Edwin Walker

[Richard Hocking]

Did any Police/FBI/Researcher, anybody ever measure or calculate the distance of the shot alleged to have been fired at Gen. Walker?

[Paul Trejo]

Did any Police/FBI/Researcher, anybody ever measure or calculate the distance of the shot alleged to have been fired at Gen. Walker?

Richard, it's a good question, and the only answer I know about came from the Warren Commission, volume 11, from Walker's own testimony of 23 July 1964. Here's the exchange:

Mr. LIEBELER. How far is it from where you were sitting to the fence where we think the shot was fired from? How many feet?

General WALKER. I would say 100 feet. I would say between 100 and 120 feet.

My problem is that there is a big difference between 100 and 120 feet.

Let's imagine the scenario a little closer. In December, 1961, Walker moved into a comfortable two story home at 4011 Turtle Creek Blvd. in the quiet Oak Cliff neighborhood in Dallas (even after he voluntarily turned down his General's pension when he resigned his Army post instead of retiring after 30 years of honorable service). Let's look at his physical home environment:

(1) Walker's front door faced Turtle Creek Blvd on the South side.

(2) There was an alley behind Walker's house, on the North side.

(3) Walker's back yard sloped upward toward the alley.

(4) Dividing Walker's back yard and the alley was a wooden lattice fence.

(5) According to the DPD police report of 11 April 1963, the bullet was evidently fired from the wooden lattice fence behind Walker's back yard property.

(6) The sniper evidently stood in the alley and used the fence to steady his shot. (The DPD suspected this because there was a fresh chip and burn mark on the wooden fence, and a man's footprints directly under the fresh chip.)

(7) Therefore, the sniper aimed downward, due South, into the back yard window, through which he could see Walker at night because the indoor light was on.

(8) The Warren Commission Exhibits of Walker's house and surrounding area are found in volume 18. There are 11 Exhibits, from CE 653 through CE 663.

A good place to start would probably be the Warren Commission sketch of Walker's home and immediate environment at this URL:

http://www.history-m...Vol18_0335a.htm

(Another good photo shows the bullet hole in the window where the bullet barely grazed the window sill, thus deflecting the bullet from its true course. Another good photo shows the bedroom where the bullet landed -- on a stack of boxes and papers -- because Walker's home was also his place of business for the American Eagle Publishing Company, and he kept his booklets for sale in one of his bedrooms. Another good couple of photos show the Church parking lot north of that alley, where the sniper's car was allegedly parked.)

(9) Anyway -- it should have been an easy matter for the DPD to measure the distance between the lattice wooden fence and the window sill, and then measure the window sill to the wall by which Walker was sitting -- the wall opposite the bedroom in which the fired bullet was found. But they didn't. Nor did the Warren Commission, evidently.

(10) Since the house was large, and the property was larger, I will hazard this guess: ex-General Walker said "100 or 120 feet" because it was about 100 feet from the lattice wooden fence to the window sill, and another 20 feet from the window sill to the wall by which he was sitting.

But that's just an approximation, going by the sworn testimony of ex-General Walker, which attorney Liebeler seems to have accepted.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited July 6, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Richard Hocking]

Did any Police/FBI/Researcher, anybody ever measure or calculate the distance of the shot alleged to have been fired at Gen. Walker?

Richard, it's a good question, and the only answer I know about came from the Warren Commission, volume 11, from Walker's own testimony of 23 July 1964. Here's the exchange:

Mr. LIEBELER. How far is it from where you were sitting to the fence where we think the shot was fired from? How many feet?

General WALKER. I would say 100 feet. I would say between 100 and 120 feet.

My problem is that there is a big difference between 100 and 120 feet.

Let's imagine the scenario a little closer. In December, 1961, Walker moved into a comfortable two story home at 4011 Turtle Creek Blvd. in the quiet Oak Cliff neighborhood in Dallas (even after he voluntarily turned down his General's pension when he resigned his Army post instead of retiring after 30 years of honorable service). Let's look at his physical home environment:

(1) Walker's front door faced Turtle Creek Blvd on the South side.

(2) There was an alley behind Walker's house, on the North side.

(3) Walker's back yard sloped upward toward the alley.

(4) Dividing Walker's back yard and the alley was a wooden lattice fence.

(5) According to the DPD police report of 11 April 1963, the bullet was evidently fired from the wooden lattice fence behind Walker's back yard property.

