Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

As I've said, I've lived in most of the southern states and what you say does seem to fit. The racial attitudes in Ga did not seem as harsh as say Mississippi where the ratio was higher. Whereas Virginia there is hardly any racial conflict. The parish (county) that I live in Louisiana is about 13% black and we have few racial incidents or problems here. I see almost complete acceptance of the populations at the schools and athletic programs.

I find it kinda humorous that you mentioned the Brown decision as a Communist plot. And of course it was (just kidding). But I guess that was because everything bad in the country seemed to be because the communists were taking over the world. As you are well aware, there really were a lot of people with communist leanings back at that time. The failure of the Soviet union pretty well took care of that problem, thanks to your former Governor.

Unfortunately it now seems as if many in the government wants to replace that communism with socialism and are still using blacks as tools to keep a wedge issue. Much after Evers time in Ms, in the late 80's I lived near the town that he was from so got familiar with all the stories about him. His brother was the mayor of Fayette at that time.

Living in southern Ga in the 60's though, as i've said, there was very little to no racial friction in that area. I can certainly understand why Walker would have been a popular speaker in Mississippi.

Let me say, Kenneth, that I enjoy this dialogue with you. Your perspective as an honest, Southern gentleman with the white perspective on US Cold War history, and as a seasoned reader of JFK research, is valuable as we carefully consider the theory that the Radical Right led by the resigned General Walker could have been the direct cause of the JFK assassination.

The Red Scare that turned into the McCarthy episode which turned into the JBS episode is an important part of 20th century US History, and its treatment in the South as spurred by the Brown Decision deserves special attention. These were the passionately loyal supporters of the resigned General Walker when most of the nation had dismissed him as a 'crazy old man.'

Well, you were there, so I look forward to your personal insights in this thread as we consider Dr. Caufield's new book chapter by chapter.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It was from reading the works of A.J. Weberman that I first began to perceive a link between ex-FBI agent Guy Banister, ex-General Walker, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Jim Garrison interrogated Hall, Howard Hemming -- and he strongly suspected the late Guy Banister -- yet Garrison never seemed to make the connection with the resigned General Walker.

Nor did Harold Weisberg. Nor did Sylvia Meagher. Nor did Mark Lane. Nor did Edward Epstein. Nor did Jim Marrs. Nor did Robert Groden. Nor did Anthony Summers. Nor did any of the original widely published authors of JFK conspiracy theories of the 20th century.

Except A.J. Weberman.

By his close and relentless interviews of the ultra-slippery Gerry Patrick Hemming, A.J. Weberman knew that he was closer than anybody else to the Ground Crew of the JFK murder. He also knew that General Walker was involved -- somehow -- but he just couldn't formulate exactly how.

Unfortunately, like most JFK theorists, Weberman got sucked into the CIA-did-it vortex, and never emerged. It's a pity because he was so close -- so very close -- to the solution. Yet just like Joan Mellen and the 21st century writers who followed Jim Garrison, suspects like Loran Hall, Gerry Patrick Hemming, David Ferrie, Frank Sturgis, John Martino, Jack S. Martin and the host of low-level mercenaries around Guy Banister in New Orleans were to be considered somehow-or-other "CIA".

That's the main flaw that I see in all the CIA-did-it theories of the past 50 years. The main guys that they can really pinpoint -- who really had eye-witness accounts -- were really mercenary flunkies, and yet the theorists continued to claim that the CIA-did-it.

They failed to trace the CIVILIAN connections of these anti-Castro mercenaries. If they had done that, they would all have converged on the resigned General Walker -- I'm convinced.

OK, so now Amazon.com has straightened out their shipping snafu for me, and I should receive my book very soon now. My next question for Stephen Roy is this -- very briefly, what does Dr. Caufield's new book say about the CIA interaction with the resigned General Walker?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

First name is Steve, by the way..!

I don't have the book at work with me, and it is massive and will take some time to absorb, but my impression is that Dr. C doesn't think much of the putative CIA links, that it was basically a radical right job with a few government folks covering up for various reasons. That's my quick take, but Bill may correct me if I'm wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, that's a fair (albeit short) assessment, although I would add this.

I believe some people are merging the motive for the crime with that of the cover-up. I think that is a common mistake, and one that will confuse. IMO, I think we should approach them as two separate acts. There were differing motives for different individuals and agencies, some innocent, some not.

Since Oswald’s presented “legend” caused National Security implications, some individuals and agencies would have acted out of those concerns and not necessarily out of a desire to cover culpability.

Did the plotters try and cover? Yes!

However, I think there are several distinctions as to why the Government, i.e. Hoover, LBJ, CIA, SS and Military acted as they did. I don’t think they all had a common collective reaction or motive.

The real Walker “cover story”, I believe, was that Walker was merely a ‘Victim’ in this case.

Just my opinion.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

First name is Steve, by the way..!

I don't have the book at work with me, and it is massive and will take some time to absorb, but my impression is that Dr. C doesn't think much of the putative CIA links, that it was basically a radical right job with a few government folks covering up for various reasons. That's my quick take, but Bill may correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks, Steve, for your kind correction about your first name -- I'll remember that in future.

Also, thanks for your impressions about the lack of Walker/CIA connections in Dr. Caufield's new book. First impressions are interesting in themselves.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites

...I believe some people are merging the motive for the crime with that of the cover-up. I think that is a common mistake, and one that will confuse. IMO, I think we should approach them as two separate acts. There were differing motives for different individuals and agencies, some innocent, some not.

Since Oswald’s presented “legend” caused National Security implications, some individuals and agencies would have acted out of those concerns and not necessarily out of a desire to cover culpability.

Did the plotters try and cover? Yes!

However, I think there are several distinctions as to why the Government, i.e. Hoover, LBJ, CIA, SS and Military acted as they did. I don’t think they all had a common collective reaction or motive.

The real Walker “cover story”, I believe, was that Walker was merely a ‘Victim’ in this case.

Just my opinion.

Bill

Thanks, Bill, for that extended summary. I agree that some -- perhaps most -- readers merge the JFK Crime and Cover-up motives into one. We have seen this with Jim Garrison, Sylvia Meagher, Harold Weisberg, Mark Lane, Edward Epstein, Jim Marrs, Robert Groden, Anthony Summers -- even David Lifton at the end.

It's the most common way of looking at the JFK assassination. Sadly, this error has done more to hide the real assassins than any other approach, IMHO.

I agree that we should indeed approach the JFK murder and the JFK cover-up as two separate acts -- and then debate the details from that perspective.

As you suggest, the FPCC Communist "legend" of Lee Harvey Oswald was a National Security issue -- and that has to be dealt with separately.

Now, if the US Government used the "Lone Nut" theory to cover-up the Truth about the JFK assassination, then what arguments did the JFK Plotters use to cover their tracks?

Their first cover, of course, was that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting as an FPCC Communist agent, killed JFK because he represented Capitalism. It was on this theory that the USA was supposed to invade Cuba and kill Castro in revenge. As I see it today, the JFK Plotters never let go of this theory. This was their first, middle and final theory.

Another theory I've heard -- and perhaps Dr. Caufield will try to make this case -- was that Walker planned his own Fake Assassination back in April 1963 in order to be able to say that he was also a Victim in the JFK assassination in November 1963, because Lee Harvey Oswald was the same shooter in both cases.

Yet that suggests a problem that merits review. Did Walker really think that he would be the prime suspect for the JFK murder in November 1963, so that he was already planning his alibi in April 1963?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Walker and his cohorts were not really "lone assassin" advocates. They believed Oswald was involved, but that he had communist "confederates" that the WC failed to bring out.

Walker continually spoke of the WC as a sham. At one point at a Citizens 'Council rally in Baton Rogue on 7/4/65, Walker and Ned Touchstone and others called for a new investigation into finding these "confederates" that might still be in Louisiana, and were asking for donations to conduct their own inquiry. Walker called the JFK murder a "coup d' etat and a complete take over of the Government" he predicted more assassinations would take place.

There aim was to tie the communists into the plot. I believe this was one of the original motives of the plot, that never really came to fruition.

Bill

Edited by William O'Neil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Walker and his cohorts were not really "lone assassin" advocates. They believed Oswald was involved, but that he had communist "confederates" that the WC failed to bring out.

Walker continually spoke of the WC as a sham. At one point at a Citizens 'Council rally in Baton Rogue on 7/4/65, Walker and Ned Touchstone and others called for a new investigation into finding these "confederates" that might still be in Louisiana, and were asking for donations to conduct their own inquiry. Walker called the JFK murder a "coup d' etat and a complete take over of the Government" he predicted more assassinations would take place.

There aim was to tie the communists into the plot. I believe this was one of the original motives of the plot, that never really came to fruition.

Bill

If I may opine here -- if (and only if) the resigned General Walker was the leader of the Dallas plot to kill JFK (just as he was the leader of the Dallas plot to humiliate Adlai Stevenson one month before) then I would fully expect Walker to openly oppose the "Lone Nut" theory as he did.

