Mark Knight Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Mr. Trejo, You're creating a false either/or choice. It's not a case of either Walker coached witnesses, or the WC did. That is a case of false alternatives since there may have been a lot more reasons for folks to go along with the "official" narrative. There are more than two reasons to rob a bank. Some to do it to prove they can. Some do it for the money. Some do it for the adrenaline rush. Some do it because they have a problem of some sort with the bank. It's not an "either/or" situation. Different individuals have different individual motivations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) Mr. Trejo, You're creating a false either/or choice. It's not a case of either Walker coached witnesses, or the WC did. That is a case of false alternatives since there may have been a lot more reasons for folks to go along with the "official" narrative. There are more than two reasons to rob a bank. Some to do it to prove they can. Some do it for the money. Some do it for the adrenaline rush. Some do it because they have a problem of some sort with the bank. It's not an "either/or" situation. Different individuals have different individual motivations. Well, Mark, if there are more alternatives than Walker or the WC coaching them, the first alternative that comes to mind is that they didn't need coaching because their story was true. Their stories fit together like a hand and glove. There is no possible way wherein five different people can separately tell a fiction and get all the pieces to fit perfectly -- without continual coaching. Would you agree? Furthermore, all their stories fit perfectly with the separate stories of Volkmar Schmidt and Mrs. Igor Voshinin -- who never faced the WC. Were they also coached? By whom? Yet if there was a Coach who supervised a common lie, but it was not the WC or General Walker -- then who was it? Marina? Ruth? Jeanne? George? Volkmar? Michael? The most likely name would be George De Mohrenschildt, who alone knew all these parties equally -- yet George had concluded his WC testimony with these doubts about the guilt of LHO: Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Unless the man is guilty, I will not be his judge...and there will be always a doubt in my mind, and throughout my testimony I explained sufficiently why I have those doubts. And mainly because he did not have any permanent animosity for President Kennedy. That is why I have the doubts. Based on this alone, George De Mohrenschildt doesn't seem likely as the lead plotter against LHO. Actually, none of those names seems likely, knowing how bitterly they all opposed the politics of General Walker during the race riots at Ole Miss in 1962. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 12, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) It might be worthwhile to review a little more from George De Mohrenschildt's WC testimony about General Walker and Lee Harvey Oswald. Marina had said that George made his "Walker" remark to Oswald immediately upon entering their apartment, using the words, "Lee, how is it possible that you missed?" Jeanne and George had said that he made his "Walker" remark to Oswald inside, and only after Jeanne had found the rifle with scope; and only as a joke. The WC called George back to testify again, to clarify this apparent discrepancy. It's worthwhile to note that Marina Oswald was called back twice. She ultimately agreed with George's version as given here, and she admitted that her recollection had been sketchy. -------- BEGIN EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF GEORGE DE MOHRENSCHILDT --------- Mr. JENNER. I would like to return to this gun, this weapon incident, the Walker incident. Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes. Mr. JENNER. Was there ever an occasion after this time, when you and Mrs. De Mohrenschildt came to see the Oswalds, that as soon as you opened the door, you said, "Lee, how is it possible that you missed?" Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Never. I don't recall that incident. Mr. JENNER. You have now given me your full recollection of that entire rifle incident? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes. Mr. JENNER. Weapon incident, and what you said to him? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes, yes, yes, yes; that is right. How could I have -- my recollections are vague, of course, but how could I have said that when I didn't know [yet] that he had a gun you see. I was standing there and then Jeanne told us or Marina, you know, the incident just as I have described it, that here is a gun, you see. I remember very distinctly saying, "Did you take the potshot at General Walker?" The same meaning you know, "Did you miss him," about the same meaning? I didn't want him to shoot Walker. I don't go to that extent you see. Mr. JENNER. You didn't want him to shoot anybody? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Anybody. I didn't want him to shoot anybody. But if somebody has a gun with a telescopic lens you see, and knowing that he hates the man, it is a logical assumption you see. Mr. JENNER. You knew at that time that he had a definite bitterness for General Walker? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I definitely knew that, either from some conversations we had on General Walker, you know -- this was the period of General Walker's, you know, big showoff, you know. Mr. JENNER. He was quite militant wasn't he. Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. He was, yes---- -------- END EXTRACT OF WC TESTIMONY OF GEORGE DE MOHRENSCHILDT --------- Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 12, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) "...my recollections are vague," "..."but how could I have said that when I didn't know [yet] that he had a gun you see. I was standing there and then Jeanne told us or Marina, you know, the incident just as I have described it, that here is a gun, you see. I remember very distinctly saying,"Did you take the potshot at General Walker?" ...you said, "Lee, how is it possible that you missed?" "Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Anybody. I didn't want him to shoot anybody. But if somebody has a gun with a telescopic lens you see, and knowing that he hates the man, it is a logical assumption you see. Mr. JENNER. You knew at that time that he had a definite bitterness for General Walker? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I definitely knew that, either from some conversations we had on General Walker, you know -- this was the period of General Walker's, you know, big showoff, you know." This is a load of BS! What? Lots of people wanted Walker dead, why does the Baron automatically assume Oswald is the logical suspect out of so many... when YOU were the Instigator for the subject even being broached?... BS! This (IMO) is a man scrambling for an answer to logical questionioning, and utterly failing to convince a listener of his sincerity, about why he would even raise the subject with Lee, which he then denies even saying! The Baron is a BS'er. Bill Edited August 12, 2015 by William O'Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 Sorry the quotes are out of context a bit , my cut and paste job failed. Hopefully the point was made...OOPS Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) Mr. JENNER: ...you said, "Lee, how is it possible that you missed?" "Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. "...my recollections are vague...but how could I have said that when I didn't know [yet] that he had a gun you see. I was standing there and then Jeanne told us or Marina, you know, the incident just as I have described it, that here is a gun, you see. I remember very distinctly saying, "Did you take the potshot at General Walker?" ... Mr. JENNER: You didn't want him to shoot anybody? "Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Anybody. I didn't want him to shoot anybody. But if somebody has a gun with a telescopic lens you see, and knowing that he hates the man, it is a logical assumption you see. Mr. JENNER. You knew at that time that he had a definite bitterness for General Walker? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I definitely knew that, either from some conversations we had on General Walker, you know -- this was the period of General Walker's, you know, big showoff, you know." This is a load of BS! What? Lots of people wanted Walker dead, why does the Baron automatically assume Oswald is the logical suspect out of so many... when YOU were the Instigator for the subject even being broached?... BS! This (IMO) is a man scrambling for an answer to logical questionioning, and utterly failing to convince a listener of his sincerity, about why he would even raise the subject with Lee, which he then denies even saying! The Baron is a BS'er. Bill Well, Bill, the context that justifies George De Mohrenschildt's comments there are provided in the book he wrote shortly before (allegedly) committing suicide in 1978. I refer to his book, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy! Here is the larger context. In that book George tells of the party at his home with host of young oil engineers and their wives, including Everett Glover and Volkmar Schmidt, and featured guests, Lee and Marina Oswald. There was also a relationship between Volkmar Schmidt and Lee Harvey Oswald. The relationship as portrayed in that book was a trio -- and George would humor Lee by calling Volkmar, "Messer Schmidt", and would also humor Lee by calling General Walker, "General Fokker." This made Lee laugh. George plainly states that he and Volkmar Schmidt together and in coordination worked upon Lee Harvey Oswald to urge him to hate and despise the resigned General Walker exactly as they did. Yet in his book, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!, George deliberately refrains from naming Volkmar as the instigator of that party's feature performance -- Volkmar performing a psychological "process" on Lee Harvey Oswald -- for hours -- trying to "transfer" Oswald's hostility over the Bay of Pigs into hostility over Ole Miss. Volkmar Schmidt, after George's alleged suicide, did not hide when asked about this party, but was very open about it, even to our own Bill Kelly of this FORUM. Yet George was evidently worried about exposing Volkmar, because in his book he said that the person (whose name he withheld) who "processed" Lee Harvey Oswald was "probably Jewish." Volkmar, the German, openly admits that he was the guy. So we see a trio -- George and Volkmar working, perhaps for weeks, to convince Lee Harvey Oswald that the resigned General Walker was the true enemy of freedom, equality and the American way. Two foreigners trying to convince a former Marine about the true meaning of American values; that's the context. This is what the Baron was hiding in his testimony -- that he himself was partly responsible for the "potshot" at General Walker. That is also what Jeanne De Mohrenschildt was hiding. This is also what Ruth Paine was hiding. This is also what Michael Paine was hiding, IMHO. There was a Dallas plot to eliminate the resigned General Walker -- but it wasn't openly stated -- it was implied. The fact that Lee Harvey Oswald made it his life's project to please his new-found yuppie friends, this fact only startled them and sent them scurrying for the door. Yet that's apparently the way Lee Harvey Oswald behaved. In many ways, Lee Harvey Oswald and the resigned General Walker were very much alike. Walker was convinced by Robert Welch's writings to start a race riot at Ole Miss -- but Robert Welch himself would never do such a thing. Yet General Walker was a man of action, not just of words. In the same way, Oswald was convinced by George, Volkmar and Michael to eliminate General Walker -- but George, Volkmar and Michael would never do such a thing. Yet Lee Harvey Oswald was a man of action, not just of words. Given this context, the words of George De Mohrenschildt were not BS, but actually comprise a confession. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 12, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 Lots of unanswered questions still, However, I do not trust George D.... he said so many things that differed over the years, that I'm not sure when he was telling the truth if he ever did. The Willem Oltman's interviews and research are an example. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) Lots of unanswered questions still, However, I do not trust George D.... he said so many things that differed over the years, that I'm not sure when he was telling the truth if he ever did. The Willem Oltman's interviews and research are an example. Bill Yes, George was an odd bird -- yet Willem Oltman's account of George's life was a profit-making scheme and shouldn't be counted along with George's account. They are quite separate, IMHO. Years ago, Bruce Campbell Adamson produced a CD set that delved deeper than anybody else into the life of George De Mohrenschildt, tracing as many of his associates and family members as possible. Painstaking work. Yet Adamson was desperately seeking a CIA link to explain the man -- and IMHO he never found it. I studied that CD set for months -- and all I found was a spoiled rich kid from Russia whose family lost all their land to Lenin and Trotsky, and they struggled for years, hoping to take it back. Of course they tried to exploit the Nazi Party in the 1930's for that purpose, but that failed miserably. After the doom of WW2 the De Mohrenschildt brothers came to the USA, defeated and hoping to get a new start. They were brilliantly educated, and everywhere they went doors flew open for them. His older brother was more successful, and George was always the spoiled one -- jaded, even. Several wives later, he remained with Jeanne, his ballet dancer who had her own small estate, and they lived on that as George became an oil professor at UT Austin, always hoping to strike it rich. Because of his high contacts in America, and his great education, he was invited to help with Intelligence Communities after WW2, and the CIA did indeed exploit him for various Anticommunist projects. It was chump change, however, and George wanted the big money -- which he knew was in Oil, and especially in Caribbean Oil. Texas oil men were his companions, and he always attended the larger parties and functions given by H.L. Hunt and that circle of Texas oil barons. Yet he had long ago lost his faith in Christ, and so he never was invited to smaller parties; so, he filled that void by starting his own "Bohemian's Club," in Dallas, with several members who would meet monthly for succulent cooking and a speech by this or that freethinker. George