(6) The sniper evidently stood in the alley and used the fence to steady his shot. (The DPD suspected this because there was a fresh chip and burn mark on the wooden fence, and a man's footprints directly under the fresh chip.)

(7) Therefore, the sniper aimed downward, due South, into the back yard window, through which he could see Walker at night because the indoor light was on.

(8) The Warren Commission Exhibits of Walker's house and surrounding area are found in volume 18. There are 11 Exhibits, from CE 653 through CE 663.

A good place to start would probably be the Warren Commission sketch of Walker's home and immediate environment at this URL:

http://www.history-m...Vol18_0335a.htm

(Another good photo shows the bullet hole in the window where the bullet barely grazed the window sill, thus deflecting the bullet from its true course. Another good photo shows the bedroom where the bullet landed -- on a stack of boxes and papers -- because Walker's home was also his place of business for the American Eagle Publishing Company, and he kept his booklets for sale in one of his bedrooms. Another good couple of photos show the Church parking lot north of that alley, where the sniper's car was allegedly parked.)

(9) Anyway -- it should have been an easy matter for the DPD to measure the distance between the lattice wooden fence and the window sill, and then measure the window sill to the wall by which Walker was sitting -- the wall opposite the bedroom in which the fired bullet was found. But they didn't. Nor did the Warren Commission, evidently.

(10) Since the house was large, and the property was larger, I will hazard this guess: ex-General Walker said "100 or 120 feet" because it was about 100 feet from the lattice wooden fence to the window sill, and another 20 feet from the window sill to the wall by which he was sitting.

But that's just an approximation, going by the sworn testimony of ex-General Walker, which attorney Liebeler seems to have accepted.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Very Interesting photo links, particularly on page 658. CE 1011 shows the lattice fence at the rear of the property. The fence provides an excellent firing platform offering the sniper a choice of elevations and angles that allow for the best unobstructed shot at the subject. Yet, the sniper chose a firing position that brought the window sill into play, enough so that the sill may have actually deflected the bullet. Not what one would expect from a shooter that had LHO's marine corps training.

So, firing from a distance of roughly 100-120', at a stationary, illuminated target, from a concealed, slightly elevated position in the darkness, taking advantage of a solid firing platform, and with relatively unrestricted time to setup the shot, using a scoped rifle, the accused sniper completely missed the subject. Then, without even noticing whether the shot hit or missed, quickly makes his get-away.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Richard Hocking

[Paul Trejo]

Very Interesting photo links, particularly on page 658. CE 1011 shows the lattice fence at the rear of the property. The fence provides an excellent firing platform offering the sniper a choice of elevations and angles that allow for the best unobstructed shot at the subject. Yet, the sniper chose a firing position that brought the window sill into play, enough so that the sill may have actually deflected the bullet. Not what one would expect from a shooter that had LHO's marine corps training.

So, firing from a distance of roughly 100-120', at a stationary, illuminated target, from a concealed, slightly elevated position in the darkness, taking advantage of a solid firing platform, and with relatively unrestricted time to setup the shot, using a scoped rifle, the accused sniper completely missed the subject. Then, without even noticing whether the shot hit or missed, quickly makes his get-away.

I agree with your summary, Richard.

The shooter doesn't appear to be a master -- yet the Marine peer reports we've read about Oswald suggest that he wasn't a master shooter.

Also, the shooter shows signs of immaturity; i.e. quickly after the shot the shooter and his accomplice(s) ran away fast. Killing the victim was not as important as sending a message. This was no seasoned assassin.

According to Dick Russell, we have three shooters that day -- Lee Harvey Oswald, Larrie Schmidt and Bob Schmidt. Their cars match the profile of the cars witnessed at the scene, and Dick Russell also claims to have a verbal confession from one of the Schmidt brothers from Bradford P. Angers, who was a private detective and Larrie Schmidt's employer in Dallas.

According to Russell, then, Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of the shooting...but so was Larrie Schmidt. Yet after Angers told the FBI about Larrie's confession, the FBI let Larrie go. Larrie didn't even have to testify at the Warren Commission, although two of his CUSA members had to testify (and Bernard Weissman took most of the heat for the CUSA).

This fits the FBI pattern that I perceive -- the right-wing, upper-class players are quickly forgiven and given a free pass, while the left-wing and working-class players are hit hardest.

Why would Oswald and the Schmidt brothers -- clearly immature youths -- try to kill ex-General Edwin A. Walker? Especially since Larrie and Bob Schmidt were openly right-wing extremists? (Oswald's right-wing sentiments are still hotly debated.) That is, why would any right-wing American youths want to kill Walker, who had been a hero to the extreme right-wing?

To understand their motive one must look at the newspapers of that time, going back around six months from the shooting date. The news in those days centered around Afro-American student James Meredith registering to study at an all-white college in Oxford, Mississippi (Ole Miss) and ex-General Walker organizing a massive protest that clashed with JFK's Federal Troops, causing hundreds of injuries and two deaths late at night on 30 September 1962.

Although Walker was committed to an insane asylum the next morning by RFK on 1 October 1962, Walker was released with an apology only five days later because of the public outcry of psychiatrist Thomas Szasz and the ACLU (over the political use of psychiatry).

To get an idea of the newspaper sentiment in those days, here's a political cartoon from 2 October 1962:

http://www.pet880.co...ker_cartoon.jpg

Walker faced a Grand Jury in Mississippi in November, 1962, and by January, 1963 Walker was acquitted. His lawyers, Clyde Watts and Robert Morris, brilliantly focussed on the insane asylum aspect, and centered the hearings on on the question of Walker's sanity -- he was clearly sane -- and whether all right-wing segregationists should be locked up in nut houses. That worked like a charm -- the Mississippi Grand Jury let Walker walk.

Now, the problem is that Walker (and his lawyers) exceeded the beliefs of most right-wingers in America -- even Larrie Schmidt and Lee Harvey Oswald (and I presume Oswald was a rightist Marine at heart).

We know this because although Larrie Schmidt would boast that his 'mentor' was Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, he was not actually a violent anti-Semite as the older generation of Nazi travelers had been. Rather, a Jew, Bernard Weissman, was a ranking officer in Larrie Schmidt's organization, CUSA (Conservatism USA). Nor was Weissman the only Jew in Larrie's cabinet. Therefore, Larrie Schmidt was not a radical or extreme right-winger -- he was more moderate than that -- he was not a committed racist. (Although, Larrie was an ambitious opportunist, and for the right amount of money he was probably capable of saying and doing just about anything.)

Neither was Lee Harvey Oswald; although his principal associates were ex-Marines and Cuban Exiles, Oswald was an advocate of Civil Rights for blacks as a general principal (although he had no black friends, as far as I know; but that was typical in the 1960's, even among liberals).

Remember, too, that in February 1963 both George De Mohrenschildt (once an opportunist Nazi spy but now hoping for a big payday in Haiti) and engineer Volkmar Schmidt, admitted to working on Oswald psychologically to transfter his anger over the Bay of Pigs into anger over ex-General Walker. In March 1963 Oswald ordered weapons over the mail and began composing a plan book describing Walker's home. His attention was not on his job, so Oswald was also fired in March. On 10 April 1963 the Schmidt brothers provided the transportion, IMHO, and moral support, at the very least, to try to kill Walker.

To summarize, it seems to me that the rightist trio, Larrie, Bob and Lee Harvey Oswald, were outraged, in their youthful bravado, by the excesses of ex-General Edwin Walker. They chose to take a stand. Larrie (or Bob) Schmidt told Bradford P. Angers that they were 'drunk' when they decided to go out to shoot Walker.

The scenario makes sense to me -- it was a bluster of an act, and it was less serious than it could have been.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos, and mentioned De Mohrenschildt>

Edited July 6, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Richard Hocking]

Did Schmidt tell Angers that they were all drunk (including LHO) or just the Schmidt brothers?

[Paul Trejo]

Did Schmidt tell Angers that they were all drunk (including LHO) or just the Schmidt brothers?

Richard, I'll let Dick Russell's book convey the account of Bradford P. Angers, who once employed Larrie Schmidt in Dallas:

- - - - - - begin Dick Russell quote - - - - -

When I spoke to [bradford P.] Angers on a tip in the spring of 1992, he refused to identify publicly the person whom [H.L.] Hunt asked him to hire. But it quickly became obvious to me who he was. Angers recalled the young man as being:

"A frail fellow, very meticulous. He patterned himself after Joseph Goebbels. He and I used to talk about how Goebbels used syllogistic logic to build the Nazi empire...Before the assassination, this guy's brother had gotten close to General Walker. Eventually he'd become his chauffeur. It was part of their infiltrating Walker's organization, and it went back to a power struggle in Germany, when this fellow had been in the Army there and started forming his own little group. Apparently this fellow couldn't stand Walker. Neither could his brother.