It was the aim of the Radical Right to stamp out Communism in Cuba -- and an invasion of Cuba would accomplish that -- and blaming the Communists for the JFK murder was clearly the purpose of setting up Lee Harvey Oswald to look like an FPCC Communist.

So, when the Warren Commission promoted Hoover's "Lone Nut" interpretation of Lee Harvey Oswald, we cannot be surprised that the Radical Right would cry "foul!"

Furthermore, we cannot be surprised that Walker and the Radical Right would continually speak of the Warren Commission as a "sham."

As a last ditch effort to revive a call for revenge against Fidel Castro and Cuba, we shouldn't be surprised that the Radical Right would continue to demand a re-opening of the JFK case, in order to finally find the "Communists" who did this "terrible act".

It seems to me that General Walker and the Radical Right completely underestimated J. Edgar Hoover.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoover and the WC's conclusions pretty much nullified the desired results of the plotters IMO. Some were grateful while others like Walker were not. They kept stirring the pot every chance the got.

Bill

Right, Bill. It's apparent that the resigned General Edwin Walker was upset with Hoover and the Warren Commission for promoting their "Lone Nut" theory so forcefully. Here's what Walker told the WC attorney Wesley LIebeler on 23 July 1964, during his own WC interrogation:

-------------- BEGIN EXTRACT OF WALKER TESTIMONY TO THE WARREN COMMISSION 7/23/1963 ----------------

Mr. LIEBELER. Now do you have any knowledge or any information that would indicate that Oswald was involved in a conspiracy of any type on the assassination of the President?

General WALKER. I think he designated his own conspiracy when he said he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. That to me is a definite recognition of Conspiracy.

Mr. LIEBELER. Suggesting that the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was involved?

General WALKER. I would say as a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, it could not be segregated from being involved in it when one of its members does it, who thinks like they do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, that is of course, your view. My question of you is this. Do you have any evidence or any knowledge that would either the involvement of organization in a conspiracy or plot to assassinate the President. The fact that Oswald may have been a member of this organization, which he was, of course, is a fact that can be viewed from many different ways. But my question to you is somewhat different from that, and that is, do you know of or have any evidence to indicate that this organization or any other organization or any other person was involved with Oswald in the assassination of the President?

General WALKER. My answer to you is that I have exactly the evidence that you have, which is evidence that it was involved in the conspiracy, he said he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and the objectives of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee [are] a Communist activity -- a conspiracy.

-------------- END EXTRACT OF WALKER TESTIMONY TO THE WARREN COMMISSION 7/23/1963 ----------------

I think it's interesting that the WC attorney was so cool and detached in the face of Walker's repetition. Liebeler wasn't interested in Walker's insistence that Oswald was an FPCC Communist, because Hoover and the FBI had long ago presented evidence that the FPCC branch in New Orleans was Fake -- just as Oswald's CPUSA card was Fake.

Walker seems to be oblivious to Hoover's inside knowledge, and so Walker continues to promote his key idea, namely, that Lee Harvey Oswald was an FPCC Communist! Why doesn't America wake up and go bomb Cuba??

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

In one of his many posts Paul Trejo said,

  • Jack Ruby told Earl Warren that Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society of Dallas murdered JFK (WC Testimony).

In Jack Ruby's testimony before the Warren Commission (with Earl Warren asking the questions) the name Edwin Walker is mentioned, I believe, one time. Here are the sentences leading up to Ruby mentioning Walker's name and the ones after as well.

Chief Justice WARREN. Yes?
Mr. RUBY. Because then they would have known the truth about Jack Ruby and his emotional breakdown.
Chief Justice WARREN. Yes?
Mr. RUBY. Of why that Sunday morning--that thought never entered my mind prior to that Sunday morning when I took it upon myself to try to be a martyr or some screwball, you might say.
But I felt very emotional and very carried away for Mrs. Kennedy, that with all the strife she had gone through--I had been following it pretty well--that someone owed it to our beloved President that she shouldn't be expected to come back to face trial of this heinous crime.
And I have never had the chance to tell that, to back it up, to prove it.
Consequently, right at this moment I am being victimized as a part of a plot in the.world's worst tragedy and crime at this moment.
Months back had I been given a chance--I take that back. Sometime back a police officer of the Dallas Police Department wanted to know how I got into the building. And I don't know whether I requested a lie detector test or not, but my attorney wasn't available.
When you are a defendant in the case, you say "speak to your attorney," you know. But that was a different time. It was after the trial, whenever it happened.
At this moment, Lee Harvey Oswald isn't guilty of committing the crime of assassinating President Kennedy. Jack Ruby is.
How can I fight that, Chief Justice Warren?
Chief Justice WARREN. Well now, I want to say, Mr. Ruby, that as far as this Commission is concerned, there is no implication of that in what we are doing.
Mr. RUBY. All right, there is a certain organization here----
Chief Justice WARREN. That I can assure you.
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.
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. When I left my apartment that morning----
Chief Justice WARREN. What morning?
Mr. RUBY. Sunday morning.
Chief Justice WARREN. Sunday morning.
Mr. RUBY. Let's go back. Saturday I watched Rabbi Seligman. Any of you watch it that Saturday morning?
Chief Justice WARREN. No; I didn't happen to hear it.
Mr. RUBY. He went ahead and eulogized that here is a man that fought in every battle, went to every country, and had to come back to his own country to be shot in the back [starts crying]. I must be a great actor, I tell you that.
Chief Justice WARREN. No.
Mr. RUBY. That created a tremendous emotional feeling for me, the way he said that. Prior to all the other times, I was carried away.
Then that Saturday night, I didn't do anything but visit a little club over here and had a Coca-Cola, because I was sort of depressed. A fellow that owns the Pago Club, Bob Norton, and he knew something was wrong with me in the certain mood I was in.
And I went home and that weekend, the Sunday morning, and saw a letter to Caroline, two columns about a 16-inch area. Someone had written a letter to Caroline. The most heartbreaking letter. I don't remember the contents. Do you remember that?
Mr. MOORE. I think I saw it.
Mr. RUBY. Yes; and alongside that letter on the same sheet of paper was a small comment in the newspaper that, I don't know how it was stated, that Mrs. Kennedy may have to come back for the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. That caused me to go like I did; that caused me to go like I did.
I don't know, Chief Justice, but I got so carried away. And I remember prior to that thought, there has never been another thought in my mind; I was never malicious toward this person. No one else requested me to do anything. I never spoke to anyone about attempting to do anything. No subversive organization gave me any idea. No underworld person made any effort to contact me. It all happened that Sunday morning.
The last thing I read was that Mrs. Kennedy may have to come back to Dallas for trial for Lee Harvey Oswald, and, I don't know what bug got ahold of me. I don't know what it is, but I am going to tell the truth word for word.

Not sure how you can suggest that Ruby told Earl Warren that Walker and the John Burch society killed Kennedy from this testimony.

If there is some other testimony I'm missing please share it with me.

Jim Root

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Jim, admittedly it's a matter of interpretation, but here's my interpretation. First, let me extract the relevant snippet from your post:

------- BEGIN EXTRACT OF JACK RUBY TESTIMONY TO WARREN COMMISSION ON 18 JULY 1964 ------------

Mr. Ruby. ...At this moment, Lee Harvey Oswald isn't guilty of committing the crime of assassinating President Kennedy. Jack Ruby is. How can I fight that, Chief Justice Warren?

Chief Justice WARREN. Well now, I want to say, Mr. Ruby, that as far as this Commission is concerned, there is no implication of that in what we are doing.

Mr. RUBY. All right, there is a certain organization here --

Chief Justice WARREN. That I can assure you.

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. 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 EXTRACT OF JACK RUBY TESTIMONY TO WARREN COMMISSION ON 18 JULY 1964 ------------

So, there's the testimony, Jim, and now I'll explain how I interpret it. Everything depends on the context.

(1) The context is the JFK murder. This is clear from Ruby's first remark above -- that the mood of the USA at that time is that Jack Ruby is somehow involved with the JFK murder itself.

(2) Of course, Chief Justice Earl Warren assures Ruby that he isn't influenced by that general mood of the USA.

(3) Then Jack Ruby refers to a previous conversation he had with Dallas Sheriff Bill Decker. Jack Ruby was known for his unusual attachment to all Dallas law enforcement officials (despite the fact that he was a career criminal) and so the opinion of Bill Decker was important to Ruby. In this conversation, Bill Decker challenged Jack Ruby to "be a man" and tell the court his honest opinion about who killed JFK.

(4) Then Jack Ruby makes his announcement: 'there is an organization here in Dallas, the John Birch Society, now in activity, and Edwin Walker is one of the top men in this organization.'

(5) Jack Ruby makes that statement with a private stipulation -- that by divulging the names of the JFK Killers as he just did -- he has placed his own life and his family's life in jeopardy. This suggests, in my interpretation, that the Dallas policemen who were part of the John Birch Society as led by Edwin Walker in Dallas, had threatened him and his whole family with murder if he told the truth as he knew it.

(6) Jack Ruby further adds, "Well, I won't be living long now. I know that. My family's lives will be gone." I take this to mean that Ruby expected the Dallas policemen who were part of the John Birch Society as led by Edwin Walker in Dallas to fulfill their death threats.

(7) Furthermore, Jack Ruby recognized by the silence of Earl Warren that Earl Warren didn't "get" the message. He asks, "Don't register with you, does it?" And Earl Warren replies, "No; I don't understand that."

(8) Jack Ruby then asks if Earl Warren would rather just "delete what I said and just pretend that nothing is going on." That is, Ruby was not inclined to press this issue if Earl Warren did not also press the issue. It was very risky for Ruby, as Ruby has already clarified.

(9) Further, Jack Ruby suggested that "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." I interpret this to mean that by killing Lee Harvey Oswald, this allowed the John Birch Society and Edwin Walker to gain a foothold in Dallas, and therefore in US politics.

(10) Finally, I interpret this snippet as a detour away from Ruby's narrative about Sunday, because a little further on Ruby says, "Let's go back," meaning, let's go back to the topic of Sunday.

OK, that's my interpretation. Granted, Jack Ruby was not explicit in what he said. This is proved by Earl Warren's reaction. It's as though Earl Warren is hoping that Jack Ruby would just spell it out clearly, and stop his mere hinting.

Yet Jack Ruby was equally clear that he was terrified for his own life and for the life of his family by naming names as he did.

Comments?

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

Still think it is a stretch from what he actually said to Ruby saying Walker did it...but we can disagree. I must admit that I am jealous of the access you have had to the Walker papers which I have only viewed briefly one time. Do believe I would be looking for clues that differ from the ones that you may seek but do look forward to getting to Austin again.

I think Walker referring to Ruby as Rubinstein, along with many other post assassination comments Walker made, caused Ruby to fear Walker just as many alleged neo nazi type groups would create nervousness in most Jews during the post WWII era but to believe that that would lead to an accusation that Walker did the dead is, like I said, a stretch.

By the way I have found a slight (a few degrees of separation) connection between Walker and Ruby that does still tantalize me at times....deals with Ruby's phone call/s with a past girlfriend prior to the assassination.

Jim Root

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

Still think it is a stretch from what he actually said to Ruby saying Walker did it...but we can disagree. I must admit that I am jealous of the access you have had to the Walker papers which I have only viewed briefly one time. Do believe I would be looking for clues that differ from the ones that you may seek but do look forward to getting to Austin again.

I think Walker referring to Ruby as Rubinstein, along with many other post assassination comments Walker made, caused Ruby to fear Walker just as many alleged neo nazi type groups would create nervousness in most Jews during the post WWII era but to believe that that would lead to an accusation that Walker did the deed is, like I said, a stretch.

By the way I have found a slight (a few degrees of separation) connection between Walker and Ruby that does still tantalize me at times....deals with Ruby's phone call/s with a past girlfriend prior to the assassination.

Jim Root

Thanks for the discussion, Jim. I also believe that when Jack Ruby begged Earl Warren to take him back to Washington DC with him -- because he could not tell his full story in Dallas -- that Ruby was actually expressing his terror of the Dallas policemen who were linked to the John Birch Society as led by the resigned General Edwin Walker. IMHO, this was the cause of his fear -- and this was the "whole new form of government" that Ruby feared would take over the USA.

Also, to extend your suspicion that Walker and Ruby were connected socially, there is an interesting book by Jim Gatewood, a Dallas historian and speaker, entitled, Captain Will Fritz and the Dallas Mafia (2004) which includes a rare look at Jack Ruby from the viewpoint of the DPD Captain. In this book, Gatewood provides evidence that Jack Ruby ran two high-class bordellos in Dallas, very private, with gated gardens and streams, for the high-rollers in Dallas. Nothing was off-limits in a Ruby bordello, he claimed. So, given Edwin Walker's double-life, we might consider that angle as well.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

I am trying to find some old notes on Ruby....especially dealing with his lie detector test....and a totally different connection.

When dealing with Ruby I find the most intriguing part of his life deals with his religion and the very important part that it played in his life.

On another note:

Virginia Belasco, who Ruby had contact with prior to the assassination, was the grand daughter of David Belasco a very successful early movie pioneer and Broadway producer. David Belasco signed Charlotte Walker, who would become a Broadway and movie star (Edwin Walker's aunt) to be featured in many of his productions throughout her prestigious career. While I have not been able to pin it down it seems that Edwin Walker also had a roll in at least one Broadway production while a student at West Point. Sara Haden, Charlotte Walker's daughter and Edwin Walker's cousin, would also enjoy a long Hollywood career in movies most notably in her roll as Aunt Milley alongside Mickey Rooney in the Andy Hardy series.

Strange connections,

Jim Root

Edited by Jim Root
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...