Jump to content
The Education Forum

De Mohrenschildt question of interest

Recommended Posts

I have always leaned that way David. It's too convenient.

Paul - I didn't question the party, so your response is just another straw man. I questioned Volkmar's story of what happened, and even more question your extreme interpretation of it. He was all too happy to take credit for turning LHO against Walker, and apologetic of the steps that LHO then took re Walker and JFK. His story reeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

well, lying in a book is infinitely easier to defend for example: "you simply misunderstand/stood what I'm saying -- I mis-remembered, etc..."

Now sitting down with an investigator answering probing and sometimes very pointed questions that may or may not lead to guilt, or, guilt by association is quite another thing. It's quite curious. Especially when the investigator is scheduled to sit down with you 24 hours after the alleged suicide... Mighty fishy... Fishy considering what George DeM knew of and about Oswald and Marina at the time. His (George's) own personal/work past and present associates. So yeah Paul, with everything we now know, murder, as opposed to suicide sounds reasonable.

Yes, I know, David -- yet my point was somewhat different. I was saying that if George DM wrote his book, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy! right before committing suicide -- then that might give us some portrait of a Last Testament, or a Confession of sorts.

I'm not saying that it was -- only that we should consider the possibility.

Furthermore, George DM didn't merely repeat his WC testimony or supplement it within his 1978 book -- he actively contradicted it. He was CONFESSING something, it seems to me -- but what?

I realize that some say George DM was murdered, and never committed suicide. Yet that's at the mildest, unproven. For just one moment, please, let's consider the possibility that George DM actually committed suicide. How would it look to the outside, objective observer? Well, IMHO:

(1) George DM didn't want to face the HSCA.

(2) George DM didn't want the world -- and his family -- to hear him confess that he held back lots of valuable data about LHO in 1964. After all, the WC clearly asked him to tell *anything* and *everything* that he knew or thought might be relevant at all. But George held back in 1964.

(3) Now, in 1978, he was being asked to return. Now his Withholds (not to say Falsehoods) would finally be exposed to the world.

(4) What were they? George DM tells us in his 1978 book.

(5) Topping the list, George and LHO used to call General Walker, "General Fokker." This made LHO laugh. George liked to make LHO laugh about General Walker.

(6) Next on the list, George and LHO used to call Volkmar Schmidt, "Messer Schmidt," as a term of respect and endearment. Volkmar was clearly a part of the Anti-General-Walker circle.

(7) Next, George DM tells about the Dallas Engineers' Party in which Volkmar Schmidt worked for HOURS on LHO, in public, to change his politics from Anti-Bay-of-Pigs to Anti-General-Walker. It took HOURS.

(8) As I say, Volkmar Schmidt (a German national) admitted freely (in the 1990's) that this was his work -- but in 1978 George DM lied once again and claimed that the psychological "processor" was "probably Jewish." This was George's way of protecting his friend, Volkmar.

(9) Also, George lied and claimed that it wasn't a psychological "process" as Volkmar admitted, but rather that this "Jewish fellow" simply badgered Oswald about it.

(10) Also, George lied and claimed that he only heard this from across the room in passing -- instead of what Volkmar admitted -- it was a planned event, with a group of observers watching the "process" just as they might watch a string quartet.

(11) Here is the main theme -- the shooting at General Walker was not merely the act of LHO, but was part of a Conspiracy of Dallas Yuppie Engineers -- who stepped in deeper than they thought. Once LHO snapped and ACTED on their "brainwashing", they all scattered like scared sheep, and all denied any knowledge of LHO.

(12) First on the list was George DM himself. He KNEW IN HIS HEART that LHO was Walker's shooter on the morning after 10 April 1963 when the newspapers, radio and television were full of the news.

(13) It took George and Jeanne three days before they worked up enough courage to confront the Oswalds about the Walker shooting. They were so scared. So George also speaks of that "rifle finding night" yet again, with further detail.

(14) Here is where George breaks down. His narrative falters. He cannot complete his full confession. He quickly breaks down to his conclusion -- LHO was INNOCENT of the JFK murder. But that's all he can say.

Then, George DM committed suicide, rather than confront the HSCA.

That, David, is the story from the viewpoint of George DM committing suicide. Now, as for the theory that George DM was murdered, this is generally told by those who believe that the CIA-killed-JFK, and therefore the CIA "must have" killed George DM because he was about to squeal to the HSCA.

But that's pure guesswork on their part -- it's an extra fiction to support the fiction that the CIA-did-it.

Now you, David, prefer the "Murder" theory of George DM, but this is because you're committed to the CIA-did-it theory, am I right? And without the CIA-did-it theory, you would have no motive to impute to anybody to murder George DM, am I right? So, in a way, your position could be seen as self-serving.

Or did I miss something?


--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...

This thread is nine months old, but I'm reviving it because of Dr. Jeff Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

I believe that Jeff Caufield correctly identifies General Walker as the mastermind of the JFK murder -- and provides much new evidence from FBI documents about Joseph Milteer and Willie Somersett to link Milteer with Guy Banister and General Walker.

I believe the solution to the JFK murder rests in this direction -- far from the CIA-did-it madness of the past half-century.

HOWEVER -- I also believe that Jeff Caufield didn't explore George De Mohrenschildt enough -- he missed George's relationship to LHO, and their common relationship to Ex-General Walker, and so he missed vital data which explains the Walker shooting.

I wish Caufield had pursued the angle of George De Mohrenshildt in his final confession: I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!

If he had, then Caufield would have seen that George was LHO's protector just as Walker was LHO's attacker. He would have seen that George, a high-born Russian baron who had lost his hereditary estate to the Communists, and who had cooperated with everybody and anybody in dreams of getting it back (including the Nazi Party and the CIA), was a changed man in 1963.

In 1963, George De Mohrenschildt, like most Russian expatriates in Dallas, Texas, hated both Communists and Nazis. They hated both the Radical Left and the Radical Right. They had seen the evil that both extremes had done to Russia.

The typical Russian expatriate was a Republican -- but certainly not a follower of General Walker. General Walker's escapade in the racial riots of Ole Miss in September 1962, were scandalous to most Russian expatriates. George De Mohrenschildt, even in his WC testimony, called it, "Walker's big showoff."

George hated Ex-General Walker. George used to joke about General Walker to LHO, calling him, "General Fokker."

The evidence shows that George DM, along with Volkmar Schmidt and various Dallas yuppie engineers, worked on LHO in February 1963 to inspire him to assassinate Ex-General Walker. As one tiny example in a mountain of such examples, here is a letter from General Walker himself, officially copied from his personal papers, on the topic of the RFK assassination. Jump to the final paragraph for a surprise.


This is what Jeff Caufield missed. Also, Walker's personal papers reveal that Walker found out about it the very next weekend, and marked LHO for revenge in early April 1963. By mid-April 1963, LHO was already in New Orleans -- in the clutches of the Radical Rightist friends of General Walker, namely, Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw.

Jim Garrison was so close -- but he missed the main character -- Ex-General Walker.

Jeff Caufield was so close -- but he missed Walker's actual connection to LHO -- George De Mohrenschildt.


--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
On 10/19/2015 at 4:23 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Jim, no, that was somebody's error.


Finally, at about 9:30 PM on Saturday night, .......

George kept LHO busy in one room chatting, as Jeanne nervously searched for clues from room to room. When she finally found LHO's rifle, she shouted out -- "He has a rifle!"

They all went over to see what Jeanne was looking at. There was a nervous silence, and then George broke the silence with a joke, that was already on his mind: "Lee, did you take that pot shot on General Walker?"

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

   On 2/22/2017 at 8:36 PM,  Michael Clark said: 

To be sure, George De Mohrenschildt DID NOT see the rifle.

Mr. JENNER. Did you see the weapon?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I did not see the weapon.

Jeanne De Mohrenschildt testified that Marina showed her the rifle but Marina never confirmed this in her testimony, and that could have easily been clarified.





On Wednesday, February 22, Paul Trejo wrote:


I didn't say that George De Mohrenschildt saw the rifle -- I said he was a witness -- in this case, an ear witness.  That is, when his wife, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt saw Oswald's rifle, she let out a shriek and shouted out, "George, he has a rifle!"


--Paul Trejo




Paul, Throughout your postings you claim that George De Mohrenschildt SAW the gun. When pointed-out that that was incorrect, you stated that you were referring to him as an"ear-witness". From the above it is clear that you are making claims that he actually SAW the gun. 

Its ust not right that you do that when you know better. You are a prolific poster and are filling the pages of this forum with a fiction that is critical to factual record.

WC testimony is that Marina states that she saw the gun. Jeanne De Mohrenschildt states that Marina showed it to her. George De Mohrenschildt states that he did not see the gun.

Marina does not back-up Jeanne's claim that she (Jeanne) was shown the gun.

That leaves one woman, who by her own testimony, could not tell a shotgun form a rifle, bolt-action from pump or lever action; much less a high powered rifle from a .22.

It also leaves us with another woman, with similar knowledge of guns, although she had shot skeet before, saying that a woman showed her the gun and that other woman does not claim to have done so.





Edited by Michael Clark
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...