"Somehow that spring of 1963, the brother had made friends with Oswald, who was also trying to get close to Walker. But this fellow I knew had never met Oswald, I don't think, until his brother introduced them that night in April. The three of them got drunk together. They got in a car and the brother said, 'Somebody ought to shoot that no good son of a bitch Walker.' And this fellow said, 'I've got news for you, I got him kicked out of the goddamned Army in Germany.' Then Oswald said, 'I've got a rifle, let's go hit the son of a bitch.'

"The three of them drove down St. John's Avenue, and stopped the car...Oswald pumped off a shot. It hit the wall instead. They they jumped in the car and took off."

Anger's story has never before been made public. The young man his is describing could only be Larrie Schmidt...

(Dick Russell, 1992, The Man Who Knew Too Much, pp. 206-207)

- - - - - - - - end Dick Russell quote - - - - - - -

I think I know why you asked, Richard -- because it is widely reported that Lee never, ever drank alcohol. Perhaps he rarely touched alcohol, or perhaps never. But if he was with some young Army pals, he might have had a swig or two. If so, then odds are Oswald couldn't hold his liquor -- all the more reason to suspect him of something foolish. Or, perhaps Bradford Angers merely assumed all three young men drank. I don't know; all I can do is relay this story as read.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 7, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Richard Hocking]

Did Schmidt tell Angers that they were all drunk (including LHO) or just the Schmidt brothers?

Richard, I'll let Dick Russell's book convey the account of Bradford P. Angers, who once employed Larrie Schmidt in Dallas:

- - - - - - begin Dick Russell quote - - - - -

When I spoke to [bradford P.] Angers on a tip in the spring of 1992, he refused to identify publicly the person whom [H.L.] Hunt asked him to hire. But it quickly became obvious to me who he was. Angers recalled the young man as being:

"A frail fellow, very meticulous. He patterned himself after Joseph Goebbels. He and I used to talk about how Goebbels used syllogistic logic to build the Nazi empire...Before the assassination, this guy's brother had gotten close to General Walker. Eventually he'd become his chauffeur. It was part of their infiltrating Walker's organization, and it went back to a power struggle in Germany, when this fellow had been in the Army there and started forming his own little group. Apparently this fellow couldn't stand Walker. Neither could his brother.

"Somehow that spring of 1963, the brother had made friends with Oswald, who was also trying to get close to Walker. But this fellow I knew had never met Oswald, I don't think, until his brother introduced them that night in April. The three of them got drunk together. They got in a car and the brother said, 'Somebody ought to shoot that no good son of a bitch Walker.' And this fellow said, 'I've got news for you, I got him kicked out of the goddamned Army in Germany.' Then Oswald said, 'I've got a rifle, let's go hit the son of a bitch.'

"The three of them drove down St. John's Avenue, and stopped the car...Oswald pumped off a shot. It hit the wall instead. They they jumped in the car and took off."

Anger's story has never before been made public. The young man his is describing could only be Larrie Schmidt...

(Dick Russell, 1992, The Man Who Knew Too Much, pp. 206-207)

- - - - - - - - end Dick Russell quote - - - - - - -

I think I know why you asked, Richard -- because it is widely reported that Lee never, ever drank alcohol. Perhaps he rarely touched alcohol, or perhaps never. But if he was with some young Army pals, he might have had a swig or two. If so, then odds are Oswald couldn't hold his liquor -- all the more reason to suspect him of something foolish. Or, perhaps Bradford Angers merely assumed all three young men drank. I don't know; all I can do is relay this story as read.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

The drunken Oswald part did grab my attention, for the reasons you stated above. I guess we have the choice of selectively digesting Angers story.

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.

[Thomas Graves]

Did Schmidt tell Angers that they were all drunk (including LHO) or just the Schmidt brothers?

Richard, I'll let Dick Russell's book convey the account of Bradford P. Angers, who once employed Larrie Schmidt in Dallas:

- - - - - - begin Dick Russell quote - - - - -

When I spoke to [bradford P.] Angers on a tip in the spring of 1992, he refused to identify publicly the person whom [H.L.] Hunt asked him to hire. But it quickly became obvious to me who he was. Angers recalled the young man as being:

"A frail fellow, very meticulous. He patterned himself after Joseph Goebbels. He and I used to talk about how Goebbels used syllogistic logic to build the Nazi empire...Before the assassination, this guy's brother had gotten close to General Walker. Eventually he'd become his chauffeur. It was part of their infiltrating Walker's organization, and it went back to a power struggle in Germany, when this fellow had been in the Army there and started forming his own little group. Apparently this fellow couldn't stand Walker. Neither could his brother.

"Somehow that spring of 1963, the brother had made friends with Oswald, who was also trying to get close to Walker. But this fellow I knew had never met Oswald, I don't think, until his brother introduced them that night in April. The three of them got drunk together. They got in a car and the brother said, 'Somebody ought to shoot that no good son of a bitch Walker.' And this fellow said, 'I've got news for you, I got him kicked out of the goddamned Army in Germany.' Then Oswald said, 'I've got a rifle, let's go hit the son of a bitch.'

"The three of them drove down St. John's Avenue, and stopped the car...Oswald pumped off a shot. It hit the wall instead. They they jumped in the car and took off."

Anger's story has never before been made public. The young man his is describing could only be Larrie Schmidt...

(Dick Russell, 1992, The Man Who Knew Too Much, pp. 206-207)

- - - - - - - - end Dick Russell quote - - - - - - -

I think I know why you asked, Richard -- because it is widely reported that Lee never, ever drank alcohol. Perhaps he rarely touched alcohol, or perhaps never. But if he was with some young Army pals, he might have had a swig or two. If so, then odds are Oswald couldn't hold his liquor -- all the more reason to suspect him of something foolish. Or, perhaps Bradford Angers merely assumed all three young men drank. I don't know; all I can do is relay this story as read.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

The drunken Oswald part did grab my attention, for the reasons you stated above. I guess we have the choice of selectively digesting Angers story.

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.

I wonder what Oswald drank at the Queen Bee? Lemonade? Nah, it would have made him "throw up" and become belligerent...

--Tommy

[Paul Trejo]

...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

Edited July 7, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Since this is the Edwin Walker thread, this is the place to tell y'all about an old "B" movie that I only heard about this month, entitled, PRINCE JACK (1983).

It is a full-length movie about the JFK administration, told from a refreshing point of view. It was a flop at the box office -- it possibly broke even. But in many ways it is superior to the movie JFK, because (1) Oliver Stone's movie really should have been called, "The Jim Garrison Story," as it only portrays JFK getting killed; and (2) PRINCE JACK contains several references to ex-General Edwin Walker including:

(i) Walker's tour in Germany in which he educated the Troops with his Pro-Blue indoctrination program leaning toward the John Birch Society;

(ii) Walker's resignation from the Army;

(iii) Walker's leadership at the race riots of Ole Miss on 30 September 1962 to prevent the first black student there, James Meredith, from attending college;

(iv) The Kennedy decision to detain ex-General Edwin Walker in an insane asylum for 90 days, instead of taking him to court;

(v) The rage of Walker for having been detained in an insane asylum (even though his lawyers got him out in under 5 days);

(vi) The pot-shot at ex-General Edwin Walker at his home on 10 April 1963.

(vii) Walker's expressed belief that the Kennedys were behind that April shooting.

All of these facts are true and correct history -- and they have never been portrayed in any other motion picture (to the best of my knowledge).

Nor did any of these facts ever appear in any book before the year 1983.

I found this movie (VHS) on amazon.com and I purchased it for under $6. I recommend the movie to JFK history buffs.

I admit that it's a low-budget "B" movie, yet I'd sure like to know the sources that screenwriter Bert Lovitt had before his eyes when he wrote this script.

They sure weren't the Jim Garrison archives, since Garrison never traveled down the Walker road.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited December 9, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - is there any evidence that Ruby and Walker knew each other?

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - is there any evidence that Ruby and Walker knew each other?

Paul, I don't know of any firm evidence that they knew each other personally, although I vaguely recall a rumor that was never substantiated.

What scholars do know is that Jack Ruby, when being interviewed by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, named "General Walker" and the "John Birch Society" as the main plotters of the JFK assassination.

This information is common knowledge within the pages of the Warren Commission volumes.

This does not mean or even suggest that Jack Ruby knew ex-General Edwin Walker personally -- it only suggests that Jack Ruby read the Dallas Morning News (and perhaps the Dallas Times Herald) on a regular basis. Edwin Walker was in the news several times in the previous 12 months before the JFK assassination.

Because Walker lived in Dallas, Jack Ruby would be interested in him in that regard, as well. Jack Ruby was known as a busybody and a snoopy character around Dallas (cf. Seth Kantor). He would sneak his way into every major event in town, if he could get away with it. (For example, he was often seen in the Dallas Police station when Oswald was arrested, posing as a newspaper man, and so on.)

Therefore, it seems to me that Jack Ruby probably followed the many news stories about Walker in Dallas (far more than would appear in the national news), and he might even try to meet him -- just because Jack Ruby wanted to be in the limelight for everything.

If you find any convincing evidence, Paul, that Jack Ruby ever met Edwin Walker personally, won't you please share it with the FORUM at this thread?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

I have never seen anything to suggest Ruby knew Walker. I posed the question because I wondered what your take was on Ruby's motives in killing Oswald. I have always assumed he acted on orders from someone, but who? If Walker was behind the JFK hit and Ruby knew it, why would he kill Oswald? Did Ruby have any reason to protect Walker? Or did he kill Oswald because Oswald could have implicated Ruby in the assassination? It was Ruby's act that forever caused me to doubt Oswald's guilt.

If one follows your theory, Walker knew right after the attempt on his life that Oswald was the shooter and was protected and possibly even hired by RFK. Of course there is no concrete evidence of RFK's protection of Oswald, but Walker's belief in this regard is proven. Oswald's sojourn in New Orleans shortly after this event makes me wonder if Oswald was investigating something. Perhaps Oswald's street theater there was a misdirection of his own making to disguise his true motive, an investigation of the minutemen. I know this is stretching. Surely there is much evidence that he was up to something with the Cuban exile community there. But Miami would have been a better choice for this. Most investigators think Oswald was being played by someone, creating bonafides for his pro-castro stance. Even if that is true, it leaves me wondering who Oswald thought he was playing. Perhaps Banister, a minuteman and racist. Whatever Oswald was and whatever he believed, whatever kind of double or triple agent game he was playing, he certainly wasn't a racist.

[David Boylan]

Duff claimed they had an association but later denied it. - http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2389.pdf

[Paul Trejo]

Duff claimed they had an association but later denied it. - http://www.aarclibra...H25_CE_2389.pdf

Thanks, David, for reminding us about William McEwan Duff. Duff was a young, live-in gigolo at Walker's home address from 12/1962 through 3/1963 and who was arrested and subjected to lie detectors over the attempted assassination of Walker on 10 April 1963 at his home.

Duff was so upset by his treatment he later told the FBI that Jack Ruby was a frequent visitor at General Walker's house. He later recanted that claim.

But it is a puzzle why Duff would even make such a claim in the first place (whether he was lying or not). He must of known that such a claim was the same as linking ex-General Walker with Jack Ruby would make Walker a suspect in the JFK assassination.

Duff must have also known that many citizens and newsmen had already raised that connection in the hours after the JFK assassination.

Duff could not have known at that time, either, that Jack Ruby had told Chief Justice Earl Warren that Edwin Walker and the John Birch Society were the main plotters of the JFK murder.

So, if not to link Walker with the JFK murder, why else would Duff link Walker with Jack Ruby? The only benign answer I can think of is that Duff (perhaps bisexual) had a homosexual relationship with Walker, who was (almost certainly) a lifelong homosexual. It is widely held that Jack Ruby was a homosexual. Is it possible that Walker actually resigned from the Army because he was homosexual and afraid of being discovered? Is it possible that Walker actually resigned from the Army in order to "do as a civilian what he could not do in uniform," namely, live more openly as a homosexual?

In other words, if Duff was not trying to send a message to the FBI that Walker was involved in the JFK murder (with or through Jack Ruby) then he might have been expressing anger against Walker for the mal-treatment he received at the hands of Walker's secretary Julia Knecht, and Walker's business partner, Robert Allen Surrey, and Walker's attorney, Clyde Watts, who ultimately arrested Duff and attached him to a lie detector. In other words, Duff might simply have been trying to expose Walker as a homosexual.

But that would only work if his audience knew that Jack Ruby was a homosexual. So, it's a long shot, but it is mildly possible. If so, Duff found out promptly that the FBI could not care less about that. In any case, Duff soon dropped the claim. Without his testimony, we have no further witnesses that I know about.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo