New Book!

[Paul Trejo]

Dear William O'Neill,

I've asked if you believe in the authenticity of the "Russian letter" (aka the "Walker letter"). I trust this question belongs to your thread here, since some folks here have already spoken of it. Please tell me if it belongs to another thread. I'm very interested in your opinion.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

"...do you believe that the "Russian letter" is bogus?"

Is that the question we should ask? OR ... has it even been established to be relevant to the attempt on Walker... by LHO?

Paul,I don't KNOW weather it is or not, and nobody else does either. It's a letter that has no documented lineage really ( chain of evidence). The way it came into the evidence stream is highly suspicious to me, as it would be considered in any court of law ...hearsay! Does that mean Os didn't have anything to do with the Walker attempt ..No! Nor does it implicate him either ..IMO.

I don't trust Ruth Paine either. She didn't like LHO, that was very evident from the beginning. Does that make her a "L-I-A-R" NO! However, it does throw her objectivity into question, IMO.

I also think it goes to one of her motivations for bending over backwards to send Lee up the river, every chance she got. Some of these things are not knowable anymore, because it wasn't investigated properly in the first place (as Wiesberg said) and witnesses have long entrenched themselves behind walls of silence and self protection.

We will probably never know the when, why or what this "letter " was in reference to...it's all speculation at this point.

Bill

Edited August 17, 2015 by William O'Neil

[William O'Neil]

Bernie, I'm not saying Kent was an actual real moderate.... as I said Caufield used the phrase "veneer" for a reason. This was true of many like Courtney, who learned about media savvy the hard way. Hargis was another classic example.

Bill

[Paul Trejo]

"...do you believe that the "Russian letter" is bogus?"

Is that the question we should ask? OR ... has it even been established to be relevant to the attempt on Walker... by LHO?

Paul,I don't KNOW weather it is or not, and nobody else does either. It's a letter that has no documented lineage really ( chain of evidence). The way it came into the evidence stream is highly suspicious to me, as it would be considered in any court of law ...hearsay! Does that mean Os didn't have anything to do with the Walker attempt ..No! Nor does it implicate him either ..IMO.

I don't trust Ruth Paine either. She didn't like LHO, that was very evident from the beginning. Does that make her a "L-I-A-R" NO! However, it does throw her objectivity into question, IMO.

I also think it goes to one of her motivations for bending over backwards to send Lee up the river, every chance she got. Some of these things are not knowable anymore, because it wasn't investigated properly in the first place (as Wiesberg said) and witnesses have long entrenched themselves behind walls of silence and self protection.

We will probably never know the when, why or what this "letter " was in reference to...it's all speculation at this point.

Bill

Thank you, Bill, for your candid reply.

My feedback would be this -- insofar as we have a physical, handwritten letter, this removes the topic from the sphere of "hearsay" evidence.

Do we not have handwriting experts to tell us with some scientific, forensic certainty, whether Lee Harvey Oswald wrote this letter by his own hand?

I'm having a heck of time finding consensus on this basic point in our FORUM.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[David G. Healy]

"...do you believe that the "Russian letter" is bogus?"

Is that the question we should ask? OR ... has it even been established to be relevant to the attempt on Walker... by LHO?

Paul,I don't KNOW weather it is or not, and nobody else does either. It's a letter that has no documented lineage really ( chain of evidence). The way it came into the evidence stream is highly suspicious to me, as it would be considered in any court of law ...hearsay! Does that mean Os didn't have anything to do with the Walker attempt ..No! Nor does it implicate him either ..IMO.

I don't trust Ruth Paine either. She didn't like LHO, that was very evident from the beginning. Does that make her a "L-I-A-R" NO! However, it does throw her objectivity into question, IMO.

I also think it goes to one of her motivations for bending over backwards to send Lee up the river, every chance she got. Some of these things are not knowable anymore, because it wasn't investigated properly in the first place (as Wiesberg said) and witnesses have long entrenched themselves behind walls of silence and self protection.

We will probably never know the when, why or what this "letter " was in reference to...it's all speculation at this point.

Bill

Thank you, Bill, for your candid reply.

My feedback would be this -- insofar as we have a physical, handwritten letter, this removes the topic from the sphere of "hearsay" evidence.

Do we not have handwriting experts to tell us with some scientific, forensic certainty, whether Lee Harvey Oswald wrote this letter by his own hand?

