New Book!

[Ernie Lazar]

On the contrary, Ernie, what I say makes good sense.

Although the "Lone Nut" theory has obtained resistance from its very first days, it nevertheless became a dogma of the US Government, and for a while became a litmus test for American Loyalty. Some people still view it that way (e.g "Lone Nutters").

I agree that the question of Motivation is key in the contemplation of a CT in the JFK murder, and yet the Warren Commission deliberately sidestepped that question -- with good reason.

Your attempt, Ernie, to portray Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) as a fellow-traveler among the Communists was flatly rejected by J. Edgar Hoover himself -- in his own testimony to the Warren Commission. The FBI had followed the State Department in giving LHO a clean bill of health when he finally left the USSR in 1962, when LHO was just 22 years old.

The FBI interviewed Oswald when he returned from the USSR, and interviewed him again, and then closed the FBI file on Oswald at that time -- they saw nothing to indicate any danger or anything worth watching with regard to LHO. Hoover himself said this.

As for the letter of LHO to his brother in 1959, we must recognize that LHO knew very well that the KGB would be reading every letter he wrote, and LHO was attempting to make his own life easier in the USSR -- so naturally he would say nice things about the Communists. Yet what is urgent is this: (1) LHO never renounced his US citizenship or his US passport; (2) LHO never applied for USSR citizenship; and (3) LHO never joined the Communist Party while in the USSR.

Your accusations of LHO obviously overlooked these important factors.

It isn't just me and Dr. Caufield who reject LHO's letter to his brother, Robert Oswald, as "completely phony," but CIA Agents have also come public with similar statements (e.g. Victor Marchetti).

I fully agree with you on one point, Ernie -- that General Walker and the Radical Right would have little trouble convincing America that LHO was a Communist -- especially after LHO's antics in New Orleans, posing as a supporter of Fidel Castro. That was indeed the point of the sheep dip in the first case.

My disagreement with you, Ernie, extends to this -- that it was ultimately impossible for General Walker and the Radical Right to convince J. Edgar Hoover of the same thing!

My logic remains sound -- it is precisely because J. Edgar Hoover rejected the premise that LHO was a Communist and had killed JFK within the context of a Communist Conspiracy, that outraged General Walker and the Radical Right.

That is, the "Lone Nut" theory of J. Edgar Hoover and the Warren Commission had completely undercut the Radical Right plan to exploit LHO as a Communist fellow-traveler.

Walker hoped beyond hope to convince the American people that the JFK murder was a Communist Plot. We see this not only in his own Warren Commission testimony, but also in the final witness of the Warren Commission, the famous JBS writer, Revilo P. Oliver. Oliver urged and urged the Warren Commission to reconsider, and to recognize the urgency of a Communist Plot to kill JFK.

That is interesting testimony, by the way. Knowing that Oliver was a writer for the JBS, the WC attorneys asked him, "Why would a Communist kill a Communist?" Mocking him, in that way. Oliver took the question very seriously, and replied that this was part of a Communist purge in Moscow, that extended all the way to the White House! This is actually in the Warren Commission volumes!

Again, Ernie, you compare Ex-General Walker with a "rational criminal," and I must take exception to that. General Walker was complex on multiple fronts. Firstly, more than one psychiatrist diagnosed him with "paranoia". Secondly, General Walker had a full-size billboard on his front lawn, advertising the JBS. Thirdly, General Walker was PROUD of his political position, and PROUD of his actions with regard to the Kennedys.

General Walker was not some sniveling coward of a criminal who ran to hide in the shadows. It was an act of patriotism, in General Walker's mind, that the Communists were being driven back from Washington DC. It was simply horrifying for General Walker that the US Government would not accept his testimony that the JFK murder was a Communist Plot. Here is a short extract from his WC testimony from July 23, 1964

------------ BEGIN EXTRACT OF GENERAL WALKER WC TESTIMONY 1964 --------

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...?

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 I the objectives of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee a Communist activity a conspiracy.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know if anyone discussed the assassination with him prior to the time that he assassinated the President; if he did then do you have any indication of that?

General WALKER. I have no personal knowledge that they did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any indication that they did?

General WALKER. I certainly do.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would you tell us what that is?

General WALKER. The indications seem to be not only mine, but all over the country that Rubenstein and Oswald had some association.

-------------- END EXTRACT OF GENERAL WALKER WC TESTIMONY 1964 -------------

That testimony continues with General Walker's reference to a recent National Enquirer issue (likely planted by Walker himself) to the effect that LHO was his April shooter, with Jack Ruby as his accomplice, and that RFK set both men free back in April.

My point is that Walker was not a normal person -- and that he was first in line to accuse LHO of being a Communist, and that the JFK murder was a Communist plot.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

As usual, you missed the point I was attempting to make.

You attempted to attribute to ME a position which, in reality, I was attributing to Edwin Walker. I merely pointed out that the argument Walker wanted Americans to accept was eminently reasonable based upon the factual evidence being reported at that time.

I don't see how Hoover's position makes any difference because, as previously noted, the American people immediately rejected it and did not believe it. Instead, the majority of Americans believed there was a conspiracy.

With respect to your comment about Walker that "more than one psychiatrist diagnosed him with paranoia" -- I don't think that is accurate -- at least in terms of professionals who actually examined Walker on more than one occasion. The other medical "experts" were merely expressing an opinion based upon press reports of Walker's behavior and reports about his incoherent testimony or speeches.

Your "sniveling coward" comment is yet another straw man argument by you.

The issue which you continue to ignore is very simple:

WHY would ANY criminal attempt to persuade Americans that an investigation (of their own crime) should be re-opened if the criminal had already successfully committed (in this case) a crime of political murder?

Why risk potential exposure? Why risk the possibility that somebody would falsify the original conclusion and then consider other options which might lead to the REAL culprits?

The safest position for Walker (and his allies) would be to celebrate and promote the WC and FBI conclusion -- and present it as a settled matter. Why? For two obvious reasons:

1. Acceptance of the official conclusion would mean that Walker (and his allies) would never be exposed (or even suspected) as perpetrators of the crime.

2. Acceptance of the official conclusion would mean that Walker (and his allies) would have gotten exactly what they wanted totally cost-free i.e. they would have committed a perfect crime.

As I have mentioned before --- there can be a totally separate discussion concerning whether or not the conspirators had realistic expectations about the predictable real-world consequences of their plot.

No sane person familiar with the political environment of that time should have believed that LBJ would have been a "better" option as President than JFK. The extreme right's agenda would have ZERO possibility of being enacted and (as I previously demonstrated) the predictable result in terms of the 1964 election would be landslide increases of Democratic Party control of Congress.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Well, Ernie, you doubt whether at least two psychiatrists diagnosed Ex-General Edwin Walker as paranoid, and this demonstrates your unfamiliarity with his personal papers stored at the UT Austin Briscoe Center for American History.

In his own personal papers are included the Grand Jury transcripts from Walker's appearance in January 1963, for his role in the deadly racial riots at Ole Miss University on the night of 30 September 1962. Among the two witnesses who testified before that Grand Jury were two psychiatrists -- one who openly stated that Walker was "paranoid," and one who stated that Walker suffered from a "deterioration of mental processes."

So, this is historical fact -- not just my opinion.

Also, there were other psychiatrists who testified before the Senate Subcommittee of April 1962 on Military Preparedness, regarding details about the removal of General Walker from his command over ten thousand troops in Augsburg, Germany. These psychiatrists were also medically suspicious of Walker's behavior and even his testimony.

Then of course there were the physicians who admitted Walker into the Springfield insane asylum in the first place, on 1 October 1962. The list goes on.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 27, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Well, Ernie, you doubt whether at least two psychiatrists diagnosed Ex-General Edwin Walker as paranoid, and this demonstrates your unfamiliarity with his personal papers stored at the UT Austin Briscoe Center for American History.

In his own personal papers are included the Grand Jury transcripts from Walker's appearance in January 1963, for his role in the deadly racial riots at Ole Miss University on the night of 30 September 1962. Among the two witnesses who testified before that Grand Jury were two psychiatrists -- both of whom stated that Walker had at least a mild case of paranoia.

So, this is historical fact -- not just my opinion.

Also, there were other psychiatrists who testified before the Senate Subcommittee of April 1962 on Military Preparedness, regarding details about the removal of General Walker from his command over ten thousand troops in Augsburg, Germany. These psychiatrists were also medically suspicious of Walker's behavior and even his testimony.

Then of course there were the physicians who admitted Walker into the Springfield insane asylum in the first place, on 1 October 1962. The list goes on.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

What are the names of those two psychiatrists? How much time did they spend IN PERSON with Walker?

[Ernie Lazar]

FYI:

As you may have noticed, most of the redactions in the Edwin Walker Dallas-FBI file which I recently received from NARA pertain to information received by the FBI concerning the Minutemen (MM) organization. In fact, there is one serial (#143) which has 5 entirely blank (redacted) pages.

This morning I submitted an appeal to NARA regarding ALL redactions in that file that pertain to MM.

If I am successful at receiving a re-processed version of this FBI file, I will upload the revised version on Internet Archive. I suspect that the appeal process at NARA is quite slow so I probably won't know anything for at least 6-9 months.

[Paul Trejo]

What are the names of those two psychiatrists? How much time did they spend IN PERSON with Walker?

Well, Ernie, the names of those two psychiatrists who initially approved of sending Walker to an insane asylum after the deadly riots at Ole Miss (30Sep1962) were: Dr. Charles E. Smith, Chief Psychiatrist for the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Washington, and Dr. Manfred Gutmacher, forensic psychiatrist and chief medical officer at the Court Clinic for Baltimore City's Supreme Bench.

Upon the arrest of Ex-General Walker on 1 October 1963, Dr. Smith published the following:

• I, Charles E. Smith...having been duly sworn, do hereby certify...concerning the actions and behavior of Major General Edwin Walker…essentially unpredictable and seemingly bizarre outbursts of the type often observed in individuals suffering with paranoid mental disorder."

Upon further interviews, Dr. Smith explained that the elements of interest for psychiatry included Walker’s public statements:

1. That unidentified forces run the Army through Public Relations Media
2. That there exists a “control apparatus” influenced by hidden policy
3. That he was the scapegoat of an unwritten policy of collaboration with International Communism
4. That he struck a newsman at the time of his appearance during these hearings
5. That Walker exhorted the national public to come to Oxford in large numbers (in Walker's words, "ten thousand strong").

Dr. Gutmacher supported Dr. Smith's decision, saying:

• I think the only conclusions I would draw is that there is a real possibility that there has been a deterioration in the mental processes of General Walker in the past year or two. I certainly would not…hazard a diagnosis…without a very detailed…examination, but I do think that there is sufficient smoke here to feel that one ought to look to see whether there’s any fire.

Doctors Smith and Gutmacher expressed concern about Ex-General Walker's public remarks before the Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness in April, 1962, as follows:

• I was a scapegoat of an unwritten policy of collaboration and collusion with the international communist conspiracy which had superseded all written directives and our traditional policy of complete understanding of our enemy. (Walker, 1962)

Walker also said, speaking of himself in the third person:

• ...My case is not merely unusual, but unique. The forces back of it must be extraordinary. These forces cannot be identified fully, but in general the Walker case can be recognized as basically a fight between the internationalist left and the nationalist right, with control of part of the U.S. Military Establishment at stake. (Walker, 1962)

Such public language, suggested Dr. Gutmacher, was a sign of Walker’s sense of grandeur, in which the subject is the center of all important events, in his own opinion. . Walker had also said:

• I have one consolation, that the whole world knows that this paper (the Overseas Weekly) and I are enemies. (Walker, 1962)

And also:

• As far as my military career was concerned, my assignment to Germany amounted to entrapment. (Walker, 1962)

And also:

• As events occurred and as you can trace them through the Communist publications overseas and over here, it finally led up to me being pointed out while I was still in Germany as an ultra. An ultra is a communist target. (Walker, 1962)

When Senator Cannon asked Walker for specific names regarding Walker's claim that communists had infiltrated the Army since 1928, Walker replied,

• “I am not ready to release any right now, sir.”

After intensive cross-examination of his own testimony, Dr. Gutmacher concluded:

• I think I would still feel that it would be desirable to have a psychiatric examination.

As for the question of "in person" time with Edwin Walker, it is irrelevant in the context of my claim that at least two psychiatrists had judged that Walker's behavior was fit for observation in an insane asylum. Smith openly used the word, "paranoid," and Gutmacher used the term, "deterioration of mental processes" (in contrast with Walker's clear heroism as a US General).

These two psychiatrists testified in January, 1963, at Walker's Grand Jury in Oxford, Mississippi, yet they were not alone -- there were various other psychiatrists involved in these decisions.

By the way -- this material is covered in my Smashwords publications on Ex-General Edwin Walker.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 27, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

What are the names of those two psychiatrists? How much time did they spend IN PERSON with Walker?

Well, Ernie, the names of those two psychiatrists who initially approved of sending Walker to an insane asylum after the deadly riots at Ole Miss (30Sep1962) were: Dr. Charles E. Smith, Chief Psychiatrist for the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Washington, and Dr. Manfred Gutmacher, forensic psychiatrist and chief medical officer at the Court Clinic for Baltimore City's Supreme Bench.

Upon the arrest of Ex-General Walker on 1 October 1963, Dr. Smith published the following:

• I, Charles E. Smith...having been duly sworn, do hereby certify...concerning the actions and behavior of Major General Edwin Walker…essentially unpredictable and seemingly bizarre outbursts of the type often observed in individuals suffering with paranoid mental disorder."

Upon further interviews, Dr. Smith explained that the elements of interest for psychiatry included Walker’s public statements:

1. That unidentified forces run the Army through Public Relations Media
2. That there exists a “control apparatus” influenced by hidden policy
3. That he was the scapegoat of an unwritten policy of collaboration with International Communism
4. That he struck a newsman at the time of his appearance during these hearings
5. That Walker exhorted the national public to come to Oxford in large numbers (in Walker's words, "ten thousand strong").

Dr. Gutmacher supported Dr. Smith's decision, although his testimony was more reserved. He said:

• I think the only conclusions I would draw is that there is a real possibility that there has been a deterioration in the mental processes of General Walker in the past year or two. I certainly would not…hazard a diagnosis…without a very detailed…examination, but I do think that there is sufficient smoke here to feel that one ought to look to see whether there’s any fire.

Doctors Smith and Gutmacher expressed concern about Ex-General Walker's public remarks before the Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness in April, 1962, as follows:

• I was a scapegoat of an unwritten policy of collaboration and collusion with the international communist conspiracy which had superseded all written directives and our traditional policy of complete understanding of our enemy. (Walker, 1962)

And also:

• ...My case is not merely unusual, but unique. The forces back of it must be extraordinary. These forces cannot be identified fully, but in general the Walker case can be recognized as basically a fight between the internationalist left and the nationalist right, with control of part of the U.S. Military Establishment at stake. (Walker, 1962)

Such public language, suggested Dr. Gutmacher, was a sign of Walker’s sense of grandeur, in which the subject is the center of all important events, in his own opinion. . Walker had also said:

• I have one consolation, that the whole world knows that this paper (the Overseas Weekly) and I are enemies. (Walker, 1962)

And also:

• As far as my military career was concerned, my assignment to Germany amounted to entrapment. (Walker, 1962)

And also:

• As events occurred and as you can trace them through the Communist publications overseas and over here, it finally led up to me being pointed out while I was still in Germany as an ultra. An ultra is a communist target. (Walker, 1962)

When Senator Cannon asked Walker for specific names regarding Walker's claim that communists had infiltrated the Army since 1928, Walker replied,

• “I am not ready to release any right now, sir.”

After intensive cross-examination, Dr. Gutmacher concluded:

• I think I would still feel that it would be desirable to have a psychiatric examination.

As for the question of "in person" time with Edwin Walker, it is irrelevant in the context of my claim that at least two psychiatrists had diagnosed Walker's behavior as either "paranoid" or "desireable to have a psychiatric examination," since these two psychiatrists were clearly professionals in their field.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I assumed those were the two people to whom you were referring. Neither one actually examined Walker.

Dr. Smith was a government employee (Chief of Psychiatry at the Federal Bureau of Prisons). He was given

(1) an Associated Press reporter's article regarding Walker's activities in Mississippi (the article which was later determined to be false and libelous)

(2) a transcript of Walker's testimony about his Pro-Blue program (at the U.S. Senate Special Preparedness Subcommittee hearings 6 months earlier)

(3) other news reports re: Walker

(4) Walker's Army medical records

After reviewing all that material, Dr. Smith prepared an affidavit in which he concluded that Walker's behavior "may be indicative of underlying mental disturbance".

Apparently, even though Dr. Smith had access to Walker's Army medical records, he did not notice a 09/11/61 letter written by a Major General in the Army's Medical Corps about Walker which declared that on "the basis of first-hand knowledge" (i.e. his own examination of Walker) he "categorically affirmed that medical records of Maj. Edwin A. Walker indicate no evidence of brain tumor, central nervous system disease, or any findings of mental disease or mental incompetency."

Dr. Guttmacher testified that he was "in no position to maintain that [Walker] is now suffering from any residuants of this" -- referring to Walker's bout with encephalitis some 12 years earlier.

Guttmacher also did not examine Walker. Instead, he cited movie reels of an October press conference by Walker which Guttmacher interpreted as showing slow responses to questions and Walker confusion regarding the meaning of questions.

The Federal Judge who reviewed the testimony of Smith and Guttmacher ruled that Walker was competent to stand trial for the crimes alleged.

Some observers described Smith and Guttmacher as "overzealous lackeys of the state". The American Medical Association received 2500 letters challenging the medical ethics of Smith because he was "used as a tool for political purposes".

Most observers consider the conduct of Smith and Guttmacher as raising serious questions about American psychiatry because the incarceration of Walker for a "sanity" determination was comparable to the manner in which the Soviet Union treated its political opponents.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

UPDATED INFO RE: EDWIN WALKER---and Other Info

Today I uploaded onto Internet Archive (link below) the following info:

https://archive.org/details/@ernie1241

1. The official U.S. Army biography of Edwin Walker

https://archive.org/details/WalkerArmyBio

2. The Finding Aid to Walker's personal papers which are archived at the University of Texas-Austin. It is not a very detailed finding aid but at least it may give interested parties a general idea of what is in his papers. Oddly, the University does not put his finding aid online!

https://archive.org/details/FindingAidWalkerPapers

3. In addition, I uploaded all four individual sections of Walker's FBI-Dallas field file (157-218). I used my own OCR scanning software so the "pdf file" version now online is searchable.

However, my OCR software is not as powerful as the OCR software used by Internet Archive (i.e. Abbyy) so when they finish spooling the individual file sections, it is possible that their "pdf with text" version will capture more searchable terms.

https://archive.org/details/WalkerEdwinA.Dallas1 = section 1 (191pp)

https://archive.org/details/WalkerEdwinA.Dallas1A_201608 = section 1A (69pp newspaper articles)

https://archive.org/details/WalkerEdwinA.Dallas2 = section 2 (176pp)

https://archive.org/details/WalkerEdwinA.Dallas3 = section 3 (152pp)

FUTURE UPLOADS:

Many years ago, I obtained copies of a significant number of the reports produced during the 1960's by Group Research Inc.

As you may know, Group Research was created in 1962 by Wes McCune. It was financed largely by U.S. labor unions for the purpose of monitoring, doing research, and publishing reports about the beliefs and activities of right-wing individuals and organizations in the U.S.

In the mid-1990's, Wes McCune sold his enormous collection (512 boxes!) to Columbia University in New York City. [At one time he asked me if I wanted to purchase his collection. Too bad I didn't have an extra $150,000 lying around!]

You can see the GRI Finding Aid here: http://findingaids.cul.columbia.edu/ead//nnc-rb/ldpd_5010936

I plan to scan most of the GRI reports I have and post them online in Internet Archive.

Two more very valuable but rare resources about the right-wing which very few people know about are two southern California newsletters.

The first one was published by Dixon Gayer who, at that time, was Chairman of the Journalism Department at California State College at Long Beach. His newsletter is entitled "The Dixon Line".

The second newsletter which later morphed into a magazine, was called "Reason" and it was published by Dr. Julian Foster who was Chairman of the Political Science Department at California State College at Fullerton. Foster's first issue was devoted to a lengthy critique of John Stormer's 1964 classic radical right conspiracy text entitled "None Dare Call it Treason". Dr. Foster thought right-wing conspiracy arguments deserved serious attention by academics so he solicited articles by historians and political scientists which refuted right-wing assertions.

At some point, I will scan my copies of those two newsletters and upload them onto Internet Archive.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

...The Federal Judge who reviewed the testimony of Smith and Guttmacher ruled that Walker was competent to stand trial for the crimes alleged.

Some observers described Smith and Guttmacher as "overzealous lackeys of the state". The American Medical Association received 2500 letters challenging the medical ethics of Smith because he was "used as a tool for political purposes".

Most observers consider the conduct of Smith and Guttmacher as raising serious questions about American psychiatry because the incarceration of Walker for a "sanity" determination was comparable to the manner in which the Soviet Union treated its political opponents.

Well, Ernie, while it's certainly possible to make political arguments against the professional opinions of these two psychiatrists who both found serious problems with Edwin Walker's mental state -- nevertheless you're changing the subject.

Your original objection was that you didn't believe that two psychiatrists had regarded Walker as "paranoid" or having "mental deterioration".

My documentation shows that you were mistaken. There are at least two psychiatrists who opined as I stated.

Now -- you might not agree with them politically -- but that is beside the point.

Furthermore, Ernie, you have again overstated your case by claiming that, "most observers consider the conduct of Smith and Gutmacher as raising serious questions about American psychiatry." That is of course your biased political opinion -- nothing more.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 28, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...The Federal Judge who reviewed the testimony of Smith and Guttmacher ruled that Walker was competent to stand trial for the crimes alleged.

Some observers described Smith and Guttmacher as "overzealous lackeys of the state". The American Medical Association received 2500 letters challenging the medical ethics of Smith because he was "used as a tool for political purposes".

Most observers consider the conduct of Smith and Guttmacher as raising serious questions about American psychiatry because the incarceration of Walker for a "sanity" determination was comparable to the manner in which the Soviet Union treated its political opponents.

Well, Ernie, while it's certainly possible to make political arguments against the professional opinions of these two psychiatrists who both found serious problems with Edwin Walker's mental state -- nevertheless you're changing the subject.

Your original objection was that you didn't believe that two psychiatrists had regarded Walker as "paranoid" or having "mental deterioration".

My documentation shows that you were mistaken. There are at least two psychiatrists who opined as I stated.

Now -- you might not agree with them politically -- but that is beside the point.

Furthermore, Ernie, you have again overstated your case by claiming that, "most observers consider the conduct of Smith and Gutmacher as raising serious questions about American psychiatry." That is of course your biased political opinion -- nothing more.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

No Paul, my original statement was "With respect to your comment about Walker that "more than one psychiatrist diagnosed him with paranoia" -- I don't think that is accurate -- at least in terms of professionals who actually examined Walker on more than one occasion."

I was not making any sort of "political statement" against these men. I was making an obvious practical medical statement--i.e. diagnosing somebody without ever examining them. Apparently, you don't understand the difference -- which comes as no surprise to any of us.

With respect to your last paragraph -- you obviously have never read about the controversy (within the medical community) which ensued as a result of Walker's "sanity" hearing -- which, btw, originally was scheduled to take "60-90 days". As is your custom, you make bold declarations without having any pertinent knowledge --- despite pretending to do so.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

...The Federal Judge who reviewed the testimony of Smith and Guttmacher ruled that Walker was competent to stand trial for the crimes alleged.

Some observers described Smith and Guttmacher as "overzealous lackeys of the state". The American Medical Association received 2500 letters challenging the medical ethics of Smith because he was "used as a tool for political purposes".

Most observers consider the conduct of Smith and Guttmacher as raising serious questions about American psychiatry because the incarceration of Walker for a "sanity" determination was comparable to the manner in which the Soviet Union treated its political opponents.

Well, Ernie, while it's certainly possible to make political arguments against the professional opinions of these two psychiatrists who both found serious problems with Edwin Walker's mental state -- nevertheless you're changing the subject.

Your original objection was that you didn't believe that two psychiatrists had regarded Walker as "paranoid" or having "mental deterioration".

My documentation shows that you were mistaken. There are at least two psychiatrists who opined as I stated.

Now -- you might not agree with them politically -- but that is beside the point.

Furthermore, Ernie, you have again overstated your case by claiming that, "most observers consider the conduct of Smith and Gutmacher as raising serious questions about American psychiatry." That is of course your biased political opinion -- nothing more.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

No Paul, my original statement was "With respect to your comment about Walker that "more than one psychiatrist diagnosed him with paranoia" -- I don't think that is accurate -- at least in terms of professionals who actually examined Walker on more than one occasion."

I was not making any sort of "political statement" against these men. I was making an obvious practical medical statement--i.e. diagnosing somebody without ever examining them. Apparently, you don't understand the difference -- which comes as no surprise to any of us.

With respect to your last paragraph -- you obviously have never read about the controversy (within the medical community) which ensued as a result of Walker's "sanity" hearing -- which, btw, originally was scheduled to take "60-90 days". As is your custom, you make bold declarations without having any pertinent knowledge --- despite pretending to do so.

Does anybody besides me see the hysterical hypocrisy in Paul's argument?

1. According to Paul, it is absolutely verboten and non-credible to make a careful argument about Walker's racist beliefs and values and associations -- based upon DECADES of Walker's behavior and associations with, and employment by, racists and anti-semites -- BUT ---

2. Also according to Paul, it is entirely acceptable (and even compelling evidence) for two government employees to make a judgment about Walker's mental health and competence based upon a brief evaluation of newspaper articles and congressional testimony -- even though that arbitrary judgment has the potential of incarcerating an American against his will for a lengthy period of time!

[Paul Trejo]

...Does anybody besides me see the hysterical hypocrisy in Paul's argument?

1. According to Paul, it is absolutely verboten and non-credible to make a careful argument about Walker's racist beliefs and values and associations -- based upon DECADES of Walker's behavior and associations with, and employment by, racists and anti-semites -- BUT ---

2. Also according to Paul, it is entirely acceptable (and even compelling evidence) for two government employees to make a judgment about Walker's mental health and competence based upon a brief evaluation of newspaper articles and congressional testimony -- even though that arbitrary judgment has the potential of incarcerating an American against his will for a lengthy period of time!

Well, Ernie, you continue to misrepresent my position -- and it's a mystery why you bother. All you're doing is distracting attention from the main theme of this thread, namely, the new book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, namely, Edwin Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

I will only repeat again that Ex-General Edwin Walker was a complex character -- and not one-sided. There were at least two clear parts of his life:

(1) When Walker was a loyal US General of WW2 and the Korean War, and faithfully integrated racially the public high school at Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957; and

(2) When Walker resigned from the US Army in protest, and forfeited his Army pension, in order to join right-wing politics in the South. In the course of this second period, private citizen Edwin Walker led a racial riot at Ole Miss University in September 1962, in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed.

In early 2012 I interviewed an eye-witness of those riots, namely, the late Episcopalian Bishop Duncan Gray, who in 1962 was Reverend Gray.

Bishop Gray told me personally that he confronted Ex-General Walker on the riot scene, knowing that the adult rioters had come in from several different states at the request of General Walker. Walker was widely considered the leader of the riots. Reverend Gray watched as Walker led students, and gave them instructions, advice, encouragement to attack the Federal Marshalls.

Bishop Gray pleaded with Ex-General Walker to stop the violence, and to send everybody home -- especially the majority of protesters that did not live on campus.

When Walker climbed upon the Confederate Statue to make a speech, Reverend Gray also climbed up and shouted to the crowd that "violence is not the way!" However, General Walker announced that this Episcopalian priest made him "ashamed to be an Episcopalian!" Suddenly the rioters pulled Reverend Gray down to the ground and began kicking him. A few friends rescued him from serious injury.

When Walker appeared before a Grand Jury for his role in the riots, he claimed that he himself got up on the Confederate Statue and proclaimed, "violence is not the way!" Thus he was acquitted.

No other eye-witnesses, IIRC, were called before the Grand Jury, not even Duncan Gray. The Grand Jury was most interested to hear the debate between psychiatrists regarding whether Walker was insane or not. Found to be sane, he was acquitted.

I repeat: When General Walker served in WW2 and Korea, he was a great man and a war hero. But when Walker resigned from the Army in protest, following John Birch Society paranoia that the US Government and Pentagon were infiltrated with Communists, Ex-General Walker had turned toward the dark side.

As for the late Bishop Gray, he told his memoirs to many reporters in the past several decades. Here are just a few other accounts of the same story:

http://www.sunherald.com/news/politics-government/article36455403.html

http://djournal.com/news/the-night-in-1962-that-shook-the-state-and-nation/

http://news.olemiss.edu/civil-rights-activist-bishop-gray-donates-papers-to-um/

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/library/article/open-doors-recalls-episcopal-presence-ole-miss-riots

https://books.google.com/books?id=5LD4k8RTpJsC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=bishop+duncan+gray+in+mississippi+and+edwin+walker&source=bl&ots=oPq0aesCm6&sig=PgLC2BY6jq-FnOoY0tbqqymzbOM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK56Od4-bOAhWJYyYKHZ9TCMUQ6AEIRDAF#v=onepage&q=bishop%20duncan%20gray%20in%20mississippi%20and%20edwin%20walker&f=false

Finally, I continue to maintain that historians should draw a direct connection from the Ole Miss riots of late 1962 to the assassination of JFK of late 1963.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 29, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

...Does anybody besides me see the hysterical hypocrisy in Paul's argument?

1. According to Paul, it is absolutely verboten and non-credible to make a careful argument about Walker's racist beliefs and values and associations -- based upon DECADES of Walker's behavior and associations with, and employment by, racists and anti-semites -- BUT ---

2. Also according to Paul, it is entirely acceptable (and even compelling evidence) for two government employees to make a judgment about Walker's mental health and competence based upon a brief evaluation of newspaper articles and congressional testimony -- even though that arbitrary judgment has the potential of incarcerating an American against his will for a lengthy period of time!

Well, Ernie, you continue to misrepresent my position -- and it's a mystery why you bother. All you're doing is distracting attention from the main theme of this thread, namely, the new book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, namely, Edwin Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

I will only repeat again that Ex-General Edwin Walker was a complex character -- and not one-sided. There were at least two clear parts of his life:

(1) When Walker was a loyal US General of WW2 and the Korean War, and faithfully integrated racially the public high school at Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957; and

(2) When Walker resigned from the US Army in protest, and forfeited his Army pension, in order to join right-wing politics in the South. In the course of this second period, private citizen Edwin Walker led a racial riot at Ole Miss University in September 1962, in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed.

In early 2012 I interviewed an eye-witness of those riots, namely, the late Episcopalian Bishop Duncan Gray, who in 1962 was Reverend Gray.

Bishop Gray told me personally that he confronted Ex-General Walker on the riot scene, knowing that the adult rioters had come in from several different states at the request of General Walker. Walker was widely considered the leader of the riots. Reverend Gray watched as Walker led students, and gave them instructions, advice, encouragement to attack the Federal Marshalls.

Bishop Gray pleaded with Ex-General Walker to stop the violence, and to send everybody home -- especially the majority of protesters that did not live on campus.

When Walker climbed upon the Confederate Statue to make a speech, Reverend Gray also climbed up and shouted to the crowd that "violence is not the way!" However, General Walker announced that this Episcopalian priest made him "ashamed to be an Episcopalian!" Suddenly the rioters pulled Reverend Gray down to the ground and began kicking him. A few friends rescued him from serious injury.

When Walker appeared before a Grand Jury for his role in the riots, he claimed that he himself got up on the Confederate Statue and proclaimed, "violence is not the way!" Thus he was acquitted.

No other eye-witnesses, IIRC, were called before the Grand Jury, not even Duncan Gray. The Grand Jury was most interested to hear the debate between psychiatrists regarding whether Walker was insane or not. Found to be sane, he was acquitted.

I repeat: When General Walker served in WW2 and Korea, he was a great man and a war hero. But when Walker resigned from the Army in protest, following John Birch Society paranoia that the US Government and Pentagon were infiltrated with Communists, Ex-General Walker had turned toward the dark side.

As for the late Bishop Gray, he told his memoirs to many reporters in the past several decades. Here are just a few other accounts of the same story:

http://www.sunherald.com/news/politics-government/article36455403.html

http://djournal.com/news/the-night-in-1962-that-shook-the-state-and-nation/

http://news.olemiss.edu/civil-rights-activist-bishop-gray-donates-papers-to-um/

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/library/article/open-doors-recalls-episcopal-presence-ole-miss-riots

https://books.google.com/books?id=5LD4k8RTpJsC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=bishop+duncan+gray+in+mississippi+and+edwin+walker&source=bl&ots=oPq0aesCm6&sig=PgLC2BY6jq-FnOoY0tbqqymzbOM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK56Od4-bOAhWJYyYKHZ9TCMUQ6AEIRDAF#v=onepage&q=bishop%20duncan%20gray%20in%20mississippi%20and%20edwin%20walker&f=false

Finally, I continue to maintain that historians should draw a direct connection from the Ole Miss riots of late 1962 to the assassination of JFK of late 1963.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I don't think anybody on this website disputes that you always accuse your critics of the faults which you possess.

I have never misrepresented your position --- which is why (unlike yourself), I always provide direct quotations of what YOU write.

Here, however, is how YOU deliberately misrepresent MY position:

1. I have explicitly stated (at least 10 times) that I do not interpret people in uni-dimensional terms. What does that mean?

It means that I explicitly recognize that EVERYBODY has complexities within their personality and in their behavior. That is why, for example, I have repeatedly corrected you and others here who have presented cartoon caricatures of people like Robert Welch and J. Edgar Hoover.

However, it is also true that (over time) everybody reveals PATTERNS in their behavior, in their beliefs, in their associations, and in their values.

The problem is that YOU object to ANYBODY candidly acknowleding and then discussing those patterns----which is why (for example) you have repeatedly REFUSED to quote ANY historian, political scientist or sociologist who agrees with your brain-dead assessment of Walker's personality and behavior.

1A. I point out (just as a reminder) that (unlike yourself), I contacted individuals who served under Walker in Germany.

And, (again, unlike yourself), I have done extensive research into judgments about Walker which were made by many people who were directly associated with Walker over significant periods of time---including the former Commander of the Canadian Devil's Brigade (Brig. Gen. Robert T. Frederick).

YOU, by contrast, cannot tell us ANYTHING about Walker's former associates because you apparently have no interest regarding his pre-1959 history -- other than to parrot platitudes (over and over again) such as Walker was "a great man and a war hero".

2. I have not (as you claim) "distracted attention from the main theme of this thread". Instead, my contributions here help everyone make informed judgments about Walker as a person as well as make informed conclusions regarding whether or not it is plausible to believe that Walker was involved in any sort of plot to murder JFK.

3. TWO PARTS OF WALKER'S LIFE

As I have previously stated many times (and you have NEVER refuted this) -- there is absolutely NO evidence to support YOUR contention that Walker's political beliefs changed significantly during what you describe as the two periods of his life (your #1 and #2 points). Your contention is that Walker "join(ed) right wing politics in the south" only AFTER he resigned from the US Army.

Well, that does not tell us anything! ALL serving military officers are forbidden by military regulations from engaging in partisan political activity. There is a military version of the 1939 Hatch Act.

You have NEVER presented ANY factual evidence regarding Walker's political beliefs PRIOR TO his first resignation from the Army.

If (as you claim) you have had access to Walker's personal papers (at the Briscoe Center) it is astonishing that you cannot substantiate your claims with evidence.

As I have previously stated, it strains credulity (to the max) to pretend that Walker (or anybody else) somehow was susceptible to some sort of clever Jedi Mind Trick (just after resigning from the Army) which supposedly totally changed his pre-existing (and supposedly moderate) political beliefs.

Walker was 50 years old when he joined the Birch Society in 1959.

NOBODY joins a controversial right-wing extremist and conspiratorial organization as their FIRST political experience. There are ALWAYS some preceding political, ideological, or racial beliefs and associations that make such a person RECEPTIVE to extremist or racist analyses and conclusions.

You adamantly refuse to address those preceding beliefs, and values, and associations -- because you do not want to acknowledge the PATTERN of ideas, values, and associations which might be revealed.

4. DUNCAN GRAY

Nobody disputes that there is conflicting testimony from eyewitnesses regarding what Walker did and said during the Ole Miss incident. You can see some of that conflicting testimony in the newspaper articles which I uploaded to Internet Archive recently. I have told you many times previously (both in this thread and in the Harry Dean thread) that eyewitness testimony is recognized by every authority as being the most problemmatic.

In fact, I have even given you links to articles written by extremely knowledgeable authorities which discuss this matter. Significantly, you have never once addressed the data which I brought to your attention repeatedly.

HERE is another one: (an article from the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies entitled, "The Problem With Eyewitness Testimony" https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

As is your custom -- you will REFUSE to acknowledge the truisms discussed in this article -- and then apply them to your own beliefs.

As usual, you resort to straw-man arguments instead of addressing what actually has been written -- because your pattern of behavior on this website is to ALWAYS ignore the most salient issues and, instead, substitute some talking point which you are obsessed about.

5. WALKER "TURNING TOWARD THE DARK SIDE"

Again, you ignore the salient point (discussed in my #3 above).

Unless and until you can present a detailed fact-based summary regarding Walker's political convictions and racial beliefs and his friends and associations PRIOR TO 1959 (when he joined the JBS) you will have no factual basis to claim that Walker's "dark side" was triggered by his JBS membership.

If anything, one could plausibly argue that the JBS (which just came into existence and was growing exponentially during 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962) -- seduced Walker precisely because Walker ALREADY BELIEVED the right-wing extremist and conspiratorial predicates of JBS ideology.

For example:

(1) What was Walker's contemporaneous position regarding Senator Joseph McCarthy (circa 1950-1954)?

(2) Can you cite any personal correspondence by Walker to his family or friends during that period? OR

(3) Can you cite any personal correspondence by Walker about McCarthy in 1957 when McCarthy died? OR

(4) Do you have any factual information concerning for whom Walker voted during the period from 1934 through 1960? OR

(5) Do you have any factual information concerning what financial contributions Walker made to people, organizations, publications from 1934 thru 1959? ALSO: What magazines and newsletters did Walker subscribe to?

ONLY AFTER you answer these types of questions can you present a fact-based conclusion regarding Walker's "turn toward the dark side" -- and then make a rational conclusions about whether or not his alleged "paranoia" existed PRIOR TO his association with the JBS.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

Here is another new article: REVEALED: Former US President John F Kennedy 'was murdered by his own staff'

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/704782/john-f-kennedy-assassination-shooting-murder-dallas-oliver-stone-ron-Matt-Zoller-Seitz

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie, by citing such a low-class rag of a source, you're revealing your lack of education regarding the history of the JFK assassination and about the scholastic theories about a JFK assassination conspiracy.

Your contributions of FOIA releases of FBI materials has been acknowledged -- yet your lack of education about the JFK assassination, specifically, should also be acknowledged.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 29, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Ernie, by citing such a low-class rag of a source, you're revealing your lack of education regarding the history of the JFK assassination and about the scholastic theories about a JFK assassination conspiracy.

Your contributions of FOIA releases of FBI materials has been acknowledged -- yet your lack of education about the JFK assassination, specifically, should also be acknowledged.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- I am not "citing" that source EXCEPT because they are referring to a new book. In addition, as you know, there are people who believe Oliver Stone's interpretation of events.

Once again, you demonstrate how you jump to adverse conclusions without even asking any pertinent question.

In conclusion -- I doubt that anybody on this website believes you are any sort of expert about anything -- especially since you have associated yourself uncritically with so many fraudulent sources of information