Edwin Walker

[Paul Trejo]

Long comment to report that the actual answer to my question is "no"

Long, but informative. So you have no opinion about Walker's letter of June 1968 about RFK, then?

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

You have no evidence dating from before the assassination that Walker knew who Oswald was until after the event, other that the statements of Harry Dean.

[Thomas Graves]

...With respect to this comment:

Edwin Walker used Lee Harvey Oswald to kill JFK because he truly believed that JFK tried to use Lee Harvey Oswald to kill Edwin Walker[/size]

Has anybody ever found anything in the papers of JFK or at any Presidential Library or anyplace else which reveals that JFK ever knew anything about LHO? OR

After Walker was reprimanded and he resigned from the Army and after Walker was humiliated by being unable to convince his fellow Texans to even consider him as a viable candidate for Governor (placing 6th in a field of 6 candidates in the primary) and after he was further discredited as a consequence of his University of Mississippi behavior ---- is there any evidence that JFK cared one whit about Walker -- much less had developed so much animus toward Walker that JFK wanted him killed?

Well, Ernie, from the evidence I've seen, apparently JFK and RFK thought that Edwin Walker was nuts. This is why they remanded him to the Springfield, MO insane asylum on 1 October 1962.

Their very real worry about Edwin Walker showed in their personal support toward the producers of the movie, Seven Days in May, starring Burt Lancaster as the seditious US General who built a wild following in his right-wing speeches, who tried to take over the government.

Yet their treatment of Walker was clearly reflected in the "General Jack D. Ripper" character from the movie, Dr. Strangelove, -- a suicidal nut case.

One must remember, however, that JFK and RFK were severely criticized for their decision to send Edwin Walker to an insane asylum, not only by the right-wing, but also by the left-wing, including the ACLU and Dr. Thomas Szasz personally.

It was perhaps the biggest domestic blunder of JFK's career. The Kennedy brothers had to backpedal on that decision very quickly -- and instead of the standard 90 day observation period, Walker was released in only 3 days, with all but an apology from RFK.

But it was an over-reaction. Even the ACLU argued that only the USSR would stoop so low as to use Psychiatry for political purposes. This was the Cold War -- the right-wing may have been wrong at Ole Miss in 1962, but you don't call the Psychiatrists when you should call the Police.

If Edwin Walker had been normally arrested, charged and tried for his crimes at Ole Miss, I feel certain that Walker would have served many years of prison time. That was what JFK should have done.

As it was, Walker was acquitted of all charges, and he emerged behaving worse than ever -- he basically went underground and began dealing with Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Joseph Milteer, Carlos Bringuier, and Guy Banister, among others.

JFK and RFK did lose sight of Edwin Walker. Walker was humiliated in the public media -- and to this very day millions of people just remember Walker as "that nut." Big mistake. Walker was a US General -- and no matter his intellectual shortcomings, he was as shrewd as a jungle tiger -- and a global expert in military and paramilitary operations.

JFK and RFK lost sight of Edwin Walker -- but Walker never lost sight of JFK and RFK.

It seems that Walker suffered from a mild case of paranoia -- this was according to two psychiatrists of the dozen or so who examined him. Not enough to restrain him, but enough to notice medically.

After he emerged from his insane asylum experience, Walker was indeed afraid of RFK and JFK. Also, Walker knew good and well that he should have been punished for his crimes at Ole Miss -- and that to be acquitted of those crimes he had to lie to the Grand Jury. Walker had a conscience -- it probably bothered him.

Yet Edwin Walker had also lived with a life-long crime, namely, being a homosexual in the US Army at a time when it was a court-martial offense to be homosexual. Even though he was gay, Edwin Walker rose to the rank of Major General. This means that he had to lie every day of his career -- he had to live in the closet for life. Edwin Walker had become accustomed to lying.

In any case, after Lee Harvey Oswald (as I believe) tried to murder Edwin Walker in his home in Dallas on 10 April 1963 at the urging of George De Mohrenshildt, Volkmar Schmidt and various, young Dallas engineers, Edwin Walker lost his cool.

It was at this point that Walker decided that RFK and JFK were out to kill him. It was partly because he escaped the true charges of sedition at Ole Miss that Walker felt guilty, and then when Oswald failed to kill him, Walker blamed the whole event on RFK and JFK. This is very plain from his personal papers.

I don't believe that RFK and JFK hired Lee Harvey Oswald to kill Edwin Walker. That was Walker's paranoia talking.

But I do believe that Edwin Walker truly, truly, truly believed that Oswald worked for RFK.

Some leak in the US Government told Edwin Walker on Easter Sunday 1963 that Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter, but that the government wouldn't prosecute -- for some reason. This is what Walker says in his personal papers, and it is also what Walker told the German newspaper, Deutsche Nationalzeitung less than 24 hours after JFK was murdered.

This was Walker's justification for using Lee Harvey Oswald as his patsy. It comes clear in his personal papers. Here's just one more example among many. This is a four-page article by Edwin Walker, dated 12 June 1968, in response to the assassination of RFK. Skip down to the final paragraph to see Walker's attitude (he writes of himself in the third person) and his Near-Confession:

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

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Why would "George De Mohrenshildt, Volkmar Schmidt and various young Dallas engineers" want to kill Edwin Walker in April qf 1963?

--Tommy

[Paul Trejo]

You have no evidence dating from before the assassination that Walker knew who Oswald was until after the event, other that the statements of Harry Dean.

Yes, Paul B., you;'re mainly correct -- I'm still looking for PHYSICAL pre-assassination evidence that links Walker with Oswald.

There is, however, one possibility -- it's called the Jack Martin Film. It's a home movie, about five minutes long.

It's taken by a very young man, who apparently served under General Walker in Augsburg in 1961 when he was about 18. In 1963 he was a Minuteman in Minnesota, and he chose to fly to Texas to visit the home of Edwin Walker. He filmed the clouds and the wing of the jet on his flight before he arrived in Dallas, and then he filmed the bullet holes in the home of Edwin Walker, commemorating the bad news of 10 April 1963.

Then the home movie continues for this "vacation" as young John (Jack) Martin flies to New Orleans, to a park near Canal Street, and then he hears a commotion, and follows the commotion to film Lee Harvey Oswald being hauled away by the police for his fight with Carlos Bringuier. At the end of the film, Jack Martin shows one of Oswald's FPCC fliers in the gutter, and then pans up to the sky.

Now -- when Harold Weisberg and Gary Schoener obtained this film from young Jack Martin in 1968, they were thrilled to be able to track the faces of every person in the street filmed when Oswald was being put into the police car. They FAILED to put 2 and 2 together to realize the significance of what they held in their hands.

The Jack Martin film is the ONLY physical evidence I know of today that materially links Ex-General Edwin Walker with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963.

In my humble opinion, Jack Martin was a loyal follower of Edwin Walker, and this film intentionally connects the April bullet holes in the house of Edwin Walker with the August FPCC fliers of Lee Oswald in the streets of New Orleans.

The ONLY way Jack Martin would have known to connect these two persons by these two Events was by having Inside Information about the date and time of the Oswald arrest. The most likely source of that Inside Information would be Edwin Walker himself.

Well, Jim Garrison and other JFK researchers have already demonstrated that the "fight" between Oswald and Bringuier on 9 August 1963 was SCRIPTED. It was STAGED. We know this because Lee Harvey Oswald wrote a letter to the FPCC headquarters the WEEK BEFORE and told them had he had ALREADY had this fight with a Cuban Exile that got the police involved. The WEEK BEFORE!

This virtually proves that the arrest was carefully planned, most likely by Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw and Guy Banister -- who was associated with Edwin Walker through the JBS. (The intent was to FRAME Oswald as a Communist.)

I say that more PHYSICAL evidence will appear in the near future. Remember that I'm only one guy, I do this very part-time, and this is a BRAND-NEW theory. Nobody else has tracked Edwin Walker to the degree that I have so far.

I'm just getting started. The Jack Martin Film is almost certainly a MATERIAL connection between Walker and Oswald, strongly suggesting a Conspiracy taking shape.

It's only a start. More is to come. I'm digging as fast as I can.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 7, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Why would "George De Mohrenshildt, Volkmar Schmidt and various young Dallas engineers" want to kill Edwin Walker in April qf 1963?

--Tommy

Good question, Tommy -- thanks for the invitation to explain this important nuance of the JFK murder.

We know from George De Mohrenschildt's last writing that he hated Edwin Walker. He taught Lee Harvey Oswald to call him, "General Fokker". Then they would laugh and laugh.

We know from the personal confessions of Volkmar Schmidt that he tried to convince Lee Harvey Oswald for hours to channel his anger against JFK over the Bay of Pigs toward anger against Edwin Walker for the Ole Miss riots of 1962.

Both De Mohrenschildt and Schmidt speak about this in the context of a dinner party in Dallas, given for young engineers (mostly oil engineers), in which Schmidt would ply his craft of psychology (both his parents were psychologists) on the raw material of Lee Harvey Oswald.

This party occurred in early February 1963.

Now, let's look at USA history in this period. The biggest domestic news of that day -- for young, liberal yuppies, was that Ole Miss University was the victim of a brutal race riot on the final night of September 1962, and Edwin Walker was known to have started it.

On the first morning of October 1962, JFK and RFK had Edwin Walker arrested and sent to a nut house. In three days Edwin Walker was freed after protests by the ACLU and many others. In December Edwin Walker started his Grand Jury hearings in Mississippi. His lawyers (Robert Morris and Clyde Watts) argued brilliantly, that Walker was on trial for being insane. They produced many psychiatrists to prove that Walker was sane, and they called two hostile witnesses -- the two psychiatrists who admitted Walker to the Springfield insane asylum in cooperation with RFK and JFK.

Morris and Watts turned the table on these two psychiatrists, and put them on the defensive. "Are you saying that all right-wing people should be locked up in a loony bin?!" The psychiatrists replied, "No, of course not." The Grand Jury then acquitted Edwin Walker.

Edwin Walker was acquitted in late January 1963.

A great shock ran through the liberals in the USA -- including the young liberal engineers of Dallas, including Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine and their spouses and associates. They held this dinner party only a few days later. They all knew that the Oswalds would be invited. They all wanted to see Volkmar Schmidt in action.

Volkmar Schmidt argued ably to Lee Harvey Oswald -- "If somebody had stopped Hitler before he took power, it would have saved millions of lives!" And many other arguments for several hours. (We know this argument was effective for Oswald, because he repeated it back to Marina Oswald on the morning of 11 April 1963.)

Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine had a fairly close relationship, i.e. when Michael Paine separated from Ruth Paine one of those times, he went to stay with Volkmar Schmidt for a while. Michael Paine also admitted that he was against Edwin Walker.

Volkmar Schmidt also gave an interview to our own Bill Kelly, which also covers some of this material.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 7, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Ever seen the film by Martin you speak of? Anyone?

[Thomas Graves]

Why would "George De Mohrenshildt, Volkmar Schmidt and various young Dallas engineers" want to kill Edwin Walker in April qf 1963?

--Tommy

Good question, Tommy -- thanks for the invitation to explain this important nuance of the JFK murder.

We know from George De Mohrenschildt's last writing that he hated Edwin Walker. He taught Lee Harvey Oswald to call him, "General Fokker". Then they would laugh and laugh.

We know from the personal confessions of Volkmar Schmidt that he tried to convince Lee Harvey Oswald for hours to channel his anger against JFK over the Bay of Pigs toward anger against Edwin Walker for the Ole Miss riots of 1962.

Both De Mohrenschildt and Schmidt speak about this in the context of a dinner party in Dallas, given for young engineers (mostly oil engineers), in which Schmidt would ply his craft of psychology (both his parents were psychologists) on the raw material of Lee Harvey Oswald.

This party occurred in early February 1963.

Now, let's look at USA history in this period. The biggest domestic news of that day -- for young, liberal yuppies, was that Ole Miss University was the victim of a brutal race riot on the final night of September 1962, and Edwin Walker was known to have started it.

On the first morning of October 1962, JFK and RFK had Edwin Walker arrested and sent to a nut house. In three days Edwin Walker was freed after protests by the ACLU and many others. In December Edwin Walker started his Grand Jury hearings in Mississippi. His lawyers (Robert Morris and Clyde Watts) argued brilliantly, that Walker was on trial for being insane. They produced many psychiatrists to prove that Walker was sane, and they called two hostile witnesses -- the two psychiatrists who admitted Walker to the Springfield insane asylum in cooperation with RFK and JFK.

Morris and Watts turned the table on these two psychiatrists, and put them on the defensive. "Are you saying that all right-wing people should be locked up in a loony bin?!" The psychiatrists replied, "No, of course not." The Grand Jury then acquitted Edwin Walker.

Edwin Walker was acquitted in late January 1963.

A great shock ran through the liberals in the USA -- including the young liberal engineers of Dallas, including Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine and their spouses and associates. They held this dinner party only a few days later. They all knew that the Oswalds would be invited. They all wanted to see Volkmar Schmidt in action.

Volkmar Schmidt argued ably to Lee Harvey Oswald -- "If somebody had stopped Hitler before he took power, it would have saved millions of lives!" And many other arguments for several hours. (We know this argument was effective for Oswald, because he repeated it back to Marina Oswald on the morning of 11 April 1963.)

Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine had a fairly close relationship, i.e. when Michael Paine separated from Ruth Paine one of those times, he went to stay with Volkmar Schmidt for a while. Michael Paine also admitted that he was against Edwin Walker.

Volkmar Schmidt also gave an interview to our own Bill Kelly, which also covers some of this material.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Trejo said,

"We know from George De Mohrenschildt's last writing that he hated Edwin Walker."

...

"Both De Mohrenschildt and Schmidt speak about this [schmidt's efforts to brainwash Oswald] in the context of a dinner party in Dallas, given for young engineers (mostly oil engineers), in which Schmidt would ply his craft of psychology ... on the raw material of Lee Harvey Oswald."

...

"The biggest domestic news of that day -- for young, liberal yuppies, was that Ole Miss University was the victim of a brutal race riot on the final night of September 1962, and Edwin Walker was known to have started it."

...

"A great shock ran through the liberals in the USA [when Edwin Walker was acquitted]-- including the young liberal engineers of Dallas, including Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine and their spouses and associates."

Question #1:

So de Mohrenschildt claimed late in life to hate Edwin Walker. Why would George De Mohrenschildt hate Edwin Walker?

Because Walker was a violent segregationist?

Because Baron von Mohrenschildt, being so pro-democracy, was afraid that General Walker would lead a far right military putsch against the government, or start a civil war?

Question #2:

Do you think Dallas was a hotbed of liberal-minded anti-segregationsts, yuppie oil engineers or otherwise, in 1963?

Question #3:

As I recall, most anti-segregations at the time were liberal across the board.

On what other issues were Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine, and George de Mohrenschildt known to have taken a liberal stance?

(Michael Paine's belonging to the ACLU and attending a few meeting doesn't qualify IMHO. He could have been spying on it and it's Dallas members.)

--Tommy

Edited November 7, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Question #1:

So de Mohrenschildt claimed late in life to hate Edwin Walker. Why would George De Mohrenschildt hate Edwin Walker?
* Because Walker was a violent segregationist?
* Because Baron von Mohrenschildt, being so pro-democracy, was afraid that General Walker would lead a far right military putsch against the government, or start a civil war?

Question #2:

Do you think Dallas was a hotbed of liberal-minded anti-segregationsts, yuppie oil engineers or otherwise, in 1963?

Question #3:

As I recall, most anti-segregations at the time were liberal across the board.
* On what other issues were Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine, and George de Mohrenschildt known to have taken a liberal stance?
* (Michael Paine's belonging to the ACLU and attending a few meeting doesn't qualify IMHO. He could have been spying on it and it's Dallas members.)

--Tommy

OK, Tommy, by the numbers:

#1:

You're right to question the motives of George De Mohrenschildt (DM), because in fact he was a rich playboy who had few morals of any kind. There is some speculation that he had (or wanted) an affair with Marina Oswald, even though he was a family man.

George was known to be unfaithful to his wife -- this even came out in the Warren Report. George started a Bohemian Club in Dallas. He also liked to shock people -- he thought it was fun. One of his speeches at his Bohemian Club was to defend Joