Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

If that article had been written a few weeks prior to the assassination, you might really have something, Paul.

Yes, I realize that Robert -- that all my documents from General Walker were produced only after the JFK assassination -- and that is the weakest part of my evidence so far. Readers recognize that the Content is interesting -- but they also notice that to prove my theory I must also have the same Content before the JFK assassination.

I know that's a fact -- so here's my usual reply:

(1) Research into General Walker as the mastermind of the JFK assassination is very sparse. Even the HSCA in 1977 thought of General Walker as so insignificant that they neglected to ask him to be a witness for the HSCA.

(2) Researchers like Dr. Jeff Caufield have finally come out in print only in 2015.

(3) The first person to claim that Walker was a leader of the JFK assassination was Harry Dean, who claimed this on the Joe Pyne radio show in January, 1965, after the disappointing results of the WCR.

(3.1) Yet Harry Dean was soon smeared by many, including an imposter who would go around claiming to be Harry Dean and claiming that he was both an FBI agent and a CIA agent. The real Harry Dean never claimed more than being a voluntary informer for the FBI -- unpaid. Harry Dean confirmed that with me personally.

(3.2) Still, Harry Dean's eye-witness account places the knowledge of LHO in General Walker's words in mid-September 1963.

(4) The second person to name General Walker as a major JFK plotter was Gareth Wean, a former LAPD officer, in 1979.

(4.1) For Wean, General Walker had proposed a "false flag" fake assassination attempt on JFK, just to startle the world into awareness -- and then somebody else hijacked his harmless plan. Wean claimed that no less an authority than Sheriff Bill Decker was his source on this.

(5) The third person to claim that Walker was an equal with Guy Banister in the JFK assassination was Ron Lewis in 1993, in his book, Flashback: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald.

(5.1) It was in the context of the NOLA FPCC that Ron Lewis met and knew LHO in the summer of 1963, and that the Walker shooting was raised as an issue of Guy Banister's blackmail of LHO there in NOLA.

(6) The personal papers of General Walker are scattered throughout the USA, in various Universities. UT Austin is not the only college with a cache of Walker papers.

(6.1) Gary Mack of the 6th Floor Museum asked me personally for my cache of 1,200 pages of Walker's personal papers, because he was busy enhancing his own museum's cache of Walker papers shortly before he died.

In other words, research into General Walker has had a very slow start, and is really only taking root since 2015, and is only now starting to grow. We expect to see further discoveries of Walker's personal papers come to the light of day in the coming year -- all the way up to and including the magic month of October 2017.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Long and interesting post but, it does nothing to change the fact the magazine article came out after the assassination.

The evidence for LHO shooting at Walker is still very weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Long and interesting post but, it does nothing to change the fact the magazine article came out after the assassination.

The evidence for LHO shooting at Walker is still very weak.

Robert,

I agree that the material evidence only reduces down to Marina Oswald's sworn testimony about the night of the Walker shooting, and to the status of the BYP's, and to the sworn testimony by the DeMohrenschildt's that confirm her beliefs.

The evidence from Walker's personal papers -- while plentiful -- is always presented only after the JFK assassination.

My CT will continue to explore the personal papers of General Walker, and the personal papers of others who interacted with General Walker in 1963, to find further material evidence -- before the JFK assassination -- that implicates General Walker in the JFK assassination.

The new book by Dr. Jeff Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015) is a step in this direction, because it links the FBI records of Jospeh Milteer and WIllie Somerset directly with General Walker and Guy Banister.

It is a big step in our direction -- but more is still needed. This new CT has only taken shape after 2010, and much more is expected from researchers who are tired of the drone of CIA-did-it, Mafia-did-it and LBJ-did it guesswork.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will also add that the Walker-did-it CT can make further use of two CT sources that are often neglected, namely:

(1) Harry Dean, who is still providing his manuscript, "Crossroads," to whomever contacts him.

(2) Ron Lewis, who is providing his book, "Flashback: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald" on amazon.com

These two elders of the CT world provide interesting eye-witness accounts of General Walker and LHO during the summer of 1963, which I regard as containing valuable insights into the actual JFK conspiracy.

Harry Dean, for example, harmonizes his own eye-witness account of General Walker in Southern California with his own, personal relationship with Loran Hall and Larry Howard -- and he argues convincingly, IMHO, that Loran Hall and Larry Howard were the two Hispanic guys who accompanied LHO at the doorstep of Silvia Odio in late September 1963.

To the argument that Silvia Odio was presented mug shots of Loran and Larry, and did not ID them, I have two responses:

(1) I demand to see the actual mug shots myself, to verify that they were authentic; and

(2) if authentic, then I argue that Loran Hall could be a terrifying person, and he had Silvia's home telephone number, and the FBI showed no signs of supporting or protecting Silvia Odio -- not in 1963 and not in 1978 via Gaeton Fonzi, either.

As for Loran Hall, he visited General Walker multiple times in 1963 -- as he admitted to NOLA DA Jim Garrison in 1967. Jeff Caufield had all of Jim Garrison's papers in his cache when he wrote his book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will also add that the Walker-did-it CT can make further use of two CT sources that are often neglected, namely:

(1) Harry Dean, who is still providing his manuscript, "Crossroads," to whomever contacts him.

(2) Ron Lewis, who is providing his book, "Flashback: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald" on amazon.com

These two elders of the CT world provide interesting eye-witness accounts of General Walker and LHO during the summer of 1963, which I regard as containing valuable insights into the actual JFK conspiracy.

Harry Dean, for example, harmonizes his own eye-witness account of General Walker in Southern California with his own, personal relationship with Loran Hall and Larry Howard -- and he argues convincingly, IMHO, that Loran Hall and Larry Howard were the two Hispanic guys who accompanied LHO at the doorstep of Silvia Odio in late September 1963.

To the argument that Silvia Odio was presented mug shots of Loran and Larry, and did not ID them, I have two responses:

(1) I demand to see the actual mug shots myself, to verify that they were authentic; and

(2) if authentic, then I argue that Loran Hall could be a terrifying person, and he had Silvia's home telephone number, and the FBI showed no signs of supporting or protecting Silvia Odio -- not in 1963 and not in 1978 via Gaeton Fonzi, either.

As for Loran Hall, he visited General Walker multiple times in 1963 -- as he admitted to NOLA DA Jim Garrison in 1967. Jeff Caufield had all of Jim Garrison's papers in his cache when he wrote his book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Is Lewis providing his book on Amazon, or offering it for sale?

-- Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another book which is relevant to the Walker-did-it CT was written by Walt Brown, namely, Treachery in Dallas (1995).

In this well-documented CT, Walt Brown pinpoints the Dallas Police Department as the entity that totally controlled the parade route, the crime scene, the witnesses, the suspects, the evidence including photographs, moving film and even ballistics.

Insofar as the DPD was integral to the local Dallas politics of General Walker, the connection is eminently relevant.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rob Caprio

Occam's Razor is following the evidence and that doesn't point to LHO shooting at EAW. Have you studied the evidence in this area?

You can call it perjury all you want, but we know that the WC never enforced perjury on anyone. Even when they lied.

Mr. HOOVER. Now, some people have raised the question: Why didn't he shoot the President as the car came toward the storehouse where he was working?The reason for that is, I think, the fact there were some trees between his window on the sixth floor and the cars as they turned and went through the park. So he waited until the car got out from under the trees, and the limbs, and then he had a perfectly clear view of the occupants of the car, and I think he took aim, either on the President or Connally, and I personally believe it was the President in view of the twisted mentality the man had.

This is an an outright lie by JEH as there was no tree in the line of sight when the limousine was on Houston, but there was a tree in the way on Elm. Did the WC charge JEH with perjury or even warn him? No. Therefore your comment is moot.

I have studied the evidence in this case for a long time so I will have to respectfully disagree with your opinion. If you can cite viable evidence then I am open to changing my view, but what you have provided so far is not convincing.

Rob,

I've already outlined the evidence that I accept -- Marina's sworn testimony and the photographs that back her up, as well as the sworn testimony by three other WC witnesses. I am not counting the secondary literature of Bill Kelly, Dick Russell, Ron Lewis and George DeMohrenschildt as evidence, although I do note its confirmation of the evidence.

I also accept the affidavits provided to the Dallas Police Department by eye-witnesses to the Walker shooting -- so, yes, I've studied the evidence.

I accused EAW of perjury, and you accused Marina of perjury. Yet we both know that the WC never enforced perjury, or even cross-examination. Whenever anybody got warm, the WC always went off the record. Everybody has lost count of all the times they did that. Most people know these limitations -- it's what we have to work with.

As for J. Edgar Hoover's nonsense that the TSBD shooter didn't shoot JFK coming toward the TSBD, everybody knows that Hoover was making things up. Hoover was the creator of the Lone Nut theory, and which was promoted by LBJ himself. Hoover took pride in the Lone Nut theory, and Hoover would say anything -- anything -- to keep it afloat.

I accept Marina Oswald's testimony, and you don't. It seems to come down to this. It seems the only thing we might agree upon is that the Lone Nut theory is nonsense.

You ask me for evidence and I told you. Yet that implies that I can also ask you for your reading of the evidence that you accept. What is your take on the Walker shooting, Rob?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

As I said, your evidence is not convincing. None of the evidence gathered by the DPD on the night of April 10, 1963, points to LHO at all.

Are you aware of the fact that CE 573 (which has no chain of custody and was not the bullet found per EAW) doesn't even link to CE 139?

Quote on

(223).......a correspondence of individual identifying characteristics was not found........The panel concluded that the Walker bullet was too damaged to allow conclusive identification of the bullet with a particular firearm. (HSCA VII, p. 380 )

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0195b.htm

Quote off

Researcher George Michael Evica wrote about this back in 1975 when he said the following.

Quote on

the bullet recovered in the assassination attempt on General Walker does NOT match either CE 399 or two fragments recovered from President Kennedys limousine; the Warren Commission's linking of Lee Harvey Oswald to the General Walker assassination attempt is SERIOUSLY weakened.

Quote off

If you have no chain of custody for CE 573 and you can't link it to CE 139 (which was never linked to LHO) then you have nothing in way of supporting the claim that LHO fired at EAW. Unless....he used another rifle. Well?

Edited by Rob Caprio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, your evidence is not convincing. None of the evidence gathered by the DPD on the night of April 10, 1963, points to LHO at all.

Are you aware of the fact that CE 573 (which has no chain of custody and was not the bullet found per EAW) doesn't even link to CE 139?

Quote on

(223).......a correspondence of individual identifying characteristics was not found........The panel concluded that the Walker bullet was too damaged to allow conclusive identification of the bullet with a particular firearm. (HSCA VII, p. 380 )

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0195b.htm

Quote off

Researcher George Michael Evica wrote about this back in 1975 when he said the following.

Quote on

the bullet recovered in the assassination attempt on General Walker does NOT match either CE 399 or two fragments recovered from President Kennedys limousine; the Warren Commission's linking of Lee Harvey Oswald to the General Walker assassination attempt is SERIOUSLY weakened.

Quote off

If you have no chain of custody for CE 573 and you can't link it to CE 139 (which was never linked to LHO) then you have nothing in way of supporting the claim that LHO fired at EAW. Unless....he used another rifle. Well?

Rob, thanks for the continuing discussion.

I have already admitted that all my new evidence that links LHO to the Walker shooting comes from General Walker himself, and comes only after the JFK assassination. That is the problem with the evidence -- although I'm convinced it's solid evidence that will be corroborated eventually with conclusive evidence.

I agree with you 100% that no material evidence links LHO with the Walker shooting -- if we ignore Marina's sworn testimony about the BYP's.

I agree with you 100% that CE 573 failed to link to CE 139. But that was only because it was too mutilated for recognition. It was not a positive mismatch -- just as there was no positive match. The final word was "inconclusive."

Besides that -- I have continually said that LHO didn't need to use his own rifle, since he had at least one accomplice in the shooting (that is, we have DPD reports claiming there were at least two shooters). I agree 100% that this fails to link to LHO with physical evidence.

I do disagree about the chain of custody of CE 573, however. CE 573 was clearly the bullet found by EAW -- and EAW complained bitterly to Robert Blakey because Blakey had displayed a pristine bullet to the TV cameras and called it the "Walker bullet." EAW went into a tizzy about it. The fragment is the Walker bullet. Walker -- his whole life long -- wanted to know the identity of the second shooter, because he was afraid that the second shooter was still out to kill him. He was enraged that the US Government refused to take him seriously about this. (Blakey ignored Walker as a witness, and this also upset Walker, IMHO.)

I agree with you and with George Michael Evica that there was never any physical evidence (aside from Marina's testimony) to link LHO with the Walker shooting. (The suspicions of George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt were just speculation.)

I say LHO could have used another rifle -- since he had at least one other accomplice. But actually, the rifle used is immaterial. It could have been CE 139, but the bullet fragment recovered was too mutilated for identification, so it's a moot point. It's irrelevant.

My argument was never an attempt to argue that CE 139 was used in the Walker shooting.

My argument is that General Walker himself attempted to insert himself in the JFK saga by his demand to link the Walker shooting with the JFK assassination -- and why was that? That's important to answer, IMHO.

Also, it is incorrect to claim that all these people who hated General Walker would back up his story -- Marina Oswald, Michael and Ruth Paine, George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt, Everett Glover, and Mr. & Mrs. Igor Voshinin. They weren't fans of Walker. Why would they back his story?

And why would Walker keep pushing this story -- over and over -- year after year -- to the German newspaper, to the National Enquirer, to the Friends of Walker and to local newspapers? This story even appears in H.L. Hunt's 1966 Playboy interview. It won't go away.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Walker-did-it CT finds further possible confirmation in the 1969 book with the interesting title, Retired Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry Reveals his Personal JFK Assassination File.

This book has often been taken as a mere confirmation of the WCR, but it is something more than that. There are interesting snippets here and there that suggest clues without offering detail. Here's one example from pages 17-18 of Curry's book:

--- BEGIN EXTRACT OF JESSE CURRY'S PERSONAL JFK ASSASSINATION FILE, 1969 ---

Along with the physical security arrangements requested by the Secret Service for the airport, motorcade and Trade Mart luncheon, the Dallas Police were attempting to keep known members of certain groups under surveillance. Some of the more active groups in Dallas at the time were:

The Ku Klux Klan
Indignant White Citizens Council
National States Right Party
John Birch Society
Dallas White Citizens Council
Oak Cliff White Citizens Council
The General Edwin A. Walker Group
American Opinion Forum...

Previous to the President's visit it was determined that only two of these organizations were planning demonstrations during the President's visit to Dallas. The General Edwin A. Walker Group intended to picket the parade route and the Trade Mart. The Indignant White Citizens Council were preparting some signs and placard which were to be used to picket the Trade Mart during the President's speaking engagement there.

The activities of individuals involved in these groups were under surveillance by my Department even before the President's arrival was definite. Just prior to the President's visit some members of the Young Republican Club met with General Walker to discuss their plans. The individuals at the meeting were identified and photographed. At the last minute the General Edwin A. Walker Group did not appear to picket the President. Prior to the President's arrival General Walker left Dallas enroute to another State for a speaking engagement.

--- END EXTRACT OF JESSE CURRY'S PERSONAL JFK ASSASSINATION FILE, 1969 ---

When reading this, I noted that the Young Republicans in Dallas in 1963 included a young man named Larrie Schmidt, whose brother Robbie Schmidt was living with General Walker during the Spring, Summer and Autumn of 1963.

I also asked myself how General Walker's group could be planning to picket long before JFK arrived, but then "at the last minute," as Chief Curry says, General Walker left Dallas "to another State for a speaking engagement."

At the last minute? How does somebody obtain a speaking engagement in another State "at the last minute" in order to interrupt plans that were already ongoing in Dallas?

Little things like this piqued my interest -- especially in the light of General Walker's own 1969 article, "Chief Curry's Boo Boo" which he wrote for his Dallas group, "Friends of Walker." In this minor scandal, General Walker mentions Bradford Angers. Here is a link to that article:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19691212_Curry_Boo_Boo.pdf

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rob Caprio

As I said, your evidence is not convincing. None of the evidence gathered by the DPD on the night of April 10, 1963, points to LHO at all.

Are you aware of the fact that CE 573 (which has no chain of custody and was not the bullet found per EAW) doesn't even link to CE 139?

Quote on

(223).......a correspondence of individual identifying characteristics was not found........The panel concluded that the Walker bullet was too damaged to allow conclusive identification of the bullet with a particular firearm. (HSCA VII, p. 380 )

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0195b.htm

Quote off

Researcher George Michael Evica wrote about this back in 1975 when he said the following.

Quote on

the bullet recovered in the assassination attempt on General Walker does NOT match either CE 399 or two fragments recovered from President Kennedys limousine; the Warren Commission's linking of Lee Harvey Oswald to the General Walker assassination attempt is SERIOUSLY weakened.

Quote off

If you have no chain of custody for CE 573 and you can't link it to CE 139 (which was never linked to LHO) then you have nothing in way of supporting the claim that LHO fired at EAW. Unless....he used another rifle. Well?

Rob, thanks for the continuing discussion.

I have already admitted that all my new evidence that links LHO to the Walker shooting comes from General Walker himself, and comes only after the JFK assassination. That is the problem with the evidence -- although I'm convinced it's solid evidence that will be corroborated eventually with conclusive evidence.

I agree with you 100% that no material evidence links LHO with the Walker shooting -- if we ignore Marina's sworn testimony about the BYP's.

I agree with you 100% that CE 573 failed to link to CE 139. But that was only because it was too mutilated for recognition. It was not a positive mismatch -- just as there was no positive match. The final word was "inconclusive."

Besides that -- I have continually said that LHO didn't need to use his own rifle, since he had at least one accomplice in the shooting (that is, we have DPD reports claiming there were at least two shooters). I agree 100% that this fails to link to LHO with physical evidence.

I do disagree about the chain of custody of CE 573, however. CE 573 was clearly the bullet found by EAW -- and EAW complained bitterly to Robert Blakey because Blakey had displayed a pristine bullet to the TV cameras and called it the "Walker bullet." EAW went into a tizzy about it. The fragment is the Walker bullet. Walker -- his whole life long -- wanted to know who the second shooter was, because he was afraid that the second shooter was still out to kill him. He was enraged that the US Government refused to take him seriously about this. (Blakey ignored Walker as a witness, and this also upset Walker, IMHO.)

I agree with you and with George Michael Evica that there was never any physical evidence (aside from Marina's testimony) to link LHO with the Walker shooting. (The suspicions of George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt were just speculation.)

I say LHO could have used another rifle -- since he had at least one other accomplice. But actually, the rifle used is immaterial. It could have been CE 139, but the bullet fragment recovered was too mutilated for identification, so it's a moot point. It's irrelevant.

My argument was never an attempt to argue that CE 139 was used in the Walker shooting.

My argument is that General Walker himself attempted to insert himself in the JFK saga by his demand to link the Walker shooting with the JFK assassination -- and why was that? That's important to answer, IMHO.

Also, it is nonsense that all these people who hated General Walker would back up his story -- Marina Oswald, Michael and Ruth Paine, George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt, Everett Glover, and Mr. & Mrs. Igor Voshinin. They weren't fans of Walker. Why would they back his story?

And why would Walker keep pushing this story -- over and over -- year after year -- to the German newspaper, to the National Enquirer, to the Friends of Walker and to local newspapers? This story even appears in H.L. Hunt's 1966 Playboy interview. It won't go away.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

As I said, your evidence is not convincing. None of the evidence gathered by the DPD on the night of April 10, 1963, points to LHO at all.

Are you aware of the fact that CE 573 (which has no chain of custody and was not the bullet found per EAW) doesn't even link to CE 139?

Quote on

(223).......a correspondence of individual identifying characteristics was not found........The panel concluded that the Walker bullet was too damaged to allow conclusive identification of the bullet with a particular firearm. (HSCA VII, p. 380 )http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0195b.htm

Quote off

Researcher George Michael Evica wrote about this back in 1975 when he said the following.

Quote onthe bullet recovered in the assassination attempt on General Walker does NOT match either CE 399 or two fragments recovered from President Kennedys limousine; the Warren Commission's linking of Lee Harvey Oswald to the General Walker assassination attempt is SERIOUSLY weakened.

Quote off

If you have no chain of custody for CE 573 and you can't link it to CE 139 (which was never linked to LHO) then you have nothing in way of supporting the claim that LHO fired at EAW. Unless....he used another rifle. Well?

Rob, thanks for the continuing discussion.

I have already admitted that all my new evidence that links LHO to the Walker shooting comes from General Walker himself, and comes only after the JFK assassination. That is the problem with the evidence -- although I'm convinced it's solid evidence that will be corroborated eventually with conclusive evidence.

I agree with you 100% that no material evidence links LHO with the Walker shooting -- if we ignore Marina's sworn testimony about the BYP's.

I agree with you 100% that CE 573 failed to link to CE 139. But that was only because it was too mutilated for recognition. It was not a positive mismatch -- just as there was no positive match. The final word was "inconclusive."

Besides that -- I have continually said that LHO didn't need to use his own rifle, since he had at least one accomplice in the shooting (that is, we have DPD reports claiming there were at least two shooters). I agree 100% that this fails to link to LHO with physical evidence.

I do disagree about the chain of custody of CE 573, however. CE 573 was clearly the bullet found by EAW -- and EAW complained bitterly to Robert Blakey because Blakey had displayed a pristine bullet to the TV cameras and called it the "Walker bullet." EAW went into a tizzy about it. The fragment is the Walker bullet. Walker -- his whole life long -- wanted to know who the second shooter was, because he was afraid that the second shooter was still out to kill him. He was enraged that the US Government refused to take him seriously about this. (Blakey ignored Walker as a witness, and this also upset Walker, IMHO.)

I agree with you and with George Michael Evica that there was never any physical evidence (aside from Marina's testimony) to link LHO with the Walker shooting. (The suspicions of George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt were just speculation.)

I say LHO could have used another rifle -- since he had at least one other accomplice. But actually, the rifle used is immaterial. It could have been CE 139, but the bullet fragment recovered was too mutilated for identification, so it's a moot point. It's irrelevant.

My argument was never an attempt to argue that CE 139 was used in the Walker shooting.

My argument is that General Walker himself attempted to insert himself in the JFK saga by his demand to link the Walker shooting with the JFK assassination -- and why was that? That's important to answer, IMHO.

Also, it is nonsense that all these people who hated General Walker would back up his story -- Marina Oswald, Michael and Ruth Paine, George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt, Everett Glover, and Mr. & Mrs. Igor Voshinin. They weren't fans of Walker. Why would they back his story?

And why would Walker keep pushing this story -- over and over -- year after year -- to the German newspaper, to the National Enquirer, to the Friends of Walker and to local newspapers? This story even appears in H.L. Hunt's 1966 Playboy interview. It won't go away.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

So your entire premise is that EAW was the person pushing that it was LHO? Can you please quote him saying this?

Edited by Rob Caprio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your entire premise is that EAW was the person pushing that it was LHO? Can you please quote him saying this?

Rob, thanks for the opportunity to quote EAW saying this.

The first time (that we know) is the German newspaper, Deutsche Nationalzeitung, of 11/29/1963, which first spoke of Oswald being Walker's shooter. When the German BfV grilled the writer, Helmut Muench (who wrote under the pen name of Hasso Thorsten) he confessed that General Walker was the source of that story on the day after the JFK assassination. Everybody knows this snippet:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg

Now, on the same morning of 11/23/1963, the Houston Post published a similar article, naming LHO as Walker's April 10th shooter. Although that writer refused to disclose his source -- the fact that it was the same morning and the same content shouts out to me that Walker was also that source.

Then, in February 1964, the National Enquirer published that LHO had been Walker's shooter. They also refused to disclose their source -- but I strongly suspect Walker as that source, as well.

Then, in May 1964 the National Enquirer published another story linking LHO (along with Jack Ruby) as Walker's shooter. They also refused to disclose their source -- but really, who else would be spreading this unique slant on things, placing Walker at the center of the JFK assassination, except Walker and his circle?

Also, upon the 1968 assassination of RFK, Walker again repeated that JFK would still be alive if LHO had not tried to kill Walker back in 1963.

http://www.pet880.com/images/19680612_RFK_released_Oswald.pdf

Then of course there's that 1969 article on Jesse Curry's "Boo Boo" that I cited in my post above from this morning.

There is also his 1975 letter to Senator Frank Church that I've posted a dozen times or so.

There are many other examples in Walker's newsletters for the "Friends of Walker" in Dallas. Here is one in three parts from 1981:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19811212_Walker_on_JFK_1.JPG

http://www.pet880.com/images/19811212_Walker_on_JFK_2.JPG

http://www.pet880.com/images/19811212_Walker_on_JFK_3.JPG

And here is Walker's final article on this topic, to the best of my knowledge, published in early 1992, less than 2 years before his death in late 1993:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19920119_EAW_Oswald_arrested.pdf

There's many more. Have you read the 1969 Playboy interview of H.L. Hunt? In that article, IIRC, Hunt said that EAW was one of the most honest men he knew, so he tended to believe EAW's story that RFK sent LHO to kill EAW, and that the DPD arrested LHO, but RFK set him free again.

I believe it's a paranoid fantasy -- but I have no doubt in my mind that EAW believed it until the day he died. The only question is when he started to believe it. I say he started to believe it on Easter Sunday, April 14, 1963.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your entire premise is that EAW was the person pushing that it was LHO? Can you please quote him saying this?

Rob,

I think I understand the intent of your question. If we quote EAW in his WC testimony, we find that he says the opposite of my contention. For example:

---------------- BEGIN EXTRACT OF GENERAL E.A. WALKER'S WC TESTIMONY -- July 23, 1964 ----------------

Mr. LIEBELER. So aside from Duff and aside from what has been made public as regards Oswald's involvement, you have no other leads or conclusions or ideas as to who might have taken the shot at you on April 10, 1963?

General WALKER. No; I am pretty well blocked by you all and the fact that -- not particularly you, as the FBI having taken the information on the case from the Dallas city police, and it is difficult to find who is now responsible for an open case, and also the lack of contact with my counsel at any time regarding Oswald's position in this from the time the shot was fired, or even after the events of November 22, 1963.

...

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any basis for believing that there was any connection between Duff and Oswald?

General WALKER. None at all.

Mr. LIEBELER. You never even heard of Oswald?

General WALKER. Only with respect to what we have passed over with regard to what we have said about Duff, and we have heard said about Oswald. I have no information of Oswald's name ever being mentioned in my house, and I had never heard of the name with regard to the individual we are referring to at any time since I have been in Dallas or any other time.

Mr. LIEBELER. You have never heard of any connection until the assassination?

General WALKER. Until his activities of November 22. More specifically, no knowledge or no reference of any indication that Duff was in any way connected with Oswald. I still think that the information that Kirk Coleman gave is very relevant to this ease, and I would like to say as far as I am concerned, our efforts are practically blocked. I would like to see at least a capability of my counsel being able to talk to these witnesses freely, and that you or the FBI give a release on them with respect to being able to discuss it as it involves me.

...

Mr. LIEBELER. In point of fact, it would be correct to state that, to your knowledge, you never saw or heard of Lee Harvey Oswald at any time prior to the time that his name was announced after the assassination on November 22, 1963?

General WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER. You had no connection of any sort whatsoever with him prior to that time?

General WALKER. None at all.

---------------- END EXTRACT OF GENERAL E.A. WALKER'S WC TESTIMONY -- July 23, 1964 ----------------

So, Rob, it is logical to conclude, based on this sworn testimony by EAW to the Warren Commission, that Walker never believed that Oswald was involved in his April, 1963 shooting until after Marina Oswald made the allegation public in early December 1963.

HOWEVER, we have the further information of the items from Walker's personal papers I have posted above -- and then I would draw your attention specifically to this item from Walker's personal papers -- it is a letter from Walker to Senator Frank Church in 1975:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf

In this letter, EAW completely contradicts his WC testimony, and claims that he knew that Lee Harvey Oswald was his April shooter only a few days after the April 10th shooting. May I have your comments on this historical fact?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rob Caprio

Occam's Razor is following the evidence and that doesn't point to LHO shooting at EAW. Have you studied the evidence in this area?

You can call it perjury all you want, but we know that the WC never enforced perjury on anyone. Even when they lied.

Mr. HOOVER. Now, some people have raised the question: Why didn't he shoot the President as the car came toward the storehouse where he was working?The reason for that is, I think, the fact there were some trees between his window on the sixth floor and the cars as they turned and went through the park. So he waited until the car got out from under the trees, and the limbs, and then he had a perfectly clear view of the occupants of the car, and I think he took aim, either on the President or Connally, and I personally believe it was the President in view of the twisted mentality the man had.

This is an an outright lie by JEH as there was no tree in the line of sight when the limousine was on Houston, but there was a tree in the way on Elm. Did the WC charge JEH with perjury or even warn him? No. Therefore your comment is moot.

I have studied the evidence in this case for a long time so I will have to respectfully disagree with your opinion. If you can cite viable evidence then I am open to changing my view, but what you have provided so far is not convincing.

Rob,

I've already outlined the evidence that I accept -- Marina's sworn testimony and the photographs that back her up, as well as the sworn testimony by three other WC witnesses. I am not counting the secondary literature of Bill Kelly, Dick Russell, Ron Lewis and George DeMohrenschildt as evidence, although I do note its confirmation of the evidence.

I also accept the affidavits provided to the Dallas Police Department by eye-witnesses to the Walker shooting -- so, yes, I've studied the evidence.

I accused EAW of perjury, and you accused Marina of perjury. Yet we both know that the WC never enforced perjury, or even cross-examination. Whenever anybody got warm, the WC always went off the record. Everybody has lost count of all the times they did that. Most people know these limitations -- it's what we have to work with.

As for J. Edgar Hoover's nonsense that the TSBD shooter didn't shoot JFK coming toward the TSBD, everybody knows that Hoover was making things up. Hoover was the creator of the Lone Nut theory, and which was promoted by LBJ himself. Hoover took pride in the Lone Nut theory, and Hoover would say anything -- anything -- to keep it afloat.

I accept Marina Oswald's testimony, and you don't. It seems to come down to this. It seems the only thing we might agree upon is that the Lone Nut theory is nonsense.

You ask me for evidence and I told you. Yet that implies that I can also ask you for your reading of the evidence that you accept. What is your take on the Walker shooting, Rob?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

If you are basing your conclusion on Marina’s testimony and highly suspicious photographs of Walker's house (which depict an interesting automobile which had its license plate number removed while in official custody) which could have been taken at any time with any camera then you are relying on faith instead of evidence in my opinion.

I can go through every piece of evidence if you wish to illustrate how none of it points to LHO. Two pieces of "evidence" that WC supporters use to make their point were again "found" by Ruth Paine after her house had been searched by the DPD twice. These items were the Imperial Reflex camera and the note that doesn't mention EAW at all.

When you are the head of the FBI for fotty-years you don't "make things up" as you have access to unbelievable amounts of information, thus, he lied. He lied on a number of issues.

The bottom line is there is not one viable piece of evidence that shows the LHO fired a shot at EAW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

If you are basing your conclusion on Marina’s testimony and highly suspicious photographs of Walker's house (which depict an interesting automobile which had its license plate number removed while in official custody) which could have been taken at any time with any camera then you are relying on faith instead of evidence in my opinion.

I can go through every piece of evidence if you wish to illustrate how none of it points to LHO. Two pieces of "evidence" that WC supporters use to make their point were again "found" by Ruth Paine after her house had been searched by the DPD twice. These items were the Imperial Reflex camera and the note that doesn't mention EAW at all.

When you are the head of the FBI for fotty-years you don't "make things up" as you have access to unbelievable amounts of information, thus, he lied. He lied on a number of issues.

The bottom line is there is not one viable piece of evidence that shows the LHO fired a shot at EAW.

Rob,
We are obliged -- by the standards of our legal system -- to regard sworn testimony as factual evidence -- unless perjury can be proved.
Until and unless somebody shows me concrete evidence that Marina Oswald's sworn testimony is perjury -- then I will continue to accept her testimony as factual evidence in the JFK assassination saga.
As for the photograph of Walker's house -- the famous erased license plate has been fully explored in the past 50 years, and the owner of the car identified as one of the many unpaid volunteers of General Walker's "American Eagle Publishing Company" and its activist arm, "Friends of Walker," both operating out of Walker's own home on Turtle Creek Boulevard in Dallas. The FBI erased that license plate as it regularly redacts all data that identify names and numbers of innocent bystanders.
Again, Rob, I do agree with you that in terms of bare, physical evidence -- we have nothing at all to link LHO to the Walker shooting. The bullet fragments retrieved from Walker's house were so mutilated that it was impossible to link that fragment with any weapon. That's admitted even by Warren Commission experts.
Now, I do want to clarify that I'm not a WC supporter when it comes to the WC conclusions of a SBT and a "Lone Nut" shooter in the JFK assassination. Nevertheless, I find no justification for suspecting the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald or Ruth Paine. It is *other* WC witnesses who were holding back the truth, IMHO.
As for the Imperial Reflex camera, it was turned in by Robert Oswald himself. He found it at Ruth Paine's house -- and the sloppy work done by the Dallas Police Department in searching Ruth Paine's house can be illustrated in many ways. I see no reason to doubt the sworn testimony of Robert Oswald, either.
As for the so-called "Walker Note," in itself it is mysterious, but combined with the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine it is a piece of factual evidence that ties LHO to the Walker shooting with precision. On this point I must insist -- prove to me that Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine committed perjury about the "Walker Note" and I will back away.
As for J. Edgar Hoover, he and Earl Warren both admitted that the "Lone Nut" theory was invented in the interest of National Security, and that the evidence withheld from NARA in 1964 would be preserved and released to the American People in 75 years. So they told us the truth about why they lied to us. (Regarding J. Edgar Hoover, I have two theories about him -- one theory makes Hoover an accessory to Walker's plot, and the other theory makes Hoover into a national hero. I will lean toward the second theory until I obtain further information, I have always said.)
As long as there is no convincing proof that Marina and Ruth committed perjury, Rob, then I say we have factual evidence that LHO was Walker's shooter.
The exploration of the BYP has not yet been completed. FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt, admitted that the BYP could have been a fake, if (and only if) it was produced by an extremely accomplished expert.
Shaneyfelt's main defense of the BYP was that no ordinary person could have made that fake. Yet Shaneyfelt was unaware that LHO was hoping to be accepted by the CIA one day, and was working at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall during the period immediately before the Walker shooting, with access to sophisticated camera equipment.
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rob Caprio

Paul,

If you are basing your conclusion on Marina’s testimony and highly suspicious photographs of Walker's house (which depict an interesting automobile which had its license plate number removed while in official custody) which could have been taken at any time with any camera then you are relying on faith instead of evidence in my opinion.

I can go through every piece of evidence if you wish to illustrate how none of it points to LHO. Two pieces of "evidence" that WC supporters use to make their point were again "found" by Ruth Paine after her house had been searched by the DPD twice. These items were the Imperial Reflex camera and the note that doesn't mention EAW at all.

When you are the head of the FBI for fotty-years you don't "make things up" as you have access to unbelievable amounts of information, thus, he lied. He lied on a number of issues.

The bottom line is there is not one viable piece of evidence that shows the LHO fired a shot at EAW.

Rob,

We are obliged -- by the standards of our legal system -- to regard sworn testimony as factual evidence -- unless perjury can be proved.

Until and unless somebody shows me concrete evidence that Marina Oswald's sworn testimony is perjury -- then I will continue to accept her testimony as factual evidence in the JFK assassination saga.

As for the photograph of Walker's house -- the famous erased license plate has been fully explored in the past 50 years, and the owner of the car identified as one of the many unpaid volunteers of General Walker's "American Eagle Publishing Company" and its activist arm, "Friends of Walker," both operating out of Walker's own home on Turtle Creek Boulevard in Dallas. The FBI erased that license plate as it regularly redacts all data that identify names and numbers of innocent bystanders.

Again, Rob, I do agree with you that in terms of bare, physical evidence -- we have nothing at all to link LHO to the Walker shooting. The bullet fragments retrieved from Walker's house were so mutilated that it was impossible to link that fragment with any weapon. That's admitted even by Warren Commission experts.

Now, I do want to clarify that I'm not a WC supporter when it comes to the WC conclusions of a SBT and a "Lone Nut" shooter in the JFK assassination. Nevertheless, I find no justification for suspecting the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald or Ruth Paine. It is *other* WC witnesses who were holding back the truth, IMHO.

As for the Imperial Reflex camera, it was turned in by Robert Oswald himself. He found it at Ruth Paine's house -- and the sloppy work done by the Dallas Police Department in searching Ruth Paine's house can be illustrated in many ways. I see no reason to doubt the sworn testimony of Robert Oswald, either.

As for the so-called "Walker Note," in itself it is mysterious, but combined with the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine it is a piece of factual evidence that ties LHO to the Walker shooting with precision. On this point I must insist -- prove to me that Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine committed perjury about the "Walker Note" and I will back away.

.

As for J. Edgar Hoover, he and Earl Warren both admitted that the "Lone Nut" theory was invented in the interest of National Security, and that the evidence withheld from NARA in 1964 would be preserved and released to the American People in 75 years. So they told us the truth about why they lied to us. (Regarding J. Edgar Hoover, I have two theories about him -- one theory makes Hoover an accessory to Walker's plot, and the other theory makes Hoover into a national hero. I will lean toward the second theory until I obtain further information, I have always said.)

As long as there is no convincing proof that Marina and Ruth committed perjury, Rob, then I say we have factual evidence that LHO was Walker's shooter.

The exploration of the BYP has not yet been completed. FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt, admitted that the BYP could have been a fake, if (and only if) it was produced by an extremely accomplished expert.

Shaneyfelt's main defense of the BYP was that no ordinary person could have made that fake. Yet Shaneyfelt was unaware that LHO was hoping to be accepted by the CIA one day, and was working at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall during the period immediately before the Walker shooting, with access to sophisticated camera equipment.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Testimony that is NOT subjected to cross-examination is not legal testimony. It is but one unchallenged side of the story.

You can accept anything that you wish, but that doesn't make it supporting evidence. Marina Oswald's testimony has no corroboration. It has no support and would have been disallowed in a court of law due to spousal privilege, thus, once again it is not legal testimony that you are relying on.

You sound similar to a WC supporter to, but I don't mean that as a derogatory statement as you are entitled to believe what you want. What you or anyone else doesn't have a right to do is misrepresent the evidence. You are claiming that unsupported and uncoroborated claims are evidence and that is simply untrue.

Furthermore, CE 573 has no chain of custody and that means you cannot support the claim that it was the bullet recovered from the EAW house on the night of April 10, 1963. Moreover, nine contemporaneous DPD reports mention a steel-jacketed bullet and CE 573 is copper-jacketed. Contemporaneous media reports cite that a .30.06 bullet was recovered. This has substantially more weight than what Marina, Ruth or any other witness claimed. You yourself have said that CE 573 could not be linked to CE 139. That is damning for the claim that LHO fired at EAW as you can't link him in anyway ballistically to the crime (of course you can't link CE 139 to LHO in anyway).

The license plate issue was not solved. We know it was cut out in official custody and that is suspicious. Despite your repeated claims of EAW saying that LHO was the shooter that is simply not true as he is on record as saying that CE 573 was not the bullet that he held and saw on the night of the shooting and he never said that he thought LHO was the shooter.

I appreciate you telling me what you are relying on as that confirms for me that you simply are offering an unsupported opinion which you have a right to do, but is of no help to us in learning the truth of what actually occurred.

Thanks for the discussion.

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...