himself would often give speeches, and he liked to shock people with his speeches. Once he gave a speech extolling the virtues of Joseph Goebbels -- just to get a rise out of his audience. According to his loyal friend (though a faithful Christian) Volkmar Schmidt, our pal George De Mohrenschildt was unashamed of cheating on his wife again and again, and advising others to cheat on their spouses, too, "for good health." Jaded is the term that comes to mind. George De Mohrenschildt was not plugged in to American Society as he hoped to be. He longed for more, and evidently his contacts in the CIA offered him the deal of a lifetime -- an Oil Exploration Contract in Haiti worth $500,000 (which today, adjusted for inflation, would amount to $5 million). This was pay-dirt. The exchange for the CIA was this -- George had to babysit Lee Harvey Oswald and keep him out of trouble. But George couldn't help meddling. His supreme arrogance in the face of this poverty-stricken Marine and his new family led him to take charge of Oswald's life, his employment, his marital relations, his politics. George really made a mess of things. The worst chapter in his life -- as we glean from his final (and only) book, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!, is when he secretly challenged the life of resigned General Walker through his fan-club of young oil engineers in Dallas. Evidently, he and Jeanne were unaccustomed to living among African-Americans, yet Haiti is populated and governed mainly by African-Americans, so George worked overtime to condition himself to be Anti-racist. The resigned General Edwin Walker in late 1962 with his "big showoff" started a race riot at Ole Miss University, and George De Mohrenschildt put on airs of being personally offended by it. He whipped up support in early 1963 for US Civil Rights by encouraging young oil engineers in Dallas to speak out against the resigned General Walker. This not only ruined Lee Harvey Oswald, it also ruined George's chances of success in Haiti -- because after the JFK murder and the enormous public demonization of Lee Harvey Oswald, George lost that contract, and died divorced, broken and penniless. Yes, the former baron George De Mohrenschildt was a pathetic character -- but he wasn't really a monster, nor was he a CIA Officer. Not by a long shot. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 13, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) One may ask me what evidence I have for my theory about General Walker and George De Mohrenschildt. My reply is that I have the sworn WC testimonies of Marina Oswald, George De Mohrenschildt, Ruth Paine, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt and Michael Paine, as well as sundry Warren Commission exhibits such as the Russian letter (CE-1), photos of the Walker home (e.g. CE-5 and CE-997 thru CE-1017), the Backyard Photographs (e.g. CE-714), and so on, which are common knowledge. (Even setting aside George's HSCA document, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!, as well as the claims of Volkmar Schmidt and Mrs. Igor Voshinin.) That is my evidence. On the other hand, I think my critics don't have any evidence except their skepticism. Now -- I agree with my critics that the Warren Commission was deliberately slanted to remove all suspicion of a Conspiracy in the assassination of JFK, so that some skepticism is surely warranted. The question is where to draw the line. I draw the line at the "Lone Nut" fiction. My critics seem to simply dump the entire Warren Commission volumes into the garbage can, period. Please correct me if I'm mistaken in my perceptions here. I don't know how or whether Dr. Jeffrey Caufield will address the problem of George De Mohrenschildt in his forthcoming new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical-Right Conspiracy, but I do believe that this question has never received adequate attention in the past fifty years. Four people are still alive who would know more about the General Walker issue, namely, Larrie Schmidt, Bernard Weissman, Ruth Paine and Michael Paine. I have no idea whether Dr. Caufield interviewed any of them. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted August 13, 2015 Author Share Posted August 13, 2015 Paul, No those people were not interviewed or available...well to us anyway. De Mohrenschildt was a worry to Walker as I posted earlier and one can speculate forever as to why? Knowledge is always evolving and at some point you just have to stop and write the darn book. Editing is another consideration when trying to include everything... Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) Paul, No those people were not interviewed or available...well to us anyway. De Mohrenschildt was a worry to Walker as I posted earlier and one can speculate forever as to why? Knowledge is always evolving and at some point you just have to stop and write the darn book. Editing is another consideration when trying to include everything... Bill Quite right, Bill. The topic itself is enormously difficult as a half-century of intensive research by several professional intellectuals has already shown. By the way, a couple years ago I was fortunate enough to contact Larrie Schmidt, only to find out that he was unwilling to talk about General Walker and the fact that his late brother, Robbie Schmidt, lived with General Walker for most of 1963, as his chauffeur. Actually, for all his amiability over several months of phone calls, emails and snail mail, I got very little information from Larrie Schmidt other than what he had already told LIFE magazine back in 1965, though I feel certain that he is still withholding an enormous amount of historical truth. As for Bernie Weissman, I tried to contact him several times in his home town -- I even tried his hometown synagogue -- but never received any reply. As for Ruth and Michael Paine, I have no idea in the world how to contact them -- but it seems to me that they, being intellectuals, should be more willing to open up and talk to a sincere journalist about the resigned General Walker. Yet no matter how much I've pleaded with FORUM members to contact them -- to the best of my knowledge, nobody here has yet been able to reach them. This surprises me because there are so many serious authors and journalists in this FORUM that I honestly expected somebody to have the wherewithal to find Ruth and Michael Paine. It's only my hope, then, my wish, that before they pass over to the other side of this life, that at least one of these four will leave behind a document of the TRUTH that they knew about Dallas in 1963, which the Warren Commission would never allow them to tell in 1964 and beyond. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) Google Books is now featuring a preview of Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book on resigned Major General Edwin Walker and the JFK assassination. Here's the URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=M7JYCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA879&lpg=PA879&dq=dallas+morning+news++general+walker&source=bl&ots=UC4vRKVIkN&sig=rds63kRtt9FvGNpwTvrpE_pSTpM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBGoVChMI1N6Nse-oxwIVyheSCh0sBgf5#v=onepage&q=dallas%20morning%20news%20%20general%20walker&f=false Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) Take a closer look at this photograph of the resigned General Walker by the Dallas Morning News from October 1963. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk50/explore/20130511-before-gunning-for-jfk-oswald-targeted-ex-gen.-edwin-a.-walker--and-missed.ece The context is that the resigned General Walker had just been released from the Springfield Mental Hospital in Missouri, where he was remanded by RFK and JFK after the deadly race riots at Ole Miss on the night of 30 September 1962. Notice on his suit jacket's left sleeve is what appears to be a stain from the tear-gas and smoke from the riots. Notice also that resigned General Walker is greeted by a crowd of white citizens, nominating Walker for US President in 1964. Notice also the Confederate Flag being waved directly over his head. These were the real politics of the South in 1963. These were the real politics that killed JFK. Not the CIA. Not the Nazis. Not the USSR. Not Fidel Castro. Not LBJ. Not GHW Bush. The Confederate Flag was still flying high in the South -- and these were the supporters of the resigned Major General Edwin Walker. This photograph is the Rosetta Stone of the JFK assassination. Yet after a half-century, scholars are only now beginning to glean the truth. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted August 14, 2015 Share Posted August 14, 2015 (edited) Google Books is now featuring a preview of Dr. Jeffrey Caufield's new book on resigned Major General Edwin Walker and the JFK assassination. Here's the URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=M7JYCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA879&lpg=PA879&dq=dallas+morning+news++general+walker&source=bl&ots=UC4vRKVIkN&sig=rds63kRtt9FvGNpwTvrpE_pSTpM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBGoVChMI1N6Nse-oxwIVyheSCh0sBgf5#v=onepage&q=dallas%20morning%20news%20%20general%20walker&f=false Best regards, --Paul Trejo Judging from this excerpt, this new book is well-researched and well-documented so it should be very useful for anyone interested in learning about the roles which various extreme right personalities (and organizations) played with respect to creating the venom which was directed toward JFK. BTW---as of today, Amazon is showing 9/29/15 as the actual publication date and selling price of $39.00 Edited August 14, 2015 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O'Neil Posted August 14, 2015 Author Share Posted August 14, 2015 Yep, hopefully the 29th! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now