New Book!

[James DiEugenio]

I agree that it is.

Thanks so much.

[Paul Trejo]

He does not commit, except to say it was a publicity stunt. There is adequate evidence to show this, as you know.... which is presented in the book. . One should look at this as a propaganda move at a crucial timing point. Walkers own words, point to it as being the impetus for "Operation Alert". That in itself is grounds for looking at this scenario in a different light than the WC.

Considering the timeline and context, it really looks like it had nothing to do with 11-22! Separate act, conveniently used later, as further frame against Os. Depugh had very interesting things to say about Ted and his proclivities for publicity etc.

Complicated issue on several levels ....right?

Bill

Very interesting result, Bill. What this position claims is that Lee Harvey Oswald both *did* and *didn't* shoot at resigned Major General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963 -- that is, the entire thing was a publicity stunt. Is that correct?

I note that this was also proposed in 2002 by William J. Fritz, Jr. in his book, THE KENNEDY MUTINY, which regarded not only the April shooting as a publicity stunt, but also the shooting at JFK at Dealey Plaza to be originally a "Simulated Assassination" -- a publicity stunt -- which backfired.

How the Paines, De Mohrenschildts, Marina, and Volkmar Schmidt (all liberals) might fit into this scenario so that they would be willing to lie about Oswald's shooting at Walker remains unclear. If (and only if) it was really only a stunt, then the only explanation that I can imagine for their WC testimony is that they were all fooled by the stunt, and believed the shooting was real.

I'd also point out here how the critics of Edwin Walker's role in the JFK murder are quick to focus on the alleged Walker shooting. I'm fairly certain, even at this early stage, that Dr. Jeffrey Caufield won't restrict the role of Edwin Walker to "the guy Oswald allegedly shot at during the previous April."

I would note, however, that most JFK CT's in the past 50 years have indeed regarded Edwin Walker as little more than "the guy Oswald allegedly shot at during the previous April."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 10, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

He does not commit, except to say it was a publicity stunt. There is adequate evidence to show this, as you know.... which is presented in the book. . One should look at this as a propaganda move at a crucial timing point. Walkers own words, point to it as being the impetus for "Operation Alert". That in itself is grounds for looking at this scenario in a different light than the WC.

Considering the timeline and context, it really looks like it had nothing to do with 11-22! Separate act, conveniently used later, as further frame against Os.

Depugh had very interesting things to say about Ted and his proclivities for publicity etc Complicated issue on several levels ....right?

Bill

Bill: Do you know at this time, how much the book will sell for?

[Paul Trejo]

PT: My question is about how anybody would organize a conspiracy of people to lie for the benefit of Edwin Walker -- using people who openly opposed Edwin Walker.

By this logic, it is completely baffling then as to why Ruth Paine was in Nicaragua supporting the Contra cause. I mean if you ask me the Contras made Walker look kind of moderate. But she was there spying on the American Sandinista supporters for the State Department. And many, many people knew that. As far away as Costa Rica.

I mean, how many decades, and how much evidence is it going to take to finally drop this whole Quaker, Good Samaritan veneer about the Paines? I mean Allen Dulles himself joked about it. Richard Russell saw through it after about three weeks on the Commission. So why are we--over fifty years later-- still suckers for it?

​For instance: Paul do you know that the Imperial Reflex Camera was not on the Dallas Police inventory of Oswald's effects after two days? It did not come into evidence until Ruth Paine gave it to Robert Oswald when he came to her house while Marina was staying with him.

Bugliosi buries this fascinating fact in his end notes and then drops it like a hot potato.

Well, James, I can assure you that I'm not a Lone-Nutter, and my defense of Ruth Paine as a Quaker (instead of a radical rightist) has nothing to do with accepting the Warren Commission conclusions about a Lone Nut.

I find it interesting that compared with most CT's, my CT accepts the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald, George De Mohrenschildt, Ruth Paine, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt and Michael Paine. The claims of Mrs. Voshinin and Volkmar Schmidt were not presented under oath -- but I still believe them. I find no reason for them to deliberately lie in their claims.

All these people claimed to have some insight into the Wednesday 10 April 1963 shooting at resigned Major General Edwin Walker by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Yet none of them were eye-witnesses. Marina claims that Lee Harvey Oswald told her he tried to shoot Walker that night. Yet she also claims that Oswald insisted he acted alone, traveled entirely by foot and bus, and buried his rifle. These were almost certainly lies that Oswald told Marina, though Marina would have no context by which to know they were lies.

The De Mohrenschildts agreed with Marina on the events of Saturday 13 April 1963, at night, when the De Mohrenschildts dropped in late on the Oswalds and discovered Oswald's rifle in their house, complete with sighting scope, and George made a joke about Oswald shooting at Walker, whereupon Oswald froze.

This is suspicious -- but it doesn't prove anything about Oswald's shooting at Walker. It only heightens suspicion.

As for Ruth Paine, she delivered the weightiest evidence in this episode -- a note in Russian allegedly written by Lee Harvey Oswald, telling Marina how to behave just in case he was arrested that night.

Arrested for what? The note doesn't say, but the implication is clear in the context of Marina's claim that Lee confessed to her about the Walker shooting -- if we believe Marina. I happen to believe Marina. Lee lied to her about acting alone, about his transportation and about burying his rifle -- so why should anybody think Lee told Marina the truth about shooting at Walker at all? Because even if all the details were lies, LHO had no motive to confess to Marina about the shot at Walker -- so the confession stands on its own.

We can dismiss the testimony of the De Mohrenschildts as any proof that Oswald shot at Walker -- it remains speculation with them. That means that Mrs. Voshinin was also acting on speculation, even if she called the FBI about it as she told Dick Russell. The same applies to Volkmar Schmidt, who admits trying to convince Lee Oswald that General Walker was a "fascist" at that engineer's party in February (and at other times, as George suggests).

If (and only if) the Walker shooting was a publicity stunt, then I must conclude that all their sworn testimony amounts to the ordinary error of mistaking a publicity stunt for the real thing.

Rather -- the strongest evidence that the WC presented to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill General Walker was that April note in Russian, allegedly by Oswald. Greg Parker proposed that this note was written by Ruth herself -- and this seems to harmonize with your suspicions, James.

Yet this is a critical and open question, IMHO. What do linguistic and handwriting experts have to say about this letter in Russian that Marina claims appeared on the night of the Edwin Walker shooting?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 10, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

Ernie, Last I heard, it would retail around $39.95.

Bill

[William O'Neil]

Paul, I was referring to the tangent on Walkers sanity question, as getting a little off track. Good subject but perhaps for a separate thread.

The Walker shooting is an enigma, the more you look into it the stranger it seems, especially when it comes to Oswald's so- called "friends" and their odd reactions.

Bill

[William O'Neil]

Not that Gerry Hemming is the be -all, end- all on things. I thought I would toss this in. This was after Twyman’s book came out and Noel was nice enough to pass on Hemming’s e-mail, which resulted in two telephone interview sessions, the last one being taped.

When I interviewed Gerry P. Hemming in 02’ I asked him about his take on the Walker assassination attempt. He was very suspicious of the whole event. Especially after the fact, when he and his buddies came to visit with the General in May and July 63’ He still seemed peeved about it.

Hemming was incredulous as to why Walker was so nonchalant about leaving himself (and others) exposed after 4-10-63

“Either he has a death wish or he knows there is no threat! There were no precautions taken…what if the rig comes back!? He’s a sitting duck… Walker was a military man he knows better. He exposed us to potential danger! Drapes are wide open, lights are all on…bad tradecraft… or it was all a f_cking set-up.”

[ "It" being the shooting attempt]

Notes of Intv#1 GPH 2/02

Bill

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, I was referring to the tangent on Walkers sanity question, as getting a little off track. Good subject but perhaps for a separate thread.

The Walker shooting is an enigma, the more you look into it the stranger it seems, especially when it comes to Oswald's so- called "friends" and their odd reactions.

Bill

Thanks, Bill, for highlighting this issue again. Almost invariably when somebody raises the topic of Edwin Walker as a suspect in the JFK murder, the typical CT objects that Walker's April Shooting was bogus.

Yet this begs the question -- actually, it changes the topic! It is an unsatisfactory way of answering the question about Walker as a suspect. As you say, Bill, "the more you look into it the stranger it seems."

Actually -- the subtext of the objection is that it tacitly admits that Walker was a suspect -- guilty of some role of the JFK murder or the JFK Coverup or both -- but exactly how, nobody is willing to guess, and everybody is willing to drop it like a hot potato.

It is frustrating to the few of us who regard Edwin Walker as highly placed within the JFK murder, to be repeatedly dismissed only on the shallow answer that Walker's April Shooting was bogus. Surely, we are demanding more attention to Walker than merely that. It reminds me of the testimony of Jack Ruby to Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, as follows:

------- BEGIN EXCERPT OF JACK RUBY'S TESTIMONY TO CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN -------

Mr. RUBY. There is an organization here, Chief Justice Warren, if it takes my life at this moment to say it, and Bill Decker said be a man and say it, there is a John Birch Society right now in activity, and Edwin Walker is one of the top men of this organization -- take it for what it is worth, Chief Justice Warren. Unfortunately for me, for me giving the people the opportunity to get in power, because of the act I committed, has put a lot of people in jeopardy with their lives. [Long pause] Don't register with you, does it?

Chief Justice WARREN. No; I don't understand that.

Mr. RUBY. Would you rather I just delete what I said and just pretend that nothing is going on?

Chief Justice WARREN. I would not indeed. I am only interested in what you want to tell this Commission. That is all I am interested in.

Mr. RUBY. Well, I said my life, I won't be living long now. I know that. My family's lives will be gone...

-------- END EXCERPT OF JACK RUBY'S TESTIMONY TO CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN -------

That brief exchange has all but gone unnoticed in the ocean of Warren Commission testimony. Jack Ruby named names, but nobody bothered to dig deeper into the implications of Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society in 1964 -- up until today.

If William J. Fritz, Jr. and Gerry Patrick Hemming are correct, and Walker's April shooting really a publicity stunt -- then that should not close the research into Edwin Walker -- on the contrary -- it should really open the floodgates to intensive research.

I'm delighted that Dr. Jeffrey Caufield seems to have done exactly that in his forthcoming new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 10, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

Right Paul, Sometimes the most obvious, is the most ignored...

Bill

[Paul Trejo]

I think Voshinin is reliant on DeM.

And they are not actually defending Walker. They are saying Oswald was in on it.

Actually, James, I agree with you. Voshinin only knew what George De Mohrenschildt told her -- and that was 100% pure suspicion, based on a "look" that Lee Harvey Oswald expressed when George asked him if he shot at Walker. It's really shallow evidence.

So, as you say, they were only saying that Oswald was in on the shooting at Walker -- and technically speaking, they were not really taking sides for Walker, but only against Lee Harvey Oswald. Is this your position?

Do you then maintain that the Walker shooting was utterly unrelated to the JFK murder -- so that the Warren Commission cited the name of Edwin Walker more than 500 times in its volumes, solely and only to pretend that the Walker shooting was somehow related to the JFK murder -- and nothing more?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 10, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[William O'Neil]

The problem with the WC, was that they presented Walker as a victim. They never chose to look at any real alternative. The timely revelations of Marina on December 2-3 1963, gave them an easy out on that front.

Up till then, the Walker attempt was a non-issue in the JFK case; after Marina finked on Lee, the two cases became forever intertwined and Walker became Oswald’s “other victim”

Bill

[Paul Trejo]

The problem with the WC, was that they presented Walker as a victim. They never chose to look at any real alternative. The timely revelations of Marina on December 2-3 1963, gave them an easy out on that front.

Up till then, the Walker attempt was a non-issue in the JFK case; after Marina finked on Lee, the two cases became forever intertwined and Walker became Oswald’s “other victim”

Bill

Bill, may I ask -- why would Marina fink on Lee in the story of the shots at General Walker in the first place?

(1) Those of us who believe that Marina's sworn testimony is historical fact often agree that her motive was simply to tell the truth. Marina Oswald made it clear that she took one Backyard Photograph, period, and she had no explanation for the various poses. She saw Lee's photo album of resigned General Walker's home architecture and neighborhood, with maps. She said she got a handwritten Russian note from Lee himself with his instructions for her in case he was arrested. She said Lee Harvey Oswald confessed to her about the Walker shooting, giving his side of the story.

In light of all these revelations by Marina in early December 1963, the Warren Commission (WC) had no choice but commence questioning in 1964 of perhaps a dozen witnesses about the shots at General Walker back in April 1963.

(2) Those who disbelieve Marina Oswald often agree that her motive was to testify as the WC instructed her. But why in the world would the WC instruct Marina to lie about the Walker shooting? Remember; if Marina was following WC instructions, then Marina couldn't have been their reason for raising the issue.

Three questions immediately arise: (i) Why would the WC strain to link the April shooting at General Walker with the November JFK assassination, if it wasn't true? (ii) Why would somebody in Marina's position agree to link Lee Harvey Oswald with the shots at General Walker, if she knew it wasn't true? (iii) Why would several WC witnesses agree to link Lee Harvey Oswald with the shots at General Walker, if they knew it wasn't true (especially if they opposed Edwin Walker)?

IMHO, it makes little sense to propose any conspiracy to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the shots at General Walker. What motive could one offer? Either their WC testimony was truthfully told (e.g. these witnesses believed a publicity stunt was the real thing) or one must invent some artificial motive.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 11, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

The problem with the WC, was that they presented Walker as a victim. They never chose to look at any real alternative. The timely revelations of Marina on December 2-3 1963, gave them an easy out on that front.

Up till then, the Walker attempt was a non-issue in the JFK case; after Marina finked on Lee, the two cases became forever intertwined and Walker became Oswald’s “other victim”

Bill

Bill, may I ask -- why would Marina fink on Lee in the story of the shots at General Walker in the first place?

(1) Those of us who believe that Marina's sworn testimony is historical fact often agree that her motive was simply to tell the truth. Marina Oswald made it clear that she took one Backyard Photograph, period, and she had no explanation for the various poses. She saw Lee's photo album of resigned General Walker's home architecture and neighborhood, with maps. She said she got a handwritten Russian note from Lee himself with his instructions for her in case he was arrested. She said Lee Harvey Oswald confessed to her about the Walker shooting, giving his side of the story.

In light of all these revelations by Marina in early December 1963, the Warren Commission (WC) had no choice but commence questioning in 1964 of perhaps a dozen witnesses about the shots at General Walker back in April 1963.

(2) Those who disbelieve Marina Oswald often agree that her motive was to testify as the WC instructed her. But why in the world would the WC instruct Marina to lie about the Walker shooting? Remember; if Marina was following WC instructions, then Marina couldn't have been their reason for raising the issue.

Three questions immediately arise: (i) Why would the WC strain to link the April shooting at General Walker with the November JFK assassination, if it wasn't true? (ii) Why would somebody in Marina's position agree to link Lee Harvey Oswald with the shots at General Walker, if she knew it wasn't true? (iii) Why would several WC witnesses agree to link Lee Harvey Oswald with the shots at General Walker, if they knew it wasn't true (especially if they opposed Edwin Walker)?

IMHO, it makes little sense to propose any conspiracy to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the shots at General Walker. What motive could one offer? Either their testimony was truthfully told (e.g. these witnesses believed a publicity stunt was the real thing) or one must invent some artificial motive.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Richard Bartholomew writes that Marina's next (and current?) husband Porter was an employee of a company (can't remember its name) connected to DH Byrd - the CIA connected radio company i think it was - and was bragging about his affair with Marina just before the assassination and then abruptly quit his job right after the murder stating that he and Marina were off to get married.

there are other things that make me think Marina lied about Lee at some level and for some reason. Coercion, whatever... hell they hadn't even lived together for quite a while. I don't see a boatload of undying loyalty there in the aura of the assassination of the US President.

[Paul Trejo]

...Richard Bartholomew writes that Marina's next (and current?) husband Porter was an employee of a company (can't remember its name) connected to DH Byrd - the CIA connected radio company i think it was - and was bragging about his affair with Marina just before the assassination and then abruptly quit his job right after the murder stating that he and Marina were off to get married.

there are other things that make me think Marina lied about Lee at some level and for some reason. Coercion, whatever... hell they hadn't even lived together for quite a while. I don't see a boatload of undying loyalty there in the aura of the assassination of the US President.

Yet there's no detail there, Glenn. Some sort of a lie at some level for some reason?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

...Richard Bartholomew writes that Marina's next (and current?) husband Porter was an employee of a company (can't remember its name) connected to DH Byrd - the CIA connected radio company i think it was - and was bragging about his affair with Marina just before the assassination and then abruptly quit his job right after the murder stating that he and Marina were off to get married.

there are other things that make me think Marina lied about Lee at some level and for some reason. Coercion, whatever... hell they hadn't even lived together for quite a while. I don't see a boatload of undying loyalty there in the aura of the assassination of the US President.

Yet there's no detail there, Glenn. Some sort of a lie at some level for some reason?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

i simply stated that "there are other things that make me think" that she was just as capable of lying about him as she was telling the truth. i simply stated that there are things that lead ME to that opinion. Saying "at some level" for "some reason" was to intentionally leave it a broad possibility, that she may have lied about A LOT, or she may have lied only about A FEW things. Like the bathroom incident. it seems, with all the contradictions, that it's a lie. That Marina told. and that she may have lied for the reason that she was FORCED to, or for the reason that she WANTED to. The two day hostage meeting with her and a coupla crony lawyers and a coupla FEEBS leads me to believe that she was force-fed some untruths which was regurgitated later.

i'm certain that I'm not the only one in this forum who has read the same indications. if i am, i'm more than happy to provide some "detail."

since it is that you've apparently not read these things, would you like some detail to support my opinion?

I try very hard to have material that supports what inane comments your opinion may consider I've made. it's unusual that i'll say something you find contrary without having some evidentiary support. Much like most of the other people with whom you disagree... My experience is that many of the people in here actually found their theories on something substantial, and not Stephen King's Greatest Hits.