washington D.C. on Monday 10th, Tuesday 11th and Wednesday 12th February 1964. On the morning of the first day, she made the following amazing statement concerning events at the Paine house on Friday 22nd November 1963 - presumably in the evening:

"Now, gentlemen, this is some important facts. My daughter-in-law spoke to Mrs. Paine in Russian. 'Mamma', she says. So she takes me into the bedroom and closes the door. She said, 'Mamma, I show you.' She opened the closet, and in the closet was a load of books and papers. And she came out with a picture - a picture of Lee, with a gun. It said, 'To my daughter June' - written in English. I said, 'Oh, Marina, police.' I didn't think anything of the picture."

After carrying on in a similar vein for a minute or so, Mrs. Oswald continued:

"But I say to my daughter[in-law], 'To my daughter, June[?]', [a]nybody can own a rifle, to go hunting. You yourself probably have a rifle. So I am not connecting this with the assassination - 'To my daughter, June.' Because I would immediately say, and I remember - I think my son is an agent all the time - no one is going to be foolish enough if they mean to assassinate the President, or even murder someone to take a picture of themselves with that rifle, and leave it there for evidence.......... I said 'No, Marina. Put it back in the book.' So she put the picture back in the book. Which book it was, I do not know."

"So the next day, when we were at the courthouse - this is on Saturday - she - we were sitting down, waiting to see Lee. She puts her shoe down, she says, 'Mamma, picture.' She had the picture folded up in her shoe. Now, I did not see that it was the picture, but I knew that it was, because she told me it was, and I could see it was folded up. It wasn't open for me to see."

(36)

.

At this point there is nothing to indicate whether or not this is one of the series of photographs apparently taken in the Neely Street backyard. A few minutes later, however, J Lee Rankin, General Counsel to the Warren Commission, showed Mrs. Oswald an enlargement of one of the two known (at that time) "backyard photographs" found during the search of the Paine garage, together with a composite of those two photographs (37).

Mrs. Oswald said:

"No, sir, that is not the picture. He was holding the rifle up, and it said,

'To my daughter, June, with love.' He was holding the rifle up."

The question and answer sequence then continued:

MR. RANKIN: "By holding it up, you mean --"

MRS. OSWALD: "Like this."

MR. RANKIN "Crosswise, with both hands on the rifle?"

MRS. OSWALD: "With both hands on the rifle."

MR. RANKIN: "Above his head?"

MRS. OSWALD: "That is right."

(38)

.

After further questions and answers on other matter, Mrs. Oswald described how the photograph was destroyed in a suite at the Executive Inn, on the outskirts of Dallas, during the evening of Saturday 23rd November 1963. This developed into what was virtually a monologue directed solely towards Mr. Rankin:

"And Marina comes with bits of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it. Now that didn't burn completely, because it was heavy - not cardboard - what is the name for it - a photographic picture. So the match didn't take it completely. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's house. She said - I testified before - 'Mamma, you keep picture.' And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture. She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet."

(39)

.

Source:

http://www.jfklancer.com/bymain.html

[Greg Parker]

Sylvia Meagher hypothesized that this photo was of Lee holding his shotgun in Minsk. I concur. It was inscribed to June - I believe to celebrate her birth. Marina got into a huge panic about it - being the ONLY thing that was possibly incriminating she could think of.

When she testified she only took one such photo, she was being honest. This was it.I also believe when she spoke to Ruth Paine about it, it gave Ruth the idea to organize the faking of the BYP. Recall it was Mike Paine who first informed the DPD about the Neely St residence. Oswald never lived there and he told them that.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

Sylvia Meagher hypothesized that this photo was of Lee holding his shotgun in Minsk. I concur. It was inscribed to June - I believe to celebrate her birth. She got into a huge panic about it - being the ONLY thing that was possibly incriminating she could think of.

When she testified she only took one such photo, she was being honest. This was it.I also believe when she spoke to Ruth Paine about it, it gave Ruth the idea to organize the faking of the BYP. Recall it was Mike Paine who first informed the DPD about the Neely St residence. Oswald never lived there and he told them that.

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Los Angeles begin!