I'm having a heck of time finding consensus on this basic point in our FORUM.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I doubt here will ever be a consensus concerning Walker other than he was a right-winger of the extreme version... He's a distraction and frankly no worth spit. As well, there's more to LHO and Ruth Paine, a lot more--than what we were originally told.

[Ernie Lazar]

Bernie, I'm not saying Kent was an actual real moderate.... as I said Caufield used the phrase "veneer" for a reason. This was true of many like Courtney, who learned about media savvy the hard way. Hargis was another classic example.

Bill

Bill: Yes, I know you used the qualifier "veneer" which indicates "attractive appearance that disguises someone's true nature or feelings" -- but I can't figure out what you think Courtney was hiding or disguising and from whom?

AND I can't figure out why you juxtapose Courtney against Banister, as if you were saying that Banister did not hide or disguise something about himself but Courtney did. I don't see any materially significant differences between Courtney and Banister in terms of their beliefs, associations, politics, or behavior.

After I read the entire book maybe I will better understand the point you were attempting to make by trying to contrast Banister with Courtney. In fact, if you had written the opposite, i.e. that Banister "was considered a moderate in some circles" -- or that Banister attempted to maintain a veneer of respectability or moderation -- I might have agreed with that observation.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

I doubt here will ever be a consensus concerning Walker other than he was a right-winger of the extreme version... He's a distraction and frankly not worth spit. As well, there's more to LHO and Ruth Paine, a lot more--than what we were originally told.

Well, David, I respectfully disagree. While it's true that 50 years of JFK Research has neglected the resigned General Walker, it is also true that 50 years of JFK Research has failed to solve the JFK murder, and actually its most common CT, the CIA-did-it theory, has finally evolved into its final resting place, the utterly absurd "Harvey and Lee" theory.

The viable reason you might dismiss Walker so casually, David, is that you've found so little data about him, even though his name appears more than 500 times in the Warren Commission volumes.

The "Walker Letter" is actually Warren Commission Exhibit Number One (CE-1). As Allen Dulles told Jaques Zwart, the answer to the JFK assassination is there in the Warren Commission volumes -- but one must become an expert in "hairsplitting."

This new, forthcoming book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, namely, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, represents a paradigm shift for JFK Research.

That said, I fully agree with you that there's more to Ruth Paine in the LHO saga -- although the claim that because Ruth's mother and Allen Dulles actually were once lovers, that Ruth Paine must be a CIA Agent, is obvious nonsense. IMHO, what Ruth Paine is really hiding is her direct role in the Walker shooting.

Finally, everybody here knows that at 1 pm on 22 November 1963, Michael Paine placed a collect call to Ruth, and the telephone operator remained on the line to overhear Michael telling Ruth that he “Felt sure Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President but was not responsible,” and added, “We both know who is responsible.” (FBI report, JFK Document No. 105-82555-1437). IMHO, Michael was referring to the resigned General Edwin Walker.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 17, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

Paul, As I say; We don't know..."when, why or what this "letter " was in reference to." This letter could have been about something else that Lee was contemplating, (if in fact he wrote it) there is really nothing concrete to definitely establishes it as instructions for Marina, in regards to his attempt on Walker.

That's all I'm saying.I think a good defense attorney could make short shrift of it,as being direct evidence.

Gotta run............

Bill

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, As I say; We don't know..."when, why or what this "letter " was in reference to." This letter could have been about something else that Lee was contemplating, (if in fact he wrote it) there is really nothing concrete to definitely establishes it as instructions for Marina, in regards to his attempt on Walker.

That's all I'm saying.I think a good defense attorney could make short shrift of it,as being direct evidence.

Gotta run............

Bill

That's all understood, Bill, yet in the context of the General Walker shooting on the very same night -- the "Walker letter" is significant.

Also, with the added context of Marina's sworn testimony that Lee Harvey Oswald told her on that same night that he tried to shoot General Walker -- it is significant.

Also, with the added context of LHO's Backyard Photographs (of which one out of four were taken by Marina, while the other three were Fakes corresponding to the time Lee worked at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall where he made Fake ID's for himself) -- it is significant.

Also, with the added context of LHO's photographs of Walker's home -- it is significant.

Also, with the added context of sworn WC testimony by George and Jean De Mohrenschildt, and Michael and Ruth Paine -- it is significant.

Also, with the added context of claims by Mrs. Igor Voshinin (to Dick Russell) -- it is significant.

Also, with the added context of claims by Volkmar Schmidt (to William Kelly) -- it is significant.

The "Walker letter" has never received the attention it richly deserves, IMHO. Efforts to dismiss it out of hand have proven to be superficial, IMHO.

Finally, in the context of this new book by Jeff Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, which is a special focus on the resigned General Walker, the "Walker letter" deserves further attention.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 17, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie Lazar, you're well-known for one of the largest (if not the largest) private collections of FBI files from FOIA releases anywhere. So I have this question for you regarding the famous Walker incident as reported by Dick Russell in his well-known book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1992).

In that book, Dick Russell claims to have interviewed Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin, who also testified before the Warren Commission about Lee Harvey Oswald. They told Russell something they never told the Warren Commission.

Mrs. Voshinin, claims Russell, told him that four days after the Walker shooting (which news kept the city of Dallas buzzing) their friend George De Mohrenschildt came to their house early in the morning on Easter Sunday. George was agitated about something, and they asked him what was wrong.

George told the Voshinins that he and Jeanne had worried all week, ever since the Walker shooting, that Lee Harvey Oswald had been the Walker shooter -- so on Saturday night -- perhaps 9:30pm, they could stand it no longer. They bought a toy Easter bunny at a drug store, and they woke up the Oswalds on the pretext of celebrating Easter. The Oswalds quickly got their robes on and hosted their guests.

George kept Lee Harvey Oswald talking in one room, as Jeanne, on the pretext of seeing their apartment for the first time, snooped and snooped until she found a rifle with a scope on it in Lee's closet. She shouted out to George in the other room that she found a weapon. All gathered around George and Lee, and then George asked, "Lee, did you take that potshot at General Walker?"

Everybody in the room fell silent for a moment. Lee was stunned. Lee looked inquiringly at Marina. Nothing. Marina looked inquiringly at Lee. Nothing. Then George started laughing, and everybody started laughing, and that was the end of the party. The George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt said goodbye to the Oswalds and left -- never to see them again.

When Mrs. Voshinin heard this story, she insisted that George call the police or the FBI and tell them his suspicions immediately. George refused, saying he could never turn his friends into the police. Then George left. Immediately after the door shut, Mrs. Voshinin called the FBI and told them everything that she had just heard from George De Mohrenschildt.

So, that's the account of history that Dick Russell reported to the world in 1992.

My question to you, Ernie, is this. We actually have the very date of Mrs. Voshinin's alleged telephone call to the FBI -- Easter Sunday 1963 -- early in the morning. Is it possible that a call like this would be in your vast collection -- filed under the FBI folders of the resigned General Edwin Walker?

Or perhaps we must wait until the ARRB deadline, Thursday 26 October 2017, before we can verify this account of history by the widely regarded Dick Russell.

IMHO this is important, because it would confirm Walker's longtime claim that he knew about Lee Harvey Oswald throughout 1963, as he told, e.g. Senator Frank Church in 1975: http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_Church_Oswald_released.pdf

Notice how that signed letter contradicts Walker's own sworn testimony to the Warren Commission:

------------- BEGIN EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF RESIGNED GENERAL WALKER -------------------

Mr. LIEBELER. You never even heard of Oswald?

General WALKER. ...I have no information of Oswald's name ever being mentioned in my house, and I had never heard of the name with regard to the individual we are referring to at any time since I have been in Dallas or any other time.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have never heard of any connection until the assassination?

General WALKER. Until his activities of November 22...

------------- END EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF RESIGNED GENERAL WALKER -------------------

IMHO, Walker's perjury to the WC was made plain by his own statement to Senator Frank Church. Yet this has been ignored for 40 years, because most JFK Researchers have regarded General Walker as a "crazy old man."

But an actual FBI record of Mrs. Voshinin's call might change the course of JFK Research.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 18, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie Lazar, you're well-known for one of the largest (if not the largest) private collections of FBI files from FOIA releases anywhere. So I have this question for you regarding the famous Walker incident as reported by Dick Russell in his well-known book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1992).

In that book, Dick Russell claims to have interviewed Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin, who also testified before the Warren Commission about Lee Harvey Oswald. They told Russell something they never told the Warren Commission.

Mrs. Voshinin, claims Russell, told him that four days after the Walker shooting (which news kept the city of Dallas buzzing) their friend George De Mohrenschildt came to their house early in the morning on Easter Sunday. George was agitated about something, and they asked him what was wrong.

George told the Voshinins that he and Jeanne had worried all week, ever since the Walker shooting, that Lee Harvey Oswald had been the Walker shooter -- so on Saturday night -- perhaps 9:30pm, they could stand it no longer. They bought a toy Easter bunny at a drug store, and they woke up the Oswalds on the pretext of celebrating Easter. The Oswalds quickly got their robes on and hosted their guests.

George kept Lee Harvey Oswald talking in one room, as Jeanne, on the pretext of seeing their apartment for the first time, snooped and snooped until she found a rifle with a scope on it in Lee's closet. She shouted out to George in the other room that she found a weapon. All gathered around George and Lee, and then George asked, "Lee, did you take that potshot at General Walker?"

Everybody in the room fell silent for a moment. Lee was stunned. Lee looked inquiringly at Marina. Nothing. Marina looked inquiringly at Lee. Nothing. Then George started laughing, and everybody started laughing, and that was the end of the party. The George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt said goodbye to the Oswalds and left -- never to see them again.

When Mrs. Voshinin heard this story, she insisted that George call the police or the FBI and tell them his suspicions immediately. George refused, saying he could never turn his friends into the police. Then George left. Immediately after the door shut, Mrs. Voshinin called the FBI and told them everything that she had just heard from George De Mohrenschildt.

So, that's the account of history that Dick Russell reported to the world in 1992.

My question to you, Ernie, is this. We actually have the very date of Mrs. Voshinin's alleged telephone call to the FBI -- Easter Sunday 1963 -- early in the morning. Is it possible that a call like this would be in your vast collection -- filed under the FBI folders of the resigned General Edwin Walker?

Or perhaps we must wait until the ARRB deadline, Thursday 26 October 2017, before we can verify this account of history by the widely regarded Dick Russell.

IMHO this is important, because it would confirm Walker's longtime claim that he knew about Lee Harvey Oswald throughout 1963, as he told, e.g. Senator Frank Church in 1975: http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_Church_Oswald_released.pdf

Notice how that signed letter contradicts Walker's own sworn testimony to the Warren Commission:

------------- BEGIN EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF RESIGNED GENERAL WALKER -------------------

Mr. LIEBELER. You never even heard of Oswald?

General WALKER. ...I have no information of Oswald's name ever being mentioned in my house, and I had never heard of the name with regard to the individual we are referring to at any time since I have been in Dallas or any other time.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have never heard of any connection until the assassination?

General WALKER. Until his activities of November 22...

------------- END EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF RESIGNED GENERAL WALKER -------------------

IMHO, Walker's perjury to the WC was made plain by his own statement to Senator Frank Church. Yet this has been ignored for 40 years, because most JFK Researchers have regarded General Walker as a "crazy old man."

But an actual FBI record of Mrs. Voshinin's call might change the course of JFK Research.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Don't have anything re: your question.

[Paul Trejo]

Don't have anything re: your question.

Thanks, Ernie, for your prompt reply.

In my theory, then (presuming that Dick Russell is reporting correctly, and that Mrs. Voshinin told him the truth as she knew it) this FBI report of this telephone call from Mrs. Voshinin on Easter Sunday 1963 must be under lock and key, above Top Secret by the FBI pursuant to National Security guidelines held by the ARRB.

That is, we can expect to see the FBI report of Mrs. Voshinin's phone call about the resigned General Edwin Walker, George De Mohrenschildt and Lee Harvey Oswald -- only after Thursday 26 October 2017 -- the deadline of the ARRB as stipulated in the JFK Records Act signed into law in 1992 by former President GHW Bush.

Why would this phone call be above Top Secret? IMHO, this is because it directly contradicts the "Lone Shooter" theory of Lee Harvey Oswald that the Warren Commission maintained for National Security.

That is, it directly identifies the person that J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles quickly knew was the mastermind of the JFK murder, namely, the resigned General Edwin Walker.

This FBI phone call would reveal the motive of General Walker's plot to murder JFK, namely, revenge for the Walker shooting. This FBI phone call would reveal that General Walker knew about Lee Harvey Oswald by Easter Sunday 1963 (because the FBI would have a duty to warn a victim about such a suspicion -- or advise a high-level Dallas official, who would have the duty to warn Walker).

This is very much an open question -- even after a half-century of JFK Research.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 18, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul T - the theory that postulates CIA involvement has most certainly NOT devolved into Harvey and Lee except in your mind. In fact, your assertion buttresses my (until now) secret theory that Harvey and Lee is a deliberate false trail whose purpose is to imply that anyone who thinks the CIA, i.e. Dulles, Angleton, Helms, might have had a hand in the assassination has swallowed some conspiratorial Koolaid.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T - the theory that postulates CIA involvement has most certainly NOT devolved into Harvey and Lee except in your mind. In fact, your assertion buttresses my (until now) secret theory that Harvey and Lee is a deliberate false trail whose purpose is to imply that anyone who thinks the CIA, i.e. Dulles, Angleton, Helms, might have had a hand in the assassination has swallowed some conspiratorial Koolaid.

Well, Paul B., it seems to me that with the pending rise of the Walker-did-it theory, the CIA-did-it theorists will rebel for at least a full year, simply out of inertia of dominating JFK Research for fifty years, colliding with each other like Keystone Kops.

Not only have the CIA-did-it theories failed to solve the JFK murder case after a half-century, but their followers sometimes express the paranoia that those who disagree with them must be sent by the CIA. What nonsense.

Yet the H&L nonsense really takes the cake -- they win first prize for all of the "CiA-did-it" nonsense -- and that was my main point.

The CIA-did-it CTers should admit their failure after 50 years of failing -- most especially after Bill Simpich's scholarly demonstration in his free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, (2014) that newly released CIA documents clearly show that the CIA high-command had no clue who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City.

If any CTers refuse to question the CIA-did-it CTs after reading about the Simpich Mole Hunt, then no amount of logic and research will ever change their minds, IMHO.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 19, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...Now, the title of this book is General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive new evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy.

Which recalls the title of a book by Livingstone. Now, with that title I don't know how else you can classify this book except by saying that Walker and the rightwing nuts in Texas and their associated groups killed Kennedy. If that is not the case then the title is a misnomer....

Well, James, I took your comment to heart, and I went out and obtained a copy of that book you cite by Harrison Edward Livingstone, namely: The Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy (2004).

Livingstone was an early JFK researcher along with Penn Jones Jr., and a co-author of books with Robert Groden, so I gather that he's widely respected among CT readers. So I got a copy and promptly turned to Livingstone's Index to see the extent of his work on the resigned General Walker. Here's what I found.

(1) In this 615 page book, only 20 pages mention General Walker.

(2) Of those 20 pages, by far most of the citations of General Walker are single sentences.

(3) Of those single sentences, many are repetitive. For example, seven of those sentences repeat the mythology that JFK "fired" Walker from the US Army. Also, three of those sentences repeat the mythology that Edwin Walker taught specifically "Nazi" doctrines to his troops in Augsburg.

• Actually, JFK didn't "fire" Walker; instead he offered Walker another post because JFK feared a scandal if Walker became the only US General in the 20th century to resign-and-forfeit-his-Army-pension. Actually, it was the Joint Chiefs who instantly removed Walker from his command in Augsburg after the Overseas Weekly Army newspaper slammed Walker, and the JCS gave Walker a desk job in another town . But the JCS didn't "fire" Walker -- they just wanted the scandal to stop. Actually, Walker resigned in protest, and this wasn't his first resignation -- he submitted his first resignation in 1959 after he joined the John Birch Society, but Eisenhower gave him a command in Germany instead. Actually, Walker promoted the John Birch Society doctrine to his troops, but never the specific "Nazi" doctrine which is very different. So, Livingstone simply exaggerated his case, probably because Walker played such a secondary role in his CT.

(4) Only two of those pages, pp. 96-97, are dedicated to the resigned General Walker, and these pages focus on his relationship with the Minutemen of Dallas.

In conclusion, I'm willing to discuss this book by Livingstone, because he was among the very few who realized that the JFK murder plot was first and foremost a Dallas plot -- and that the others who participated were always subordinate to these Dallas leaders. This is a clear advance over all the failed CIA-did-it theories that have dominated the JFK literature in the past half-century.

Yet Livingstone doesn't delve into the resigned General Edwin Walker in his 2002 book. That's why this new book by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive new evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, is a major divergence from Harrison Livingstone's book, and IMHO promises to shed more light on the JFK murder than any other book yet published..

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 19, 2015 by Paul Trejo