New Book!

[Mark Knight]

OK...I'm gonna comment ONCE on the TEA Party...and then I'm going to expect the conversation to likely move on.

Originally, the TEA Party WAS a grass-roots organization. Folks who believed they were paying too much of their income in taxes. THEN a large number of OTHER folks, with OTHER agendas and VERY deep pockets, hijacked the original TEA Party name, and used it to espouse other non-tax-related causes.

The TEA Party of today bears little resemblance to the TEA Part of 5-8 years ago.

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie:

First of all, I don' know what you use as an inflator index, but the one I used came out with a figure of about 15,000, 000 today.

Which, when you compare to what the parties spend in a presidential year, is not really a lot of money. I mean today, that would be barely enough to run a contested senatorial campaign in a big state.

As far as the luminaries you have listed there who liked or contributed to the JBS, then the obvious question is why did they not have further reach or more power or last longer?

I mean after Fred Koch pulled out and after Otis Chandler launched that three day expose of them in the LA Times, they were more or less gone. People like the Hunts organized their own groups, and radio networks.

The JBS made a big mistake in staying with the Vietnam War as long as they did. It really spelled their doom.

For calculator, I used website: www.in2014dollars.com

However, I noticed there is a more recent version which converts to 2015 so the corrected total amount is as follows:

http://www.in2013dollars.com/1964-dollars-in-2015?amount=2779429

$2,779,429 income in 1964 = $21,121,141 in 2015 dollars

Nothing to sneeze at if your objective is to shape the national debate and public views about several specific issues -- especially if you often use "front groups" which are not even associated to the JBS when local media publishes their press releases.

With respect to your other question re: what impact or reach did all these Birchers have?

This is something I have debated in my own mind and with other interested parties for decades. I used to argue (in a friendly way) for years with the late Dr. John George (co-author with Laird Wilcox of the book entitled: American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists and Others.

One problem which any serious researcher confronts is that many people who greatly impacted controversies in their local communities or even in their states were not always identified as JBS members. And, often, it was difficult to know the precise origins of local controversies i.e. whom was responsible. But there is no doubt that there were major battles fought in cities across our country over matters like library content and educational policies, UNICEF, water fluoridation, religion (including persons responsible for the Revised Standard Version of the Bible), our civil rights movement, Supreme Court decisions, the United Nations, subversion within the U.S. government, etc. -- and many times the JBS and its sympathizers initiated, controlled, or significantly influenced the debate.

I personally was involved in some of those debates. In fact, one of my fondest memories was when I opened the letters-to-editor pages of a California newspaper which I often sent letters to -- and I discovered that one entire page of that newspaper was devoted to attacks upon me for my previous published letter that criticized the JBS and falsified many of their major predicates. For my trouble, a local Bircher responded in the form of a poem which contained something like this: "Is it just coincidence that Ernie's words so arty -- sounds just like the Communist Party!"

Edited August 8, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Glenn Nall]

let me rephrase that.

"With allies in the media at Fox. The modern GOP knows how to create astroturf movements, that is fake grass roots" as far as i can see contributes nothing to the particular thread, and therefore had another purpose. if you claim that you meant no partisan 'jab', then i have to take your word for it, though i can see no other reason for the comment other than a political bent. if it pertained to the current context, please tell me how?

I like Glenn Greenwald - he's a definite go-getter, and not a sheep. nevertheless, I'm not sure how he would advise me to act as a Patriot. as human beings, we have the blessed right to behave originally as it pertains to our passions and beliefs. Mine may or may not fall in line with Greenwald's, and i'm sure that neither he nor i sleep less wondering if they do.

I'm going to presume that you're not questioning my Patriotism just because you advised me of a book on the subject when I claimed to be one. My claim was that as a Patriot and an American I have the right to be as angry at JFK's assassination as any Democrat. so i don't know why a Republican should be expected to be less shocked. (if i were painted into a partisan corner, my opinion would be the opposite, in fact, with how I see the left define "patriotism.")

i don't care about the origins of the Tea Party. I am not a member. I never considered being a member, except as how they try hard to keep the Federal government out of our pockets.

OTHER THAN THAT, i don't care about them, or about where they came from. I only commented on your motive to make that particularly irrelevant point at that time.

[Glenn Nall]

OK...I'm gonna comment ONCE on the TEA Party...and then I'm going to expect the conversation to likely move on.

Originally, the TEA Party WAS a grass-roots organization. Folks who believed they were paying too much of their income in taxes. THEN a large number of OTHER folks, with OTHER agendas and VERY deep pockets, hijacked the original TEA Party name, and used it to espouse other non-tax-related causes.

The TEA Party of today bears little resemblance to the TEA Part of 5-8 years ago.

thanks, Mark. that pretty much explains that.

i was hoping to divert political innuendo, my only point, and i felt that Jim's comment was irrelevant and pointed. i want to respect Jim's research. I want to avoid politics in here, because i would likely get slain and all that. besides, JFK's death is beyond politics. they have no place in this investigation today.

[Mark Knight]

Glenn, I agree that today's politics has next-to-nothing to do with the JFK assassination, except as today's politics has been shaped by the history since.

The politics of '63 have MUCH to do with the assassination, I believe.

[Don Jeffries]

I think there are varying degrees of "extremism," on both the Left and Right. As I describe in my book, much of these movements have been infiltrated and effectively controlled by government agencies like the FBI for a very long time. Certainly, there were legitimate zealots in the counterculture movement of the '60s, for instance, but the fact that Timothy Leary and Gloria Steinem, among other Leftist leaders, were connected to the CIA ought to give us pause for thought.

My point is that groups on both the Left and Right are used for the typical nefarious purposes by the powers-that-be. An undercover FBI agent, for example, was one of the four "Klan" members riding in the car where the shots that killed Civil Rights worker Viola Ziuzzo originated from. Malcolm X's bodyguard was an undercover agent, so was Fred Hampton's. The list goes on, and many more examples can be found in my book.

If the JBS, or any band of anti-Castro Cubans and "rogue" CIA agents had tried to assassinate JFK, I don't believe they'd have been successful. This is primarily because the Secret Service would have been doing their job. Did Walker and co. really have the power to force all those agents to stand down in Dealey Plaza? To write books still promoting lies about JFK and his assassination fifty years later? The JBS has never been powerful in terms of influence on public policy, and neither has any other "extreme" right wing group, for a very long time. Former Klan members like Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and Senator Robert Byrd had to change their politics entirely, and disavow any ties to them, in order to achieve their notoriety.

We have some obvious suspects who must have been involved in the assassination of JFK. We know that J. Edgar Hoover directed the cover up. An honest government official, even if he despised the Kennedys (as he did), wouldn't have gone to the trouble of re- copying all those documents, in an obvious effort to make them less legible, unless he was overtly suppressing information. McGeorge Bundy should be suspect on two fronts; first, for drafting NSAM 273 while JFK was still alive, when he had to have known it contradicted his policy on Vietnam, and also for telling all the cabinet members flying back to Washington, D.C. that there was no conspiracy, at a time when no investigation at all had been conducted, and he was far from the scene, in the White House Situation Room. Emory Roberts, Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman, along with the other Secret Service agents, should have been grilled mercilessly by any honest investigators.

This is not a simple "good" liberal killed by "bad" conservatives type of Hollywood script. If that were the case, the other "good" liberals, the supposed friends of the martyred Kennedy, would have left no stone unturned in exposing the culprits. They would have been led by his close cronies in the press, like Ben Bradlee, childhood friend of Richard Helms. Instead, all those "good" liberals continue to cover up the truth, while still clearly opposing the JBS, the Tea Party, or any other right-wing group. Unless every alleged liberal is completely phony, then their loyalties would like elsewhere. Are they really covering up for their political enemies? Because either they are incapable of understanding the data here, or they are covering up. What else explains Stephen King, a lifelong liberal from JFK's neck of the woods, defending the lone assassin nonsense? What else would motivate a young actor like James Franco to suddenly declare that he thinks the Warren Report was great? I can tell you emphatically that it wasn't the John Birch Society, the Tea Party, or any other band of right-wingers.

There are deep forces at work here, and in all important political events. I hope I demonstrated that in my book. We cannot have an honest culture when our leaders and our media continue to misrepresent the facts about all these issues. Fingering the Mafia, or Castro, or "rogue" elements somewhere, or racist extremists, just plays into their hands.

[Don Jeffries]

Mark's point is well taken. The original Tea Party was inspired by the Libertarians who supported Ron Paul. Once the Sarah Palins and Scott Walker-types climbed on board, it was obviously not for the same purposes.

In my view, a legitimate Leftist would be a Dennis Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney, rather than a Bernie Sanders (who has supported our foreign escapades far too often) or Elizabeth Warren (big banking "foe" who voted against auditing the Federal Reserve). A Ron Paul would be a legitimate Right-Winger, rather than any of the neo-cons fighting it out among the Republican presidential candidates.

We've seen this for decades. Huey Long would have done things quite differently than FDR. Robert Taft would have been far different from Eisenhower. RFK's candidacy was a much bigger threat to the establishment than McCarthy's was, as I delineate in my book. The powers-that-be take legitimate protest efforts, from the Vietnam anti-war movement, to Occupy Wall Street, to the Tea Party, and twist them to suit their own purposes.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Don Jeffries

[Paul Trejo]

Well, we had the Mafia killed JFK: John Davis, Blakey and Ragano.

Then there was LBJ killed JFK with Nelson, McClellan and Stone.

Now there is Walker, Rothermel and the radical right killed JFK: Livingstone, Caufield,O'Neil and Trejo.

I'd hoped to find a context in which to ask you, James -- a widely respected JFK researcher and author -- what has been your thinking regarding the resigned Major General Edwin Walker within the context of the JFK murder?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 8, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

Paul:

I will respond to this later.

For sure. Don't have the time right now.

[Greg Parker]

What is your evidence for those statements? Nobody knows and you won't provide it.

From Stubblefield's report:

"Mr Walker appears to be able to deal freely and accurately with his recollections of the incidents leading up to his arrest and present charges... it is our impression that the court in this case at this time is not concerned out Mr Walker's ability to understand fully the more complex and subtle aspects of his motivation in regard to the acts for which he is charged. If it were, and we were asked to evaluate those kinds of questions, it would be necessary to conduct a much more penetrating exploration of Mr. Walker's psychological operations."

In short, the examination was sufficient for stated purpose. As the the types of tests... courts routinely request psychiatric examinations to determine fitness to stand trial. When something is required often, it usually results in some type of standardization of processes and procedures. In this case, it would include a minimum set of particular tests. The courts for there part, being so used to reading such reports, would recognize one that has attempted to take short cuts, used non-standard tests, or indeed, has not given tests it usually sees in such cases. You seem to want to believe that Walker case somehow happened in a vacuum or in some alternate universe where standards don't have to apply.

More later. I have other fish frying.

No, I don't believe that the Walker case happened in a vacuum and I have already stipulated in message #108 that the examination had a limited purpose i.e. to determine if Walker was mentally competent to stand trial and your reply to me was your typical snottiness (message 112) when you stated:

"What was your purpose in adding this? It was not in contention. You're simply moving the goalposts."

My "purpose" was to explicitly recognize the limited nature of the "examination" so as not to draw unwarranted conclusions or make claims not supportable by available evidence. However, I still do not know what "tests" Walker was given or how Walker responded to whatever he was asked - nor does anybody else. That continues to be the relevant FACT.

That's right. You introduced something that was not in contention. In doing so, you did also introduce the fact that this defined the type of examination it would be - yet you continued to act as if it should be a long drawn out affair. I have pointed out that psychiatric testing for competency hearings would be commonplace enough to have become standardized and that any that did not fall within that standardization would be at risk of not being acceptable to a court. Yet you continue to insist that we need to know specifics like you know better than a judge as to what is acceptable. And you have the gaal to call me snotty? This all started because of YOUR loose wording as to what you thought people WOULD say about Walker - without even offering any examples of what they DID actually say about him. You then got all uppity because I to took you to task about it.

[James DiEugenio]

MK: Glenn, I agree that today's politics has next-to-nothing to do with the JFK assassination,

Mark, did you read my essay on Nixon vs JFK? Please note below:

Before leaving the subject, it’s interesting to speculate on another possible aspect of the pressure campaign brought to bear on Carter to let the Shah into the United States. Everyone knows that John McCloy served on the Warren Commission. In May of 1979, Carter was visiting Los Angeles to make a speech at the Civic Center. He had still not allowed the Shah into the country. The police apprehended a man with a starter’s pistol in the crowd. When they questioned the suspect, he told the authorities he was part of a four-man assassination team. His function was to fire a diversionary shot into the ground while the other members shot at Carter from a nearby hotel. Although the police were skeptical, they later found that a room at the hotel was rented by a man the suspect had named as part of the plot. In that room was a shotgun case and three spent rounds of ammunition. Further, the occupants had checked out the day of the assassination attempt. The apprehended suspect’s name was Raymond Lee Harvey. One of the men he named as a co-conspirator was Oswaldo Espinoza Ortiz. (Time, 5/21/79) About four months later, Carter admitted the Shah.

Edited August 9, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Alright Paul. My thoughts on Walker and the JFK case.

I wrote about ten pages on this in Reclaiming Parkland.

Let me begin by saying two things which color all that follows.

1.) I do not think Oswald shot at Walker.

2.) I think--actually I know--that Oswald was a low level intelligence operative. Not a communist. I believe he was a CIA agent provocateur and an FBI informant. I wrote two chapters in the reissue of Destiny Betrayed on that subject. Many have said its one of the highlights of the book.

Since LHO was a not a communist, this removes a motive for him shooting at Walker. But beyond that, the direct evidence, and the circumstantial evidence do not support the WC case. And let us never forget, Oswald was not a suspect of the DPD for something like over seven months in the Walker case. It was not until the FBI became the investigatory arm for the WC that suddenly, like magic, Oswald shot at Walker.

For the following reasons I don't buy it:

1.) The transformation of the bullet by the FBI into a different color and caliber.

2.) The fact that, as John Armstrong and David Josephs have shown, the weight of the evidence does not support Oswald ordering or picking up the MC rifle.

3.) As Randich and Grant have shown, the elemental trace values of the so called Walker bullet is wildly at odds with those in the JFK case. Even the FBI admitted this was the case.

4.) The testimony of Kirk Coleman, probably the best witness, suggests two men were involved. And they left in separate cars. Neither Coleman nor Robert Surrey identified Oswald as one of two men they saw.

5.) As per the stuff like notebooks which Marina said she saw, and the photos in the motherlode, aka as the Paine garage; as Wesley Liebeler once said in a very rare case of a WC Lawyer asking a sensible question: If Oswald was guilty in the Walker shooting, why would he keep the photos and note around for nearly eight months?

Which brings us to the role of the Paines and the Baron in the Walker shooting. Carol Hewett was one of the finest researchers the JFK case ever had. She was a UT law school grad who practiced in Florida: she never lost a jury trial. No one ever did the work on the Paines that she did. Luckily, she let us publish it in Probe. I was stunned that no author made use of her work--along with that of her cohorts Steve Jones and Barbara La Monica--so I said, fine. I will use it. And I did in both of my books.

One of the most astonishing things Carol dug up was the following. Most researchers think that the association of Oswald with the Walker shooting came from the back to back surfacing of the West German newspaper interview with Walker, and the smuggling of the so called Walker note by Ruth to Marina. Those events happened on 11/29 and 11/30. One week after JFK was killed. Peter Scot used to always say this, for example.

Not true. The first association of Oswald with the Walker shooting came the day after the assassination! That is almost a week before, and when no one, but no one, had put the incident together with Oswald. Who did that first, within 24 hours of the murder?

Michael Paine. For the 11/23 issue of the Houston Post. There, he said "that Oswald may have been involved in the Walker affair." (RP, p. 83) How on earth could Mike Paine make such an outlandish assumption considering the state of the evidence at that time? And then, a week later, Ruth sends Marina the so called Walker note. Which did not have either Lee or Marina's prints on it. Few people know that the Secret Service returned the note to Ruth Paine. Why? For the simple reason they thought it was from her! (Destiny Betrayed,p.203)

As VInce Bugliosi noted, the case against Oswald in the Walker shooting rises or falls on Marina's credibility. He found her credible in this aspect and her WC appearances. I do not. For myriad reasons.

Therefore, I think the Walker case against Oswald was manufactured after the fact.

I will get to why, and the role of Marina and the Baron later.

Edited August 9, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

this is good stuff; i read about some meeting right after the murder between a couple of FBI guys, 2 Dallas "connected" lawyers and Marina where she was "held" for a day or two, after which the ludicrous story about her "holding" LHO in the bathroom...?

so it's seeming to me that Marina's words are not to be trusted, which means her statements about these Walker notebooks and pics are all the more likely bs.

[James DiEugenio]

As Carol Hewett pointed out, after first meeting Marina through George DeM, Ruth arranged to have dinner with both the Oswalds and her "estranged husband" Michael.

When Michael was asked what night this happened, he told the WC without hesitation that it was on April 10th. (RP, p. 80) The problem with this is that it exonerates Oswald in the Walker case, since it gives him an alibi. Therefore, later the WC amended his testimony to April 2nd, the date given by Ruth. Yet, as Carol pointed out, April 2 is a Tuesday. And Oswald had his typing class scheduled that night.

Now, Ruth relied on her notorious and wacky calendar for this Tuesday 4/2 date. Yet, on that same month in her calendar it says on April 10th, in the Cyrillic alphabet, the word Marina. And an arrow then points to April 11th. Does this not suggest, the two were going to converse in Russian over two nights? If so, how could Marina have seen the things she said she saw incriminating Oswald in the Walker shooting? And why did she not tell Ruth at the time?

Bt further, the WC never asked Ruth if these entries were made before or after the fact. For instance, April 24th was marked also, this time with both Marina and Lee's name on it. For this occasion, Ruth just happened to go to Marina's on the day the couple was leaving for New Orleans. Which means, this was probably placed there after the fact.

There also remained a question about Ruth's "finding" of the Walker note. This meant, of course that Marina had kept it and placed it in a book. One she used all the time. So why did she not give it back to her husband? Marina said that Lee forgot about it and never asked. (RP, p. 81)

The DeMohresnchildts' did about everything they could to incriminate Oswald before the WC. They told two stories about George kidding Oswald about taking a shot at Walker. In one version, Jeanne saw a rifle. In another they did not. But the point is, this visit took place on 4/13. According to Marina, the rifle was not found until April 14, Easter Sunday night. Lee had allegedly buried it until then. This was the last time the DeMs saw the Oswalds. George allegedly also mentioned Oswald and the Walker incident to White Russian Natasha Voshinin. The couple then left for Haiti shortly thereafter.

In a 1993 TV special with Dan Rather, Michael Paine told Rather that when he went to pick up Oswald for the dinner engagement a this house on April 2nd, Oswald proudly showed him a photo of himself holding up a rifle with a newspaper: the infamous BYP. This would mean that he knew Oswald had a rifle a week before the Walker shooting. Yet, good ole Mike never said that in any interview opportunity he had for the WC, and he had more than one in 1963 and 64. But further, if this was the case, why did he say he thought Oswald had camping equipment under a blanket in his garage, instead of a rifle?

As I said, Marina is the chief witness against Oswald in the Walker case. In an FBI interview of December 11th, she said Oswald had been at the Walker home prior to 4/10, but had not shot at Walker. Why? Because he knew there was a gathering scheduled at the church near his home a week later and "..he wanted more people around when he attempted the assassination." (RP. p. 84)

One could not make up such stuff if they tried. But Marina also said that when Oswald returned the night of the shooting he did not have a rifle. He said he buried it in the ground near a RR track. Did he do so using his bare hands? And if he had nothing with him, what did he cover the rifle with? And how could it have no traces of dirt on it when the FBI examined it? Since there was no cleaning solution found in his belongings after. (What Bugliosi does with this is rich. He says Oswald really buried it in a pile of leaves.)

From all of the above, and more, I think the Walker shooting was fabricated after the Kennedy assassination. Why? Because there was simply no history of violence with Oswald, especially with firearms. If they could pin this on him, it would make the Kennedy murder easier to swallow as the act of a sociopath. Just like the aborted Clinton/Jackson episode would have made it easier to do so by saying he stayed a few days in a mental hospital.

As many have noted, it was the interview with the West Geman rightwing paper which first introduced the aspect of Bobby Kennedy intervening to prevent Oswald from being arrested for the Walker shooting. Since, as I said, I do not think Oswald shot at Walker, then this is likely bogus. But its important for what it implies. Either Walker or the reporter was going to use this newly claimed crime to both frame Oswald and smear the Kennedys. This became the first in a series of incidents in which the Kennedys were now blamed for the death of JFK.

I think Walker was a willing/unwilling partner in that effort.

Edited August 9, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

Alright Paul. My thoughts on Walker and the JFK case.

I wrote about ten pages on this in Reclaiming Parkland.

Let me begin by saying two things which color all that follows.

1.) I do no think Oswald shot at Walker.

2.) I think--actually I know--that Oswald was a low level intelligence operative. Not a communist. I believe he was a CIA agent provocateur and an FBI informant. I wrote two chapters in the reissue of Destiny Betrayed on that subject. Many have said its one of the highlights of the book.

Since LHO was a not a communist, this removes a motive for him shooting at Walker. But beyond that, the direct evidence, and the circumstantial evidence do not support the WC case. And let us never forget, Oswald was not a suspect of the DPD for something like over seven months in the Walker case. It was not until the FBI became the investigatory arm for the WC that suddenly, like magic, Oswald shot at Walker.

For the following reasons I don't buy it:

1.) The transformation of the bullet by the FBI into a different color and caliber.

2.) The fact that, as John Armstrong and David Josephs have shown, the weight of the evidence does not support Oswald ordering or picking up the MC rifle.

3.) As Randich and Grant have shown, the elemental trace values of the so called Walker bullet is wildly at odds with those in the JFK case. Even the FBI admitted this was the case.

4.) The testimony of Kirk Coleman, probably the best witness, suggests two men were involved. And they left in separate cars. Neither Coleman nor Robert Surrey identified Oswald as one of two men they saw.

5.) As per the stuff like notebooks which Marina said she saw, and the photos in the motherlode, aka as the Paine garage; as Wesley Liebeler once said in a very rare case of a WC Lawyer asking a sensible question: If Oswald was guilty in the Walker shooting, why would he keep the photos and note around for nearly eight months?

Which brings us to the role of the Paines and the Baron in the Walker shooting. Carol Hewett was one of the finest researchers the JFK case ever had. She was a UT law school grad who practiced in Florida: she never lost a jury trial. No one ever did the work on the Paines that she did. Luckily, she let us publish it in Probe. I was stunned that no author made use of her work--along with that of her cohorts Steve Jones and Barbara La Monica--so I said, fine. I will use it. And I did in both of my books.

One of the most astonishing things Carol dug up was the following. Most researchers think that the association of Oswald with the Walker shooting came from the back to back surfacing of the West German newspaper interview with Walker, and the smuggling of the so called Walker note by Ruth to Marina. Those events happened on 11/29 and 11/30. One week after JFK was killed. Peter Scot used to always say this, for example.

Not true. The first association of Oswald with the Walker shooting came the day after the assassination! That is almost a week before, and when no one, but no one, had put the incident together with Oswald. Who did that first, within 24 hours of the murder?

Michael Paine. For the 11/23 issue of the Houston Post. There, he said "that Oswald may have been involved in the Walker affair." (RP, p. 83) How on earth could Mike Paine make such an outlandish assumption considering the state of the evidence at that time? And then, a week later, Ruth sends Marina the so called Walker note. Which did not have either Lee or Marina's prints on it. Few people know that the Secret Service returned the note to Ruth Paine. Why? For the simple reason they thought it was from her! (Destiny Betrayed,p.203)

As VInce Bugliosi noted, the case against Oswald in the Walker shooting rises or falls on Marina's credibility. He found her credible in this aspect and her WC appearances. I do not. For myriad reasons.

Therefore, I think the Walker case against Oswald was manufactured after the fact.

I will get to why, and the role of Marina and the Baron later.

Thank you, James. I'm looking forward to reading your reasons why you think the General Walker case against Lee Harvey Oswald was "manufactured after the fact."

This suggests to me that you doubt Dick Russell's witness, Mrs. Igor Voshinin (TMWKTM), who claimed that she told the FBI on Sunday 14 April 1963 (Easter Sunday) that George De Mohrenschildt strongly suspected Lee Harvey Oswald in the Walker shooting, but he refused to tell the police. She was lying, too? That's a lot of people who were lying on behalf of Edwin Walker, is it not? Or am I mistaken?

I'm also looking forward to reading your considerations about Marina Oswald and sometime baron George De Mohrenschildt.

Many thanks,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo