Paul Trejo Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 My Antivirus software detects that Paul's website is infected with this. http://www.microsoft...ML/IframeRef.DM Duncan, your analysis was helpful in resolving my web site hacking crisis at www.pet880.com. The AT&T Abuse team spent a lot of time analyzing the problem. Somebody spent a lot of time and effort placing a Virus on my web site. Anyway, the AT&T Abuse team cleaned up my site, explained ways to secure my site better, and set me free. I believe my site is again safe for Users to peruse. Would you mind navigating there again, please, and tell us if www.pet880.com now appears clean to your software tools? Best regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Paul your link came up clean when i tried it...hope all is well now for you...b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 (edited) Paul your link came up clean when i tried it...hope all is well now for you...b Thank you, Bernice. I'm glad because I believe that ex-General Edwin Walker presents an important clue to the JFK assassination. The bulk of my research strives to show that Walker was continually aware of Lee Harvey Oswald from 10 April 1963 until 24 November 1963 when Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby. The most important living witness I know of today is Harry Dean (born in Canada, and moved to Chicago in the 1940's) who tells us that he was in a John Birch Society meeting in Southern California in late August 1963, along with Congressman John Rousselot, war hero Guy Gabaldon, Interpen soldiers Loran Hall and Larry Howard, organizer David Robbins and himself. The special guest at this meeting was ex-General Edwin Walker. Yet this small, exclusive meeting wasn't about Edwin Walker's regular speech on the evils of the United Nations. Walker was present to take action. At this historical meeting -- one of the most important political meetings of the 20th century, IMHO -- ex-General Edwin Walker announced to those gathered that he had identified the perfect patsy for their plot to kill JFK -- his name was Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist currently making noise in New Orleans. At this time in his life, Harry Dean had already led a complicated political life. While in Chicago circa 1958, at a time when the Eisenhower administration was somewhat tolerant of Fidel Castro, and the CIA was actually helping Castro with assets like Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Interpen and many Cuban Exile organizations, Harry Dean became a supporter of the FPCC. Harry raised funds for the FPCC, trying to be a good American citizen. Harry was quite successful as a fund raiser, and he was promoted to be an officer of the FPCC and was invited to Cuba to meet briefly with Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. All seemed fine until Eisenhower made a 180 degree about face, and declared Fidel Castro to be an enemy of the USA, and that anybody supporting Castro was now considered a security risk. Harry, the good citizen, contacted the FBI with his new dilemma. The FBI told Harry that he did the right thing in coming to them. They further instructed Harry to make no further changes in his life -- but continue as normal, and simply report his findings to the FBI. Harry complied. The about-face of US policy toward Cuba also changed the perception of Fidel Castro, who began persecuting USA citizens in his camp. Some were subjected to the firing squad. Harry himself came very close to being killed. To make a very long story very short, Harry finally changed his name and moved. Harry eventually wound up in Southern California and vowed to stay away from left-wing politics. To this end Harry joined the John Birch Society and made many social contacts there. He eventually moved so far to the right that he even joined the California Minutemen in 1962. Killing JFK was a common joke among the Minutemen, as it has been among the more aggressive Birchers. Around that time the FBI contacted Harry again. "We're also monitoring the Minutemen," they clarified, "so now we want you to report to us anything you learn about the Minutemen and their connections." Again, Harry complied. When that exclusive John Birch Society meeting with ex-General Edwin Walker took place, Harry, like all those present, had a good laugh over the notion that a Communist would be the patsy in a plot to kill a Communist. There was so much empty talk about killing JFK in those circles, however, that Harry didn't think very much about it at the time. Still, he had a duty to tell the FBI, so Harry reported the events of that meeting to the FBI in Los Angeles. The agent in charge that day dismissed the meeting as "wishful thinking." I corroborated vital parts of this story by contacting the only other living member of that meeting, namely, David Robbins. I told David that I was researching General Walker, and he was happy to be interviewed, because, as he told me, he had met General Walker. (I didn't mention Harry Dean at first). I let David tell me his life story -- and it was basically a repetition of what Harry Dean told me he would say -- where he worked -- his activities for the John Birch Society, and his friendship with war hero Guy Gabaldon. When I finally mentioned Harry Dean, however, David changed his tune. He didn't remember anybody named Harry Dean, and by the way, he never met General Walker, either, and he had nothing further to say on the subject. That was the end of the weeks-long interview. Hmm. So -- again -- Harry Dean's story is valuable to my theory. There are others who connected Edwin Walker and Lee Harvey Oswald in before the JFK assassination -- including the butler of H.L. Hunt (TMWKTM, 1993, Dick Russell) as well as Bradford J. Angers (TMWKTM) and various remarks by Gerry Patrick Hemming and Loran Hall. But all those witnesses are dead today. The final living person that I know about, who may be able to connect Lee Harvey Oswald to Edwin Walker between April and November 1963, is John (Jack) Martin, who was a young man in 1963, a former soldier in Germany under General Edwin Walker, and also a Minuteman. He made a home movie in 1963 now called, "The Jack Martin Film, in which the first part of the home movie shows the bullet holes in General Walker's home in Dallas, and the second part shows Lee Harvey Oswald being arrested in New Orleans for fighting with Carlos Bringuier. (John Martin was born again in 1968, as I understand it, so he handed his movie over to Harold Weisberg -- Weisberg, however, failed to see the connection that I believe is entirely obvious.) The Jack Martin Film is a material connection between Walker and Oswald in one short home movie. I still haven't obtained a copy of that film, after much effort. If I could somehow interview that young man -- John Martin -- who is around 75 today -- I would seize the opportunity. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited April 6, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 (edited) http://rogerebert.su.../204290301/1023 JFK (1991) BY ROGER EBERT / April 29, 2002 ....Stone was much criticized for choosing Garrison as his hero. Who should he have chosen? Earl Warren? Allen Dulles? Walter Cronkite? As a filmmaker, it is his assignment to find a protagonist who reflects his feelings. Jim Garrison may not have been on the right track, but he was a perfect surrogate for our national doubts. He asked questions that have never been satisfactorily answered -- that can have no answers, and indeed cannot even be questions, if the Warren Report orthodoxy is correct. Jim Garrison was the obvious hero for any film about a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy..... ............. ........................ Paul B., with all due respect, sir, your cynicism is a little too steep for my taste. I have no doubt that Allen Dulles knew every last detail of the JFK assassination -- at the very least a few hours after the fact -- and far more than the Warren Commission knew. Yet I hesitate to name this great American as a conspirator without tons of proof. And just because somebody is rich, that does not immediately make me suspect them of foul play. Again, I need hard evidence. That aside, I want to thank you for raising the spectre of Jack Crichton here. The most suspicious things you listed about Crichton, IMHO, are that he was: (i) connected with local military intelligence in Dallas; (ii) involved in the motorcade planning; (iii) a private funder of Operation 40; (iv) in business with Clint Murchison; (v) a friend of George DeMohrenschilt; (vi) a holder of oil leases with Batista; and (vii) a classmate of Earle Cabell. ................... It is too easy, IMHO, to start at the top of society and suspect rich and powerful people. It is just that sort of circumstantial evidence that was used to blame Lee Harvey Oswald -- which was a major disservice to history and politics. Just like those many new books that make sensations by blaming LBJ for the JFK killing -- all without any hard evidence whatsoever -- that's the sort of thinking we can do without, IMHO. Crichton, however, is connected at the street level with street players -- and that is why he is now interesting to me. So, again, Paul B., I thank you for raising his name in this discussion. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, go look for the green pick up truck. Every time I conclude that your cluelessness cannot be trumped, you manage to take it to an even more extreme level. Your "hard evidence" requirement is intensely selective, isn't it? Instead of accepting Mimi Alford at her word, ten months ago I delved into the "hooks". I found that Alford wrote that her best, lifelong friend and confidante was Marion "Marnie" Stuart Pillsbury.: http://educationforu...48 Mrs. Pillsbury has an interesting background; daughter of Gerald Ford's "America First" cofounder Robert Douglas Stuart, Jr., Pillsbury has been "has been the Executive Director of The David Rockefeller Fund and Philanthropic Advisor to Mr. Rockefeller since 1990...." Another interesting fact I dug up only in the last few weeks is related to information Priscilla Johnson gave in an HSCA interview in 1978. The uncle of the man Mimi Alford married in 1963 and who also fathered her children (Anthony E. Fahnestock) was the Harper editor who approved Priscilla's latching onto Marina Oswald, one John W. Leggett.: ....In 1940 David Rockefeller married Margaret McGrath. They were husband and wife until her death in 1996. In 1959 Frank A. Vanderlip, Jr. married McGrath Rockefeller's sister. http://www.nytimes.c...nker-at-86.htmlFrank Vanderlip, Philanthropist And Investment Banker, at...New York Times - Apr 27, 1993He and his second wife, Dr. Neva Eileen McGrath, built the Beechwood Theater for the Scarborough School on the former family estate, Beechwood,...http://news.google.c...vanderlip&hl=enSims .Mcgrath .Bangor Daily News - Dec 11, 19981 2,1918, he was the son of Francis Sims and Neva Smith) mcgrath Mr. ... His two sisters, Margaret mcgrath Rockefeller and Eileen mcgrath Vanderlip; and at... In Russ Baker's book, "Family of Secrets", he details the background of Robert G. Stone, Jr., son-in-law of Godfrey Stillman Rockefeller. Baker wrote that Stone, Jr. was rewarded for his collaboration with Alan Quasha in the financial bailout of GW Bush by Stone Jr. obtaining a directorship at Russ Reynold's Greenwich Exec. search firm, co-directed by Jonathan Bush. Interesting details I can add to these relationships are that Russ Reynolds' father and mother were feted at a 1929 wedding dinner hosted at the home of Vanderlip, Jr. Vanderlip Jr. was reported in 1966 to have been chosen by William Quasha as the godfather of Alan Quasha's sister, Jill, and Alan Quasha married the daughter of Nelson Rockefeller protege, William Ronan. VIRGINIA D. CARTER ENGAGED tO MARRY; Her Troth to RS Reynold... - New York Times - Feb 11, 1929 The announcement was made last night at a dinner given by Frank A. Vanderlip Jr. at the home of his parents, 912 Fifth Avenue. Miss Carter is the daughter... 74 Debutantes Introduced to Society At 33d Christmas... - New York Times - Dec 21, 1968 ... the Union Club by Mr. and Mrs. Frank A. Vanderlip Jr. for Mr. Vanderlip's goddaughter, Miss Jill Quasha, and his niece, Miss Narcissa Cox Vanderlip 2d,... Rockefeller Gifts Defended By His New York State Aide . news.google.com/newspapers?nid=266&dat=19741118... sinister involved in 550,000 in gifts to him from Vice President-designate Nelson ... In particular Ronan denied any wrong-doing by either himself or Rockefeller .. http://www.nytimes.c...uasha.html?_r=0 Devon Quasha, Jeffrey Thorn Published: June 20, 2009 Devon Ronan Quasha and Jeffrey Graham Thorn were married Saturday at the family house of the bride’s mother in Mill Neck,... ....She is the daughter of Diana Ronan Quasha and Alan Grant Quasha, both of New York. Mill Neck, New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia...._Neck,_New_York Mill Neck is a village in Nassau County, New York in the United States. The population was 997 at the 2010 census. MRS. ALLILUYEVA SEEKS SECLUSION; New England Is Considered... New York Times - Apr 24, 1967 House on.the North Shore estate of Stuart H. Johnson Sr., in Mill Neck, LI, is party screened by trees. Svetlana Alliluyeva is a guest there. Robert, reading your post last night, in the "Blonde Oswald" thread, http://educationforu...75 and this post here, today, steered me to several things. You reinforced through posting the obit of Stewart Dyckman's mother, listing George Bouhe as a pallbearer, that Dyckman was probably a primary influence on Bouhe's move from New York City to Dyckman's hometown of Dallas, TX, after what was describe in Dyckman's recent obit as his "batchelor decade" in New York. I read that Stewart Dyckman moved from Dallas to Calgary, Alberta, CA in 1952. Before that, I posted supporting documentation that Dyckman was elected president of the Harvard club of Dallas not long after there were only about 40 members of that club, sometime after 1946 but before 1952. The obit of Dyckman's mother you posted also relates that she continued to reside in Dallas until her death in 1952, and that his sister, Mrs. W. B. Newsome, continued to live in Dallas. Pursuing the info in your same post about Dallas Harvard club's John G. Penson and his brother, Col. David Penson sent me off in an intriguing direction. Trubee Davison was a close friend of John McCloy, making a small headline when he flew in from DC to attend McCloy's wedding in 1930. At the time he was personnel director at CIA, Davison was a neighbor of Stuart H. Johnson and his daughter, Priscilla, John G. Penson and his brother grew up less than five miles from the homes of Johnson and Davison, in Mill Head, LI, NY.: The Harvard Crimson | Penson Elected to Head Student... Harvard Crimson - Oct 3, 1941 Jack Penson '42 of Glen Head, Long Island City, New York and Lowell House and captain of the Varsity soccer team, was elected president of the . New York Times - Nov 29, 1962 PENSON-Ada H., of 62 Washington Ave., Glen Head. wife of the late George H. Penson, dear mother of Lieut. Col. .David and John Penson; also survived by .. In early 1913, Yale junior class member Stuart H. Johnson was one of 29 appointed to Phi Beta Kappa. The article observed that these admissions were predictive of who would be tapped for Yale secret societies in the month of May.: NEW COURSE AT YALE OFFERS CONSULAR SERVICE ... New York Times - Feb 23, 1913 The honorary society of Phi Beta Kappa announces the election of twenty-nir/e men the /1endemic junior ... JH Johnsort of Rahway, SH Johnson o1 Iill %'eek. I1. ... (Stuart H. Johnson was not tapped in May, but several of his Phi beta Kappa brothers were tapped for Skull and Bones, and Johnson was notified by mail, later in that week, by the newer of more progressive fourth Yale society, Elihu Club, of his selection.) ... Johnson's son, Stuart, Jr., brother of Priscilla, was a member of the Phillips Exeter class of 1941, William B. Macomber, Jr., of the class of 1939, Edward G. Hooker of the class of 1942, and GHW Bush, of the class of 1943. ....Ernest L. Byfield, Jr. was best man in the 1943 wedding of William HG Fitzgerald and Oliver W. Hammonds was an usher. ...........All three were WWII intelligence officers. Byfield was training Macomber in the OSS Sussex program by early 1944, with the oversight of William Casey. Hammonds went to reside in Dallas in 1948, partnered in law and accounting with fellow Harvard Club member, George Ray, and later in Arabian Shield Corp. with Jack Crichton who was hired at Empire Trust in 1952 by John McCloy best man, Henry "Harry" Brunie. JFK leased Glen Ora from Byfield's mother in late 1960. Byfield was close to Irv Kupcinet and Pat Hoy from 1945 to 1960. Kupcinet and Hoy were close to Sid Korshak, Kupcinet was a co-columnist with Jack Ruby's friend, Jimmy Colitz. Jimmy and his brother Ira operated the Clover Bar next to the Hotel Sherman offices of Byfield and Hoy. Hoy was close to Gus Alex and was president of Henry Crown's Material Service Corp in 1963 and exec. V.P. at Crown controlled General Dynamics, employers of Max Clark and of IB Hale. Edward G. Hooker was GHW Bush's school roommate, step-nephew and business partner of DeMohreschildt. Dallas Harvard club president Stewart Dyckman sponsored George A. Bouhe. Macombers asked Otto Otepke at State Dept. security in fall, 1960, to bring the name of defector Oswald to the attention of Hoover at the FBI. Priscilla Johnson was taking a close interest to Oswald in Moscow. Later, Priscilla and her husband went to Haiti to interview DeMohrenschildt. DeMohrenschildt was meeting with Bush business partner, Tom Devine in NYC in spring, 1963. In connection with this meeting, Devine renewed his officially dozen years dormant relations with CIA. In 1955, Devine was an usher in the wedding of Albert Carter of CIA. The best man in that wedding was Palmer Dixon, son of WWII 8th Air Force intelligence chief and Rhodes Loeb partner, Palmer Dixon. The son of Winthrop Aldrich and stepson of Henry Brunie were also ushers in that wedding, along with Andre Rheault of the CIA, brother of Spec. Forces Col. Robert Rheault of Viet Nam army -CIA investigations in 1969. William HG Fitzgerald's son married the daughter of Tom Devine's Stonetex business partner, Robert G. Stone, Jr., son-in-law of Godfrey Stillman Rockefeller, and brother-in-law of Godfrey Avery Rockefeller of Bell Helicopter in Dallas. The priest who married Fitzgerald and Anneliese Petschek at St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1943 was: J - Fulton History fultonhistory.com/.../New%20York%20NY%20Sun%201943%20-%...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View Petschek of White Plains, is be- ing married ... Vincent Dono- van, brother of Col. William J. Donovan, is performing the cere- ... child of Mrs. Petschek, is flower Paul, from what I've read in the threads you are active in, I am not the only one who is of the opinion you are at a disadvantage you show little to no awareness of. Edited April 7, 2013 by Tom Scully Changed Percy (Stillman Rockefeller) to Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 (edited) ...Paul, from what I've read in the threads you are active in, I am not the only one who is of the opinion you are at a disadvantage you show little to no awareness of. Tom, it seems all you have to post these days is insult and invective. What a waste. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited April 6, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 Wow! Nine minutes to respond. Bravo! Of course you find the content of my posts, ...Paul, from what I've read in the threads you are active in, I am not the only one who is of the opinion you are at a disadvantage you show little to no awareness of. Tom, since your posts are regularly useless, I'm setting my EF profile to ignore you from now on. Regards, --Paul Trejo My posts are chock full of undisputed facts that are the result of original, time consuming research. You begin with conclusions and work backwards in your effort to find support for them. There is so much you have no awareness of but this impediment does not ever give you pause. I do not know who killed President Kennedy or Lee Harvey Oswald, Paul. But I know enough to avoid the circumstances you've positioned yourself in. BTW, Bush boy Thomas J. Devine's maternal grandmother was the first cousin of John D. Rockefeller III's wife's father.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchette_Ferry_Rockefeller http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=102334174 Louise Wolcott Hooker Dodge Children: Charlotte W. Dodge Devine (1895 - 1956) http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=102334272 Charlotte W. Dodge Devine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 6, 2013 Share Posted April 6, 2013 (edited) Anyway, getting back to the topic of this thread. On 1 October 1962, JFK and RFK committed ex-General Edwin Walker to the Springfield, Illinois military hospital for the insane for his role in leading the race riots at Ole Miss the day before. On 7 October 1962, Edwin Walker was released from the insane asylum -- with a quasi-apology from Nicolas Katzenbach, because of the public outcry against the JFK White House for using psychiatry as a political weapon. It was one of the biggest blunders of JFK's White House. In January, 1963, Edwin Walker was acquitted by an all-white, Mississippi Grand Jury of all charges of insurrection and violence at Ole Miss university. He told the Grand Jury he was there to bring calm and peace to the rioters. To this very day, an Episcopalian minister named Duncan Gray, who was an eye-witness of those same riots, claims that Edwin Walker perjured himself before the Grand Jury. Far from bringing calm to the rioters, Walker encouraged the rioters, says Gray (who is still alive today, and is also a retired Bishop of the Episcopalian Church). Not only was he an eye-witness, Reverend Duncan Gray was also a victim of Walker's violence, as Walker directed the students around him to attack Gray for trying to bring calm and peace to the situation. "We have a right to protest!" shouted Walker, "and you make me ashamed to be an Episcopalian! The students pulled Gray down from the statue on which he stood, onto the ground, and began kicking him. Some religous students and Highway Patrol officers rescued Gray. The point is that Edwin Walker was so full of hatred toward the Federal Government, that at some point he became capable of lying under oath. We should bear that in mind when we consider ex-General Edwin Walker's testimony before the Warren Commission. Add to his ability of perjury, the fact that for nearly five years Walker had advertised in speeches and on his lawn that Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren should be impeached -- and that Warren was guilty of treason. (I note in passing that the literature of the KKK about Earl Warren used that exact same expression.) So consider -- Edwin Walker had no respect at all toward Earl Warren -- so would he avoid perjury in Warren's Commission? Consider, too, that Walker was capable of perjury before a Grand Jury. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited April 6, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 In recognition of his service in US Intelligence, Dulles was named the first director of the CIA by Harry Truman in 1947. Sorry, but that’s not even close to being true. Dulles was the fifth DCI, not the first, and was installed by Eisenhower, not Truman. The list from the CIA, itself: https://www.cia.gov/.../chronology.htm Rear Adm. Sidney W. Souers, USNR Jan. 23, 1946–June 10, 1946 Lt. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, USA June 10, 1946–May 1, 1947 Rear Adm. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, USN May 1, 1947–Oct. 7, 1950 Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, USA Oct. 7, 1950–Feb. 9, 1953 Allen W. Dulles Feb. 26, 1953–Nov. 29, 1961 That such an easily-detected falsehood is offered as fact renders suspect all other contentions, such as a few of the following examples: As for the purported abhorrence Dulles had for the Nazis, this did not prevent his law firm from representing Nazi-era German corporate interests, or US interests doing business with the Nazis, nor did it preclude him from using the salutation "Heil Hitler" in his correspondence with those German corporate interests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_%26_Cromwell Anyone wishing to know more about the extent of the Dulles brothers’ collusion with Nazis and the nexus between it and the US corporate sector need only Google the words Dulles and Prescott Bush. Also recommended are two highly underrated books by Charles Higham, "American Swastika" and "Trading With the Enemy." Immediately after the war, Nazis who should have faced the gallows via Nuremberg were covertly exfiltrated to the United States, given military commissions and government jobs, and allowed to escape justice, courtesy of "Operation Paperclip." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip Despite President’s Truman’s explicit stipulation that Nazis were not to be brought Stateside, OSS and CIA nevertheless did an end run around that command. Apologists for this practice often state the necessity of keeping Nazi scientific advances out of Soviet hands required this disobedience of a Presidential order. Perhaps so. But the practice of shielding Nazis from the gallows also included more than mere scientists. To wit, the likes of Reinhard Gehlen, Alois Brunner and Otto Von Bolshwing, among many others, who were used by OSS/CIA until long after the war’s end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Gehlen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Brunner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bolschwing Dulles’ opinion of utilizing Nazis during the post-war period is perhaps found in his pithy patrician characterization of Gehlen: "I don't know if he's a rascal. There are few archbishops in espionage.... Besides, one needn't ask him to one's club." Yes, those pesky Nazis were possibly such "rascals," eh, wot? Hardly the sort with whom an Ivy League gentleman would wish to be seen breaking bread at the gentlemen’s club. More to the point of this Forum, Dulles was fully witting of CIA plots to assassinate foreign leaders, most pertinently Castro. In that Cuban escapade, the murder plots were undertaken not merely without the knowledge of Eisenhower (and then Kennedy), but against the expressed order by Kennedy forbidding it, once he became witting of it. Does that constitute a "great American?" What makes Dulles singular among Warren Commissioners was his knowledge of such CIA executive action attempts, and the implications they may have held for the solution of the Kennedy assassination mystery. Subsequently, the Rockefeller, Church, HSCA and Pike panels - all plumbing to some extent the JFK morass - thought those implications worthy of further probing. An honest broker would have disclosed this, in camera, to his fellow commissioners in 1963... Robert, I'm impressed by your advanced historical perspective. I will revisit my sources. As for Allen Dulles using the Nazi salute in his communications to Nazis during World War Two, however, that is, IMHO, easily explained by the probability that he was operating as an underground agent, seeking further information. That is a logical way to obtain further information from the enemy. Many prominent American businessmen placed their bets with Nazi Germany before it was illegal to do so. Ford comes to mind, even Joe Kennedy. So John Foster Dulles was one among many, and Allen Dulles was the one who set him straight. As for salvaging Nazi scientists for the West, keeping them out of the USSR orbit -- that sounds perfectly logical to me. As for Dulles' secrecy during the Warren Commission and the HSCA -- since the Cold War was still raging hot, it makes sense (IMHO) that if there really was a National Security issue of revealing the truth about the JFK assassination during the Cold War, then Dulles would be perfectly justified. Best regards, --Paul Trejo So you think it would have been OK for Allen Dulles to hide the truth about the Kennedy assassination from his fellow Commissioners? And the investigation in general? As for your assertion: "As for Dulles' secrecy during the Warren Commission and the HSCA -- since the Cold War was still raging hot, it makes sense (IMHO) that if there really was a National Security issue of revealing the truth about the JFK assassination during the Cold War, then Dulles would be perfectly justified." FYI: Allen Dulles died in 1969. The HSCA was not created until the fall of 1976. DSL 4/7/13; 12:50 AM PDT Los Angeles, California Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 So you think it would have been OK for Allen Dulles to hide the truth about the Kennedy assassination from his fellow Commissioners? And the investigation in general? As for your assertion: "As for Dulles' secrecy during the Warren Commission and the HSCA -- since the Cold War was still raging hot, it makes sense (IMHO) that if there really was a National Security issue of revealing the truth about the JFK assassination during the Cold War, then Dulles would be perfectly justified." FYI: Allen Dulles died in 1969. The HSCA was not created until the fall of 1976. DSL 4/7/13; 12:50 AM PDT Los Angeles, California David, thanks for catching that typo. The sentence should have read: "As for Dulles' secrecy during the Warren Commission and the CIA secrecy during the HSCA -- since the Cold War was still raging hot, it makes sense (IMHO) that if there really was a National Security issue of revealing the truth about the JFK assassination during the Cold War, then Dulles would be perfectly justified." Best regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kingsbury Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Dulles and his cohorts (posted extensively by Tom Scully) Had their own agenda for Amerika . Justice should have been served at Nuremburg not bypassed For power everlasting. Keepin it in the "family" how many Bushes went to Veitnam?. I bet more went to the Whitehouse!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 lbj..dulles...b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 Dulles and his cohorts (posted extensively by Tom Scully) Had their own agenda for Amerika . Justice should have been served at Nuremburg not bypassed For power everlasting. Keepin it in the "family" how many Bushes went to Veitnam?. I bet more went to the Whitehouse!. Ian, What are the odds that Gen. Edwin A. Walker and the great American Allen Dulles simply, inadvertently, and independently paved a path that handed unprecedented political power to the Bushes and unprecedented wealth to the MIC and others of the top .01 percent? The Bushes and other victors just happened to be in the right place at the right time. It is a myth that one benefit of political/economic victory is authoring the history. I am told I post nothing of interest; http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&st=285#entry271028 ....but I cannot resist posting just a bit more of my nonsense. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/FACYfmyXBZQTJ Scully Apr 2 - show quoted text - Mr. Whitmey, Are you aware that Bush pal Thomas J. Devine is a cousin of Jay Rockefeller, (Devine's maternal grandmother was first cousin of Elon H. Hooker) and Devine resided from 1944 to '48 on the M.I.T. campus with 15 other Sigma Chi fraternity brothers, including Priscilla Johnson's CIA handler, Garry Coit? Students Don Ear Muffs to Shut Out Band Music Daily Boston Globe - Aug 14, 1947 ... rhumba music yesterday asked the Boston Licensing Board to shut down the Hotel ... one of 16 Tech students livings in the adjoining Sigma Chi fraternity house ... Other student were Thomas Devine of Rochester who told of taking refuge in .. ...and that Priscilla Johnson told the HSCA that her father Stuart died in a 1969 "concealed suicide," despite the NY Times news report that Osborn Elliott's (Elliott hired Hugh Ayneworth at Newsweek) sister-in-law's brother James A. Thomas was the last to see Stuart Johnson alive and reported Johnson missing to Locust Valley police? James A. Thomas's sister was Eleanor Lansing Thomas Elliott, maid of honor in Allen Dulles's daughter's wedding (described as a cousin) and a close friend of Gloria Steinem. http://www.google.com/search?q=clover+dulles+maid+eleanor+cousin&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapersClover Todd Dulles Wed to Jens H. Jebsen In Chaped of Fifth... New York Times - Apr 22, 1951 ... Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church yesterday noon, Miss Clover Todd Dulles, ... Miss Eleanor Lansing Thomas of New York, cousin of the bride, was maid of Priscilla Johnson's Two Harper Editors; First Was Friend of Cord Meyer's Brother, 2nd Was Mimi Alford's Husband's Uncle ....And an explanation of the following photo of a small section of West Palm Beach, FL. DeMohrenschildst's former wife, Didi Sharples and her next husband bought the Ocean Front estate of Ailsa Mellon Bruce, labeled with a "B" in this photo. Up above, the lot just below the "W" in Woodbridge Rd., was the residence from 1940 to 1983 of the architect father of Priscilla Johnson's second Harper editor, the very patient and understanding Marion S. Wyeth, Jr. Two doors down from Wyeth, Sr. at the end of very end of Woodbridge Rd. on the left, was the longtime residence of DIdi Sharples' parents, the Philip Sharples. " Mrs. Philip Sharples, 185 Woodbridge Rd. Georgian brick house. Beautifully landscaped to lake, charming rock and water garden beside entrance court " http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk50/explore/20130302-gary-mack-and-the-evolution-of-a-jfk-conspiracy-theorist.ece(From the "comments" section, below the article) TJ Scully RE: Hugh Aynesworth's opinions and his 50 year record of influence related to the murders of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald. Aynesworth worked for Osborn Elliott at Newsweek and then for Arnaud de Borchgrave at The Washington Times. De Borchgrave was a 30 year employee of Newsweek and Osborn Elliott was the best man in his wedding and according to Carol Felsenthal, refused repeated requests from Kay Graham to fire De Borchgrave, between 1963 and 1980, when Osborn's successor Lester Bernstein finally dismissed him. The only "cover up" Priscilla Johnson McMillan described to the HSCA in her 1978 interview was furnished in the course of presenting her many excuses for the 14 years it took her to finally publish the biography of Marina Oswald. "And my father died, and what was I supposed, I think it had to be a concealed suicide in '69.... Semi-concealed one...." http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95330&relPageId=42 On March 30, 1969, the NY Times reported that Priscilla's father Stuart Johnson had, according to his dinner host, James A. Thomas, fallen on the walkway as he was leaving the Thomas residence, appeared dazed after the fall but insisted on driving himself the few miles from Locust Valley to the Johnson residence in Mill Neck. Thomas stated that he called police after Stuart Johnson did not answer his telephone later in the evening. The body of Stuart Johnson, reported dead of natural causes, was found 12 hours later on a golf course a few miles from his home. Osborn Elliott's sister-in-law happened to be Eleanor Lansing Thomas Elliott and she was the sister of the last man to see Priscilla's father alive, James A. Thomas. When Eleanor was the maid of honor in the wedding of Allen Dulles's daughter, Clover, Eleanor was described in the wedding announcement as a cousin. Eleanor had also worked for John Foster Dulles in the mid 1950's. Eleanor is described in her recent obituary as a close friend of CIA asset, Gloria Steinem. The point is that Hugh Aynesworth has had an outsized presence and influence in shaping the official narrative from the day of the Assassination, during and after the Jim Garrison investigation and failed prosecution, continuing to the present time writing often in Dallas's only remaining daily newspaper. Aynesworth has a long history of employment by a concentrated and opague sphere of influence. Considering the details I posted above, isn't it time we expose ourselves to more sources and opinions than what is presented by Hugh Aynesworth and the Sixth Floor Museum? So the more we learn, the more we come to appreciate how foolish it is to put too little or too much importance on a minor player like Edwin A. Walker or give Allen Dulles any benefit of the doubt. I think it is safe to say that Lee Harvey Oswald was put through a discrediting process the mirror opposite of, and possibly by the same Rockefeller-Bush-Dulles (the Macomber brothers succeeding Dulles in the processing of GW Bush) that transformed GW Bush from a failure to a governor and then POTUS, in record time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 (edited) Actually, just ascribing guilt to Allen Dulles for the JFK murder -- without material evidence -- is no better than ascribing guilt to Lee Harvey Oswald on circumstantial evidence. We didn't accept it with Oswald -- why should we accept it with Dulles? Just because Dulles was rich and powerful? That's not a reason, that's a cheap shot. There is far more material evidence that links ex-General Edwin Walker to the JFK assassination -- and I can cite posts by John Dolva on this point -- the radical right wing had the motive, means and opportunity in Dallas -- and Walker was not just a member, he was a leader of the radical right in 1963. Walker's connections with Guy Banister (whom Jim Garrison linked to Lee Harvey Oswald quite well) links Walker with Oswald in the summer of 1963. This is material evidence, people. The only case anbody has against Dulles is pure subjective speculation. One can at the very best make the case that Dulles was a curious observer of the Dallas/New Orleans plot unfolding before his eyes, and that he did nothing to prevent it. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited April 7, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 Actually, just ascribing guilt to Allen Dulles for the JFK murder -- without material evidence -- is no better than ascribing guilt to Lee Harvey Oswald on circumstantial evidence. We didn't accept it with Oswald -- why should we accept it with Dulles? Just because Dulles was rich and powerful? That's not a reason, that's a cheap shot. There is far more material evidence that links ex-General Edwin Walker to the JFK assassination -- and I can cite posts by John Dolva on this point -- the radical right wing had the motive, means and opportunity in Dallas -- and Walker was not just a member, he was a leader of the radical right in 1963. Walker's connections with Guy Banister (whom Jim Garrison linked to Lee Harvey Oswald quite well) links Walker with Oswald in the summer of 1963. This is material evidence, people. The only case anbody has against Dulles is pure subjective speculation. One can at the very best make the case that Dulles was a curious observer of the Dallas/New Orleans plot unfolding before his eyes, and that he did nothing to prevent it. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> It has always seemed implausible to me that, if Edwin Walker were involved in a plot to kill Kennedy, that he would be involved in political machinations in October, 1963 which could have easily led to the White House calling off the trip to Dallas. Planning and executing a plot to murder the President is a very complex affair. The notion that Walker would be involved in that--and then also be involved in the anti-Kennedy events in October is not just implausible: I think its ludicrous. Those who glibly talk of Walker's involvement in the events of 11/22/63 have to answer that question. Glib talk about Walker and his "ground crew" and David Ferrie, etc etc--that just won't do. If you're planning to kill the President of the United States when he visits Dallas, Texas, in November, 1963, you don't undertake actions in October, 1963, which could easily lead to the cancellation of that trip. DSL 4/7/13; 5:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, California Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 (edited) Paul, when actual "evidence," the "stuff" I've presented in this and in my previous three posts on this thread is introduced into this debate, almost nothing you've posted makes any sense. Your reliance on sources such as Priscilla Johnson and Marina Oswald and your confidence in the integrity of the Warren Commission and specifically in Allen Dulles is laughable. You have done yourself a favor since you have not actually exiled me to "ignore" status. GHW Bush's close friend Thomas J. Devine should not have held meetings with DeMohrenschildt in spring 1963, and should not have been one of Priscilla Johnson's CIA contact Garry Coit's fifteen housemate for four years. Hugh Aynesworth's Newsweek boss Osborn Elliott should not have been the brother-in-law of a Dulles cousin whose brother seems to be accused by Priscilla Johnson of complicity in the cover up of her father's suicide. Priscilla's first Harper's editor should not have been the uncle of Mimi Alford's husband and her second editor a friend of Cord Meyer's brother who grew up within shouting distance of DeMohrensschildt's wife, Didi Sharples. It should be a big and disturbing detail that Priscilla should seem to almost be in control of Marina Oswald's every word and not only the author of but the creator of the history of Lee and Marina Oswald. But according to you, Paul, there is nothing to see here and I post nothing of any interest. Priscilla, Marina, the WC, Allen Dulles, and presumably the Bushes are all A-okay with you, and the only "firm evidence" you accept is the comparatively flimsy stuff that you say supports your theory as you backfill it all in. http://tomscully.com...p?topic=40051.0 "....The problem I have with the assertions of Osborn Elliott, Hugh Aynesworth, Priscilla Johnson Mcmillan, and other information displayed above is this.: My research into the Mr. James A. Thomas who was the last to see Priscilla Johnson's father alive, after hosting Stuart Johnson for dinner at his Locust Valley home in 1969, and in this obit of Thomas's brother-in-law, I discovered that John Elliott was the brother of Newsweek editor in chief, Osborn Elliott. This also means that Osborn Elliott's sister-in-law, Eleanor Lansing Thomas, is the woman who was the maid of honor in her cousin, Clover Dulles's wedding, and was also employed in the mid 50's by John Foster Dulles.: http://educationforu...=75#entry252435 Now there is also the knowledge that Aynesworth enjoyed the full support of his editor who was the brother-in-law of Clover Dulles' matron of honor, who was the sister of the last man to see Priscilla Johnson's father, alive...." http://www.maryferre...30&relPageId=42 The Beaver Sig - Sigma Chi Fraternity - MIT sigmachi.mit.edu/docs/beaver_sigs/1946_bsig_vol1946_no1.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View ger, Brannan, Bennett and Coit. ... Thomas Devine, Bradford Endi- ... Sig Life http://educationforu...=15#entry255617 Testimony of Priscilla McMillan Hearing of 3/24/95 -- Boston, Massachusetts Our next witness this morning is Priscilla Johnson McMillan, history professor at the Harvard Russian Research Center, and she is the author of Marina and Lee, which was published in 1977. .. DR. JOYCE: Ms. McMillan, there have been several statements to the effect that you might have had a connection to the Central Intelligence Agency. I was wondering if you could elucidate the nature of them and whether you might have had any conversations with the CIA concerning Oswald in connection with the Soviet Union or Cuba. MS. McMILLAN: Thank you for asking, Mr. Joyce. My government service was 30 days as a translator in Moscow in the winter of -- early 1956, when I was a translator for the Joint Press Reading Service -- American, British, Canadian -- I think there was a fourth country. It was an English-language translating service, and my boss there asked for my continued employment but was refused, because I did not have a security clearance from the U.S. Government. My conversations with CIA officials about Oswald came only following the assassination. I think it was the FBI who came to see me over the weekend of November 22nd-23rd. I'm not sure if I ever did talk to CIA people about Oswald after the assassination. I talked to State Department, Warren Commission. I did have a conversation once in Grand Central Station with a CIA official, and until recently, I couldn't remember why I had that conversation, but I think I do remember now that it was in 1959, before I was returning to the Soviet Union after covering Khrushchev's visit to President Eisenhower in the fall of '59. I had been under a good deal of pressure from the KGB to be an informer when I was a reporter, and I was frightened in going back, and I thought somebody -- the American ambassador was aware of my difficulties, but I was afraid that something could happen to me, and I wanted someone on the outside to know, and that was the fall of '59. His name was Gary Coite, and I believe I was asked about that by the House Assassinations Subcommittee, but I am not sure whether I remembered at that time why I spoke with him,....." (quote name='Paul Brancato' timestamp='1363743247' post='269741'] Well Paul T - I didn't know Crichton personally, but plenty is written about him on the forum website. Head of a local military intelligence unit in Dallas, involved in the motorcade planning, supplied the interpretor for Marina while she was in custody after the assassination of Oswald. According to the castro cubans -Escalante I think - he and George Bush were private funders of Nixon's Operation 40. He had his own oil company on whose board sat Clint Murchison, he was a friend of Sid Richardson, DeMohrenschilt, involved in oil leases with Batista. A very connected and suspicious character, a Republican and right winger, classmate of Earle Cabell, retired a Colonel. Wiki has a good article too. It is unclear to me who would take orders from whom, but in general I think that guys at the head of the CIA like Dulles, or at the had of major oil companies and defense contractors - in otherwords the big money people - are atop the pyramid, and the military's job is to make the world safe for their global operations. [/quote) Paul B., with all due respect, sir, your cynicism is a little too steep for my taste. I have no doubt that Allen Dulles knew every last detail of the JFK assassination -- at the very least a few hours after the fact -- and far more than the Warren Commission knew. Yet I hesitate to name this great American as a conspirator without tons of proof. And just because somebody is rich, that does not immediately make me suspect them of foul play. Again, I need hard evidence. That aside, I want to thank you for raising the spectre of Jack Crichton here. The most suspicious things you listed about Crichton, IMHO, are that he was: (i) connected with local military intelligence in Dallas; (ii) involved in the motorcade planning; (iii) a private funder of Operation 40; (iv) in business with Clint Murchison; (v) a friend of George DeMohrenschilt; (vi) a holder of oil leases with Batista; and (vii) a classmate of Earle Cabell. ...... ................. Crichton, however, is connected at the street level with street players -- and that is why he is now interesting to me. So, again, Paul B., I thank you for raising his name in this discussion. Best regards, --Paul Trejo http://educationforu...38 Posted on 12 December 2012 .....Oswald started working at Jagger/Chiles/Stovall on 12 October 1962. Oswald his received his mail-order weapons on 25 March 1963. He had Marina take one single picture (as she firmly recalled) on 31 March 1963 and he probably used Jagger/Chiles/Stoval graphics to make 'Fotoshop' variations on his single picture - for the fun of it. Oswald was fired the very next day. It is possible that Oswald was fired precisely because he was abusing company photographic equipment as his own personal 'Fotoshop.' I don't think Oswald's working hours are detailed to the minute (although Priscilla McMillan thought so). Rather, Marina admitted that Oswald frequently came and went at his own pleasure. He did take evening classes at a local community college - but his attendance records are unavailable, to the best of my knowledge. As for Oswald' taking pictures of Walker's home, I date those photographs as follows: (i) In late January, 1963, Volkmar Schmidt uses advanced psychology on Oswald to transfer his anger over JFK and the Bay of Pigs from JFK to ex-General Edwin Walker and the riots of Ole Miss in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed -- only four months earlier. George De Mohrenshildt and Michael Paine looked on with approval that night; (ii) In February, 1963, Oswald purchased a rifle and a pistol through the mail; (iii) therefore Oswald could have been taking photographs of Walker's house as early as February, 1963. Yes - that would have been the same time that he held his job at Jagger/Chiles/Stovall, and fellow workers at that shop admitted that Oswald asked if employees ever used the company equipment for personal purposes. He was told they sometimes did, but never abused the privilege. Oswald took this as a green light, evidently, and he eventually came to abuse the privilege. So it remains possible that some of the Walker house photos were developed at Jagger/Chiles/Stovall.... Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Paul, this evening you posted: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&st=300#entry271134 Posted Yesterday, 11:03 PM Actually, just ascribing guilt to Allen Dulles for the JFK murder -- without material evidence -- is no better than ascribing guilt to Lee Harvey Oswald on circumstantial evidence. When did you change your evidence requirement ? http://educationforu...34 Posted on 12 December 2012 .....The connections that interest me most about Ruby's life are those that circled around ex-General Edwin Walker. Now, I find insufficient evidence to conclude that Ruby ever met Walker. But I like your question: if Jack Ruby killed Oswald on orders from somebody, then who issued those orders? Because, as I believe that ex-General Edwin Walker was the coordinator of the Dallas ground-crew of the JFK assassination, then wouldn't that necessarily involve Jack Ruby receiving a direct order from Walker?.... .......Oswald was told point blank that since he tried to kill ex-General Walker, that he was under paramilitary arrest, and he would have to obey orders to the letter to save his life. His first task was to kill Castro by faking credentials as an FPCC officer to get into Cuba easily. If he was successful, he would be a national hero and could one day become "Prime Minister of the USA" as he told Marina. But if he was unsuccessful, then he would be drafted into a ground-crew to kill JFK. So Oswald was not an innocent lamb. He knew exactly who he was dealing with, and he knew the risks he was taking -- but he was under paramilitary arrest, and that was a life-sentence...... Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> ...Beyond that, though, there is the bigger issue of the WC use of the Walker shooting as supporting evidence pointing to LHO as the JFK assassin -- Even though the WC own evidence paints an entirely different character portrait of Oswald at the time of the JFK shooting. Richard, you are raising the key question of this aspect of the JFK assassination, namely, the interpretation of the Walker shooting as it relates to the JFK shooting. For most Americans, the meaning of the Walker shooting is merely that Lee Harvey Oswald was a wacko who went around shooting famous people. For this reason, critics of the Warren Report have simplistically taken one of many merely opposite arguments to explain why Oswald did not shoot at Walker: (1) Oswald was framed for shooting at Walker; (2) Walker staged his own shooting; (3) Marina was bribed to say that Oswald shot at Walker; (4) Oswald's photographs of Walker's home were forgeries; (5) forgers stole Oswald's personal camera to make those photographs; (6) the letter Oswald wrote to Marina (in Russian) on the night of the Walker shooting was a forgery; (7) Ruth Paine, working for the CIA, was the forger; (8) the rifle that shot at Walker could not have been Oswald's rife; or (9) Gerry Hemming was the shooter; and so on. However -- let's take a step back and look at what is at stake here. The main argument is this: If Oswald was nutty enough to shoot at General Walker, then Oswald was nutty enough to shoot JFK. All by itself it is circumstantial evidence -- not a complete proof. It remains entirely possible that Oswald did in fact shoot at General Walker, and yet did not kill JFK. This alternative is hardly mentioned, yet this is the alternative that I propose. I want to make it crystal clear that although I believe Marina Oswald when she says that Lee confessed to her that he shot at General Walker, and that he wrote that goodbye letter to her that day, and that he was the one to take photographs of Walker's house with his own camera -- that I can still maintain Oswald was not the one who killed JFK. I also maintain that Lee Oswald lied to Marina about the details. (This is standard operating procedure in spy work.) Lee was not alone, but he told Marina he was alone. Lee was not on foot, but he told Marina he was on foot. Lee did not bury his rifle, but he told Marina he buried his rifle. When newspapers reported that a neighbor boy had seen two men flee in a car in a Church parking lot behind Walker's backyard fence (and a third man flee in a second car), Lee laughed out loud and told Marina that the story was completely mistaken. He told her that Americans cannot accept that a person can move quickly without a car; Lee boasted to Marina that he could move faster using public busses than the average person could move using a car. (Marina believed Lee and she repeated this boast to the Warren Commission; almost proud about it.) Lee actually told Marina only one true fact -- that he was the one who shot at General Walker that night. The Schmidt brother's confession as reported by Bradford P. Angers offers data that can expain all of the eye-witness reports of the 10 April 1963 shooting far better than Marina's relay of Lee's lies. (We should gently and kindly approach Larrie Schmidt today for more information about the months from January 1963 through April 1963.) Lee was out of work several weeks in 1963, while Marina thought that he still had a job (including the time before the Walker shooting). So for several weeks in 1963, Lee spent his days from 7am - 6pm with nobody knows whom, doing nobody knows what. This is a vital fact when we speak of the Walker shooting. In conclusion -- what does the Walker shooting mean to us, presuming that Oswald was really guilty of the Walker shooting? To the Warren Commission it was more evidence of a lone-gunman -- but they only had Marina's testimony that Lee was alone that night -- on foot -- and they completely ignored the Dallas Police Department records with eye-witness reports of multiple shooters in cars. The data supplied by Bradford P. Angers changes the tone of the argument. Lee was the shooter, but he had accomplices in cars. This matches the DPD reports, and it shows us a different Oswald -- an Oswald with accomplices. For JFK conspiracy theorists, this should be a rich mine of data; our ultimate question should really be -- who were Oswald's accomplices? Best regards, --Paul Trejo (quote name='Ian Kingsbury' timestamp='1340099366' post='255413') Paul thanks for the info . I think I have spent too long trying to build a picture Using the WC volumes . It's when you get into the executive material That you find the "story " of Oswalds life is way different to how he is Perceived by many. It's like finding out the three bears live in central park and socialised With Goldilocks parents !. That's probably why the porch door was unlocked!. (endquote) Ian, I still have a high opinion of the value of the Warren Commission testimony (but not the Warren Commission conclusions). I say this because of my disappointment with the HSCA witness testimony. Marina Oswald told the HSCA the same thing she told the Warren Commission, so that HSCA testimony was a waste of time. George De Mohrenschildt supplied a written record (I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!) but it contains many withholds, and then he committed suicide (I believe) because he didn't want to face his demons (i.e. the withholds remaining in his written record. That gave us a little more information, but not much. ....................................................... Allen Dulles once told one of his aides, Jacques Zwart, that (and I paraphrase): "The whole truth is in the Warren Commission Hearings, if you read between the lines." Zwart reported this in his book, Invitation to Hair Splitting (1970). Dulles led Zwart to believe that he must read what was *omitted* from the questions asked by the Warren attorneys. Dulles wouldn’t tell him what he would find there – but assured him he would find the answers if he studied. IMHO, with just a little more digging, a plot involving General Walker, Robert Allen Surrey, Larrie Schmidt, H.L. Hunt, high-ranking members of the John Birch Society, members of the Minutemen like Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Roscoe White, as well as key members of Cuban Exile radicals, like Alpha-66, would have been exposed and snapped. Yet the Warren Hearings proceeded as if this exposure would have led to a National Security crisis (perhaps a Civil War) and so they carefully backed away from such insinuations -- with 'off the record' discussions. Best regards, --Paul Trejo http://educationforu...39 Posted on 01 July 2012 .....LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND LARRIE SCHMIDT The Walker case was officially solved on December 3, 1963, when Marina Oswald told the FBI and the world that Lee Harvey Oswald had been the shooter -- by his own confession to her on that very night. For the Warren Commission - that was all they wanted to hear. Lee Oswald tended to 'gaslight' Marina, that is, he kept her in the dark and let her have as little information as possible about his activities. But the Warren Commission didn't want to dig deeper. Marina's information fit their needs, and they declined to dig deeper. .........George and Jeanne were worried sick on 11 April 1963 when they heard that somebody tried to kill Walker. They came up with a lie to get into the Oswald home and find evidence. They bought June Oswald a toy bunny and drove to the Oswald home at 10pm on Saturday night, and woke them up. They put on a happy face, but Jeanne anxiously scoured the house for evidence until she found a rifle with a scope. She shouted out the fact to George, who nervously asked, "Lee, did you take a pot-shot at Walker last night?" Lee and Marina just froze. Then George started laughing, and they all laughed, and that was the end of the night. The De Mohrenschildts left as quickly as possible, and never saw the Oswalds again. They were terrified that this could come back to haunt them. Boy, did it ever. CONCLUSIONS So yes, George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt lied to the Warren Commission by claiming know little or nothing about the Walker shooting, when actually they knew a lot about it. So did Michael and Ruth Paine. The Warren Commission never tried to find out more about the shooting, either, which always angered ex-General Edwin Walker. I believe my theory harmonizes fairly well with most of the Warren Commission testimony...... Best regards, --Paul Trejo http://educationforu...27 Posted on 22 May 2012 It's a strong argument, David, with much to recommend it. The notion that Lee Oswald 'gaslighted' Marina Oswald is appropriate insofar as Lee Oswald was working underground for U.S. intelligence agencies and had to keep Marina in the dark. It makes interpretation of events much more difficult. I agree with you that Marina is telling the truth about Lee Oswald's confession that he shot at General Walker. Yet I would add a few points: 1. The Walker shooting was not only Marina's personal nightmare, it was also the personal nightmare of George De Mohrenshildt, Jeanne De Mohrenshildt, Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine and Ruth Paine, more or less in that order. They were all to some degree guilty of the Walker shooting (as General Edwin Walker liked to emphasize). They were all accessories after the fact -- they knew (or strongly suspected) that Lee was the April shooter, but they were moral cowards -- they did not tell the police or the FBI..... .......In summary, I agree with you that Marina is telling the truth, and she never changed her story about Walker. The story is genuine, and the only missing element is the "rest of the story," because all she knew was the "gaslighting" story that Lee Oswald told her.... Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> (quote)http://educationforu...55 Posted by Jim Root on 06 March 2012 ....(3.8) Walker's suspicion of Kennedy started with rightist propaganda. But Walker's hatred of Kennedy started with his removal from Command. (Jim Root's reponse to Paul Trejo's(3.8) ) Hate is a strong word....read Walker's last interview. (3.9) Therefore, Jim, because our evidence shows Walker spending almost all his time promoting his Pro-Blue propaganda program, and the possible fame and fortune that he might obtain through it, I find insufficient evidence to link General Walker with any plots of any kind at all until April, 1961. In April, 1961, Oswald was only now meeting Marina, and asking her to marry him. (Jim Root's reponse to Paul Trejo's(3.9) ) Respectfully disagree with you that he spent "almost all his time promoting his Pro-Blue propaganda program...." He had many other issues to deal with while in command of the 24th ID. (3.10) Finally, in this regard, the confession of Bob Schmidt to the FBI, that he and Larrie and Oswald tried to kill Walker on 4/10/1963, is more interesting because it brings Larrie Schmidt (and by proxy, General Charles Willoughby) back into the picture. (3.11) But why would Oswald want to kill General Walker at all? The reason was already supplied by George DeMohrenschildt in his WC and HSCA testimonies, especially in his booklet, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy! in which George confesses that he and Volkmar Schmidt first made Oswald aware of General Walker in late 1962. George and Volkmar hated General Walker for his embarrasing role in the Oxford, Mississippi riots against racial integration. George confessed that he and Oswald started calling General Walker, "General Fokker," with a demeaning sneer. (Jim Root's reponse to Paul Trejo's (3.10), (3.11) ) George DeMohrenschildt's brother Demitri was a very close associate of Whitney Shepardson. Together they startedd Radio Free Europe (Radio Liberty)and Shepardson was a founder of Secret Intelligence (appointed by John J. McCloy). Shepardson and McCloys association was long and strong.....DeMohrenschild believed that Oswald had shot at Walker and soon after this event George leaves Dallas and the Richard Helms via the FBI begings monitoring the movement of Oswald. Helms was SI assigned to Stockholm during WWII and worked closely with Shepardson. I have some great coorespondence between Helms and Shepardson form June of 1959 when they were discussing what one person discribed as an off track mission that was being planed through Helsinki in the "near future." (5.0) So, if Hosty began his tracking of Oswald here, Jim, we know the FBI was lying when they told the Warren Commission that they never suspected Oswald as a Walker shooter until they were told about it from Marina Oswald in December, 1963. (Jim Root's reponse to Paul Trejo's(5.0) ) Don't believe the FBI knew Oswald was the shooter....belive Richard Helms wanted Oswald tracked and that he knew via information supplied by George De. (endquote) (quote)http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-1.htm Priscilla and Lee: Before and After the Assassination by Peter R. Whitmey ....In early December, 1963, Miss Johnson also submitted a typed summary of the notes she took during her 1959 interview for the State Department and in April, 1964, wrote a lengthy report entitled "Oswald in Moscow" for Harper's magazine.(5) In June of that year, Priscilla headed for Dallas to meet Marina OswaId, having signed a contract(6) with Harper and Row to write a book about the Oswald couple, which Marina herself referred to during her fourth and final interview with members of the Warren Commission.(7) During the summer of 1964, Miss Johnson was also questioned by a staff member of the Commission - namely, David Slawson, a 31-year-old graduate of Harvard Law School, assisted by fellow Harvard graduate, 24-year-old Richard Mosk.(8) ..... ..... She also noted that Oswald behaved in a secretive way towards his family and during his three years in the Marines, apparently not aware that his nickname in Japan was "Oswaldkovich" because of his intense interest in the Soviet Union.(109) Miss Johnson pointed out that he had been equally "evasive about the circumstances of his defection,"(110) not at alI suspicious that he might have been "faking" his decision to defect.(111) She did recognize that "discretion was no doubt appropriate to some of these questions,"(112) but failed to point out, as she did later in her Warren Commission testimony, that her room at the Metropole Hotel was undoubtedly bugged."(113) Instead, she linked this "tightlipped, conspiratorial attitude" to her other dubious evidence, suggesting it was an "invaluable" prerequisite to the assassination. Miss Johnson also wrote in Harper's that she believed by then that because of Oswald's "refusal to cooperate with authority," he was unlikely to confess to having killed President Kennedy, whom she felt was for Oswald only an "abstract being" and a mere symbol of authority in his mind, not someone he had come to hate. Overall, she concluded that "Oswald yearned to go down in history as the man who shot the President," although at the same time he denied the act. In her opinion, he had a need to think "of himself as extraordinary" and "to be caught, but not to confess." She briefly made reference to "trained psychiatrists" who she speculated would have no difficulty evaluating him. Seemingly, Miss Johnson had joined their ranks without any training in the field. Recognizing his failure as a defector both in the eyes of people back home and "even among the Russians," Oswald, Miss Johnson suggests, was driven "to perform a more memorable, and outrageous act." In her final statement, she recalled asking Oswald why he had agreed to be interviewed, but, unlike in her State Department summary, she chose this time to "edit" Oswald's reply, by leaving out his expressed desire to "tell my side of the story."(114) Instead, Oswald was quoted as stating that he would like "to give the people of the United States something to think about,"(115) almost as though he said it in reference to having killed the President, rather than in connection with his defection. It was a comment Miss Johnson would make use of again. Shortly after writing her Harper's piece on Oswald, she apparently signed a contract with Harper and Row to "co-author a biography with Marina Oswald," now that she was becoming recognized as an "Oswald expert," as noted facetiously by Robert Anson years later.(116) According to Anson, Miss Johnson had received a reported advance of $100,000 from the publishing firm; and, in June of 1964, she arrived in Dallas to meet Mrs. Oswald for the first time, and spent much of the summer and fall with Marina and a group of Secret Service agents, both in Dallas and in Santa Fe, New Mexico.(117) However, on July 25, 1964, Miss Johnson was in Washington, D.C. to be interviewed by David Slawson, a 31-year-old graduate of Harvard Law School, assisted by 24-year-old Richard Mosk, also from Harvard (where Miss Johnson was then working at the Russian Research Center(118)). Even though she was certainly an important witness, no members of the Warren Commission participated in the interview, despite the fact it took place in the Capitol.(119) Unlike most witnesses, she was not asked about her background prior to 1959, no reference was made to her November 23, 1963 FBI interview, nor the fact that she was then spending time with Mrs. Oswald for a forthcoming book.(120) A number of exhibits were identified by Miss Johnson at the outset of the interview, including her original 1959 typewritten report to NANA, which she stated had been submitted "to the Soviet censor on November 18, 1959,"(121) although she was not asked when and where it was published at that time. She also identified the Boston Globe version, which she emphasized had been written for NANA, stating that "it probably appeared in other places, too." No mention was made by either Slawson or Mosk as to the significant alterations between the 1959 and 1963 versions, only that the updated copy had been "filed on November 22, 1963" (which didn't give her much time to make the alterations, unless she decided to make further changes after being questioned by the FBI). Although both the interviews with her by the Christian Science Monitor and her report in Harper's were also presented as exhibits, no reference was made to the theories developed by Miss Johnson in either article. The entire interview dealt, instead, with Miss Johnson's five-hour conversation with Oswald, with numerous references to both her notes and McVickar's memo. At the outset, she inquired as to whether the Commission knew what had happened to Oswald, claiming that "when I went back [to the hotel] they said he had left."(122) Slawson replied that Oswald had written a letter to his brother, dated November 26, 1959, giving his address as room 201 instead of 233, and speculated that he might have been given a less expensive room. Later in the interview, Slawson made reference to the postscript added to McVickar's memo, mentioned earlier in my report, which was based on a discussion with Miss Johnson dated November 19, 1959, after she had submitted her article to NANA. (McVickar been asked about the conversation during his June 9, 1964 interview with Coleman.(123) Apparently not having done his homework, Slawson failed to ask Miss Johnson about the content of the postscript, which stated that Oswald would be leaving the hotel by week's end to be trained in electronics, and that Miss Johnson had asked him to keep in touch. She matter-of-factly suggested that the postscript was merely "an afterthought on the part of Mr. McVickar, or conceivably a second conversation,"(124) but Johnson was not asked about the obvious contradiction between the postscript and her final statement in the 1963 Boston Globe article, repeated at the outset of this interview. She clearly had known what was to happen to Oswald and possibly even kept in touch with him as she hoped. Slawson was informed by Miss Johnson that no second conversation had taken place between her and Oswald, but Slawson avoided asking the other obvious question as to where Miss Johnson had learned that Oswald would be leaving the hotel to be trained in electronics. Given the fact that Miss Johnson had described Oswald as vanishing into thin air in several earlier articles, the postscript was most important, and seemed to suggest that Miss Johnson was not telling the truth; nor were Slawson and Mosk eager to question her honesty or lack of it. In addition to discussing Oswald, Miss Johnson also recalled her awareness of several other defectors, namely Webster, Petrulli and a couple named Block, and stated that "we had defectors on the brain right then in Moscow, all of us"(125) (What "we" - what "us?" Journalists or embassy employees?), blaming the problem on the large number of tourists in Moscow at that time. Again, she used the word "colleague'' in reference to Korengold of UPI, whom she mentioned had "supported" Petrulli "while he was thinking it over and deciding not to do it [defect]." The distinction between being a journalist and a representative of the American Embassy in Moscow seemed to have become very thin indeed. As she had already demonstrated in her previous articles, Miss Johnson was fascinated with Oswald's motives for defecting at such a tender age, and compared him with many of the members of the "Western press corps" in the 1930s whom she had read about, describing them as "fellow travellers or Communists" who were seeking the "Promised Land."(126) She now suspects that behind Oswald's ideological reasons were emotional factors that she didn't understand, remarking that "had known he was back I probably would have tried to see him." Given the FBI's interest in her prior to the assassination, possibly she had, in fact, made such an effort. She did admit to Slawson and Mosk that she had "thought about him ... as recently as 3 weeks before the assassination." Why she happened to think about him at that particular time did not seem to be of any interest to Slawson; nor was he concerned by the fact that Johnson now recalled Oswald being "little," as opposed to the "six-footer" described in her 1959 report.(127) Why had that description been changed to "a nice young man" in the revised version;(128) and why was his height, weight and eye/hair color not included in the State Department summary of December 5, 1963? No such questions were put to her. Reference was made to Aline Mosby's earlier interview with Oswald, which Miss Johnson revealed she had not been aware of, even though they knew each other. All her information came from McVickar at the Embassy, including the suggestion that she contact Korengold for further details. Because she was working for "the weakest of the American agencies,"(129) namely NANA, she was clearly competing with AP and UPI, and therefore relied on the Embassy for assistance, who likewise needed the services of a journalist looking for an "exclusive," as Miss Johnson put it.(130) Her position as a truly independent journalist may have been greatly compromised and possibly was nothing more than a charade to begin with. She had also sent two reports to The Progressive magazine in 1958 and 1959; and you would think that an article about a defector would have been of interest to them. You are left with the impression that the primary purpose of her interview with Oswald was not journalistic at all, but was to assist the American Embassy and the State Department, which she certainly accomplished. Unlike her previous references to Oswald's desire to give the people of the U.S. something to think about, Johnson did at least relate to Warren Commission counsel the entire remark made back in 1959, saying that she felt Oswald was being both "pretentious" and "a publicity seeker."(131) The possibility that such publicity was designed to help legitimize a fake defection was not dealt with, however. Following her interview, Miss Johnson returned to her work with Marina for a book expected to be published by the end of the year which, in fact, was not published until 1977; an incredible delay considering the large advance provided by Harper and Row and their expectations for a major bestseller.(132) But Miss Johnson kept herself busy in more ways than one during these thirteen years and beyond. - Peter R. Whitmey, April, 1999 http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-3.htm ....Public testimony before the HSCA began Sept. 6, 1978, following an opening statement by Congressman Richardson Preyer of North Carolina and the first "chapter" of periodic narration by Robert Blakey, chief counsel to the committee. A cross section of witnesses, political figures and technical experts testified throughout the month including Marina Oswald Porter, who appeared in the public spotlight on Sept. 13 and 14.(4) Unlike in 1964, Mrs. Porter no longer needed a translator. A large number of questions related to Marina's ongoing association with Priscilla Johnson McMillan, who herself had testified in closed session the previous year. Mrs. Porter began by describing how she first met Miss Johnson after rejecting a written request to coauthor a book, when the writer arrived at her doorstep (despite the fact that Marina was under Secret Service protection and FBI scrutiny.) Through her business manager, James Martin (whom she later fired), Marina had received numerous offers, but until she met Miss Johnson, felt uneasy about the idea of the "shameful position" she was in. She indicated to the committee that she liked Miss Johnson because of "her intelligence," along with "the way she spoke Russian beautifully," and the fact that she had lived in the Soviet Union. She was asked if Miss Johnson had mentioned having worked for the CIA, or if the CIA was ever discussed such as in connection with Lee, but Marina could not recall any reference having been made. Marina also couldn't remember any details about the bus ticket found in 1964 during Miss Johnson's interviews, verifying Oswald's bus trip to Mexico City (which James Hosty later described having looked at while at Dallas police headquarters on Monday, Nov. 25, 1963.)(5) Mrs. Porter was asked if she and Priscilla were still close friends; she not only answered "yes" but revealed that she had seen Mrs. McMillan as recently as the night before her testimony, certainly suggesting the possibility that Marina had been "coached" in preparation for her testimony. In response to a question dealing with the possibility that her husband worked for "a U.S. Intelligence agency"(6) (not necessarily the CIA), Mrs. Porter again mentioned Mrs. McMillan in attempting to describe her late husband's secretive nature: "Well, knowing Lee as little as I know of him and the unpredictable steps he would take ... I cannot say anything he might do ... when I was working with Priscilla there was so little I knew of him, I think as secretive as he was I would be surprised if he would take orders or be confiding (to) somebody. I doubt it. I don't know.(7) After briefly discussing leaflets handed out by Oswald in New Orleans (which had the address of an anti-Castro group on them, associated with Guy Banister, despite the fact that the leaflets encouraged "Fair Play For Cuba"), Mrs. Porter was asked again about the bus ticket and whether she had discussed the subject with Mrs. McMillan the night before. In reply she stated: "Me and Mrs. McMillan did not discuss what questions the committee might ask, what to say, what not to say. The conversation was very personal."(8) At this point, Mr. Cornwell of the committee took over from Mr. Wolf, and once again, referred to Mrs. McMillan, wondering if, in their discussions the previous evening, "anything about the committee's work" had been mentioned. According to Marina, she let Mrs. McMillan know that she was "very scared" [of what?] and was asked by Priscilla if she liked her lawyer and to describe him. Another committee member interjected at this point, suggesting that this portion of the testimony not be included in the record. Cornwell resumed his interest in the conversation with Priscilla, wondering if they had discussed "anything about other witnesses who may have appeared before the committee (or) about the subject matter of our inquiry." Once again, Marina replied that "Priscilla never told me what she was asked here and I do not want to know. I do not jeopardize her reputation by even asking questions even though how curious I would be." (Although Marina evidently didn't know the content of Priscilla's earlier testimony, she as least did know that Priscilla had appeared before the committee.) Cornwell referred back to 1964 when Marina first met Priscilla at which time they agreed to work on a book together, and was asked if she had any "control ... over the final form that the book might take as to the accuracy of it."(9) In response, Marina admitted having confided in Priscilla and then elaborated: "Well, I trust Priscilla well enough or I would not start the job. The book was not designed to make something entertainment or just to make money. It was a therapeutic thing for me as well as I tried to explain to me or to people somehow-not just me; I just contribute very little to the book. It was up to Priscilla to fish out all the facts and everything and put them together some way ... I gave her the right to use her own judgment because it was her book." (So much for being a co-author.) The committee also learned at this point that, although she was given the opportunity to read the manuscript before publication, she did not read it "beforehand," although she indicated having read the finished book "in its entirety." Mrs. Porter felt that the book was accurate in terms of the factual information provided by her, "but some conclusion that she has come to on her own, maybe even analyzing my character, that was up to her to decide..." Mr. Cornwell continued to dwell on possible differences of opinion between Marina and Priscilla as reflected in the finished product to which Marina replied: "Well, since the person [Oswald] is dead and I was not a mature person or a qualified psychiatrist [implying that Priscilla was] to analyze the motives for doing so and so ... you are doing a very hard job putting puzzles together. Priscilla did her best and an honest job of trying to put things in some kind of perspective that a normal [ordinary?] person could understand ... I would buy Priscilla's conclusions. From my own personal experience I did not come up with anything different. Priscilla did not have the attitude to condemn or pronounce guilty from the first page, she was just working through the dark as well as I was and everybody else, so I would, in my mind, agree with that conclusion more than the conspiracy theory because I do not know anything about the other matters. I do not know anything about ballistics ... to disprove that Lee didn't do it. I would like that very much but I know so little..." [suggesting that Priscilla knew more than Marina].(10) In respect to certain opinions expressed by Mrs. McMillan, Marina felt somewhat ill-equipped to comment, feeling that "some things were not very meaningful ...she made some opinions from a psychology point of view. I don't know enough about that to make an opinion."(11) Although the committee member attempted to elicit a point of view distinct from the opinions expressed by Mrs. McMillan in her book, Marina continued to defend Priscilla's position: "Priscilla was in a position to analyze. Maybe somebody will criticize her for being an immature psychiatrist [such as Choice magazine?], but she tried to draw some kind of picture to compare me being without parents and him being without a father that might motivate us to be married to each other, but those traits of character is not up to me to say is right or wrong. I cannot assume that is correct ... The facts were not twisted to fit somebody's theory [Priscilla's?]. I agree with her because she didn't just take my word for it or my opinion on the matter, she compared them with somebody else's statements which were completely unknown to me and somehow the puzzle fit..." After briefly discussing Oswald's alleged "intelligence ties" that his mother discussed with the media, Cornwell wondered why the book took "so long to get into print." Marina replied: Well, it is not an easy book to write about, especially when you try to be so accurate and not just to bluff around because it was lots of research ... it is a hard message to deliver ... you don't try just because you have to write so many pages a day, you have to work hard. Priscilla had personal tragedies in her life which put her [?] in the mood to write. It was just a long process of working at it ... when Mrs. McMillan approached me she was not concerned about money [no mention was made about a very large advance from Harper & Row] ... she told me she wants to do a very honest job to try to explain the things why Lee did it for the American people ... I was refusing to do the book but she said at least that much I owe to people to show a little bit of the inside of the person ... I owe this much to history, I guess."(12) Cornwell also wondered if it was "a mere coincidence that the book has come out during the time period that our committee has been working on it,"(13) and whether they had "discussed the timing of the publication of the book" or "the fact that this would be a good time to publish it?" Marina felt that the timing was simply a coincidence, and thought it was "completely absurd how people can put two and two together." She compared the effort to an artist painting a picture, and although she was aware of a deadline [of 14 years?), "I don't want to push her, because I want a qualitative job." Marina mentioned that Priscilla had, in fact, been "very apologetic (that) it took so long." (In an interview for Publisher's Weekly prior to the release of her book, Mrs. McMillan was quoted as saying that she originally expected to finish the book "within a couple of years of the assassination," but she found it "hard to write of the lives of Marina and Lee without taking them over into my own life. The book almost did me in...") In a final reference to Miss Johnson by the House Assassinations Committee, Cornwell again returned to the mysterious bus ticket discovered by Marina back in 1964. Mrs. Porter insisted she had not given any thought to it, and couldn't recall discussing it with Mrs. McMillan, even though the episode was mentioned in the book. At this point, the interview shifted to other topics unrelated to Priscilla. It would appear from the nature of the questions asked, that the committee knew that the two women had seen each other beforehand, and suspected that Mrs. Porter might have been tutored by Mrs. McMillan, who was fourteen years older than Marina. Undoubtedly, the committee planned to compare Marina's statements in regard to her relationship with Priscilla to Mrs. McMillan's own comments a year earlier to check for any inconsistencies. As for the timing of the book, Marina and Lee, released during the "in camera" portion of the committee's work, there seemed to be some suspicion that the timing was not a coincidence. However, it should be noted that Priscilla had been subject to growing criticism from several sources beginning with a New Times article written in August, 1975, by Jerry Policoff.(15) In it, he mentioned the Belin book review written by the McMillans, and the fact that George was still working on a biography of James Earl Ray, citing a 1969 New York Times article quoting McMillan's impression of Ray even before he began his research as being a "loner." Mrs. McMillan was also referred to at length, and portrayed as "one of the most vocal and intriguing defenders of the Warren Report," which no longer could be considered a compliment....(endquote) There are reasons the state your in is described as blissful, Paul. Convenientl you've exempted yourself from your "hard evidence" stricture. This mishmash is designed to be difficult to sort out and make any sense of. Thank goodness for the sake of researchers like Jim Root and myself that you've come along to make it seem so easy to understand. We are deeply in your debt. Edited April 8, 2013 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now