Jump to content
The Education Forum

What evidence is there that Oswald was involved in the attempted assassination of General Edwin Walker?


Sandy Larsen
 Share

Recommended Posts

From what I've seen, it looks like there is little evidence that it was Oswald who took a shot at General Walker. In particular with his alleged Carcano.

I ask because Paul Trejo said in another thread that, in his opinion, Oswald was involved in a conspiracy to kill Walker. And this would explain why the evidence doesn't necessarily point to Oswald.

Naturally one would wonder, then, what evidence there is that Oswald was involved in the conspiracy to kill Walker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.

Gerald McKnight has a nice section on the Walker shooting in his book Breach of Trust.

Even Liebeler expressed doubts about the evidence.

Just remember, Oswald was not a DPD suspect for about 7 and a half months.

The FBI takes over, and presto! Not only is he a suspect, he becomes the perpetrator.

One of the funniest parts of Bugliosi's book is when he writes words to the effect, we know Oswald fired at Walker simply because of the testimony of Marina Oswald.

He actually kept a straight face while writing that (I think).

Clearly the FBI and WC did this for the simple reason that they could establish no criminal history for Oswald prior to the assassination. So they put this Walker case together out of paper mache; ignoring the obvious paradox of : why would Oswald try to kill a rightwing fascist, and then shoot the most liberal president since FDR?

I never saw that question asked during the WC executive session hearings.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron:

There is evidence, but it is all so clouded, weak and fudged that it would never stand the test of competent and complete cross examination in a court room.

And BTW, the new McAdams/Von Pein strategy is to state that the critics say everything is falsified.

What absolute hooey.

Go back and read Accessories After the Fact and tell me what she said was faked.

I don't recall her saying anything was altered, let alone faked.

But she proved that Oswald didn't do it since, when the WC evidence was analyzed, it did not come close to reaching beyond a reasonable doubt, and back then the second clause was "to a moral certainty".

As time has gone on, especially in recent years, many writers have begun to question the authenticity of certain pieces of evidence. But you don't need it to defend Oswald.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.

Gerald McKnight has a nice section on the Walker shooting in his book Breach of Trust.

Even Liebeler expressed doubts about the evidence.

Just remember, Oswald was not a DPD suspect for about 7 and a half months.

The FBI takes over, and presto! Not only is he a suspect, he becomes the perpetrator.

One of the funniest parts of Bugliosi's book is when he writes words to the effect, we know Oswald fired at Walker simply because of the testimony of Marina Oswald.

He actually kept a straight face while writing that (I think).

Clearly the FBI and WC did this for the simple reason that they could establish no criminal history for Oswald prior to the assassination. So they put this Walker case together out of paper mache; ignoring the obvious paradox of : why would Oswald try to kill a rightwing fascist, and then shoot the most liberal president since FDR?

I never saw that question asked during the WC executive session hearings.

Dear James,

Devil's Advocate question: Mightn't a true-believer type Communist (I'm not saying Oswald was, mind you) do that? I mean, try to kill both Walker and Kennedy? You know, in the interest of advancing / accelerating the Hegel and Marx dialectial materialism - based ... uhhh, .... "historical process"?

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys sound like Wesley Liebeler in his New Hampshire cabin trying to write the psychological profile of Oswald for the WR.

Hmm--How about a sociopathic loser who wanted to make a name for himself?

How about a communist who somehow read Hegel and knew all about the dialectic materialism process?

Concerning the first, Oswald never once admitted to either crime, so how does that make a name for himself?

Second, how does LBJ advance the dialectic?

This is why Liebeler threw up his hands and asked for all kinds of help, and later on admitted he had no idea how to write that chapter. And BTW, if you have not read it, you should. It is really one of the worst parts of the WR, which is saying something.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but what evidence is there that Oswald shot at anybody?

As far as I know, there is only circumstantial evidence that Oswald shot the gun. And maybe not even that.

Because of the evidence that he bought the gun (as bogus as that may be), and the gun was found in a sniper's nest with some empty shells nearby.

Well, that is circumstantial evidence that SOMEBODY shot the gun. But is it circumstantial evidence that Oswald shot it? I don't know. I'd like to know what a lawyer would say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The case against Oswald in the JFK murder has always rested on four main points:

1. The so called sniper's nest evidence, that is the ejected cartridges, and further away, the hidden rifle.

2. The paper bag that allegedly hid the rifle.

3. The palm print.

4. CE 399

The problem with these four pieces of evidence is that today, an in fact, years ago, they were all quite dubious. And in fact, a proficient prosecutor--not Gerry Spence--but say someone like Bob Tanenbaum, or the late Mark Lane, would have ripped it to shreds. Especially considering all that we know about the evidentiary trail behind them today.

I mean today, CE 399 is a joke. With what Vince Drain said about Day and the palm print, and LaTona's testimony, the print looks like subterfuge. (And BTW, Tanenbaum told me that LaTona was the gold standard on prints in the sixties. He wrote a pamphlet that every police department in the country followed. Further, he was so in demand as a witness, you felt lucky if he appeared for you.)

People like Gil Jesus and Pat Speer have raised the most profound questions about the paper bag. To the point that today, it is very difficult to argue that the bag the DPD brought into evidence is genuine. That is, it very likely was made up the day of the assassination.

About the so called sniper's nest, I mean where do you begin? How about with Allan Eaglesham's excellent picture essay showing how the police altered the box arrangement. Allan also features the testimony of Tom Alyea, the first civilian witness on the floor, who not only questions the box arrangement, but also says the dispersal pattern of the shells was severely altered. And there is even a question about how many ejected shells were found.

Enough said about the rifle. I mean Sandy, David Josephs, and John Armstrong have done yeoman work on that subject and today, no one should believe anything Harry Holmes told the WC.

What this proves, of course, is what became manifest after Watkins took over the Dallas DA's office, actually before that. The DPD was the single most corrupt police force in America at that time. And once that stench hooked up with J. Edgar Hoover, the fix was in.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. The "bag" is the most egregious evidence, next to the palm print (lifted from Ozzies corpse).

I challenge anyone to disassemble a bolt action rifle, any rifle, and make their own paper bag that will allow it to be carried around. I suggest using last years Xmas paper and a large red bow for greater effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With what Vince Drain said about Day and the palm print, and LaTona's testimony, the print looks like subterfuge.

I'd never studied this before and so was surprised to find out, just now, that the FBI didn't find any prints. And admitted so. (I'd always thought they planted the palm print right from Oswald's dead hand. Maybe they tried and it didn't work.)

Then I found that Lt. Day claimed to have lifted the palm print before the rifle was sent to the FBI. And that he kept the print to himself because he figured he'd left enough of the latent print for the FBI. (Uh... yeah.... right.) Meanwhile DPD officers were reporting to the press that no prints were found. (Now that rings true.) Finally, four days later, Lt. Day decided he'd found the print. I guess that's where Drain's testimony comes in handy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always wondered where exactly the assassination plot ended and the cover up began. The more I learn the more it seems that the assassination plot ended with the last shot. After that:

The rifle wasn't ready. It hadn't even been "purchased" yet (Otherwise the plotters would have known things about it, like the price.)

Tippit's mission wasn't ready.

The plan to eliminate Oswald wasn't ready.

What else is there?

We don't even know for sure that the backyard photos were ready. Nobody saw them till February 1964.

It seems like even the Mexico City evidence wasn't ready. Either that or it was very sloppily done.

Kennedy was dead. The CIA packed up and went home. Johnson was on his own for the cover-up.

On the other hand, somebody had to have informed the DPD that Oswald was the killer. And the DPD did conveniently have an extra Oswald wallet on them. Presumably got it from the CIA or Secret Service.

Okay, so maybe the CIA's job wasn't finished till after they pointed their fingers at Oswald. Then the DPD, FBI, and Johnson were left to sort out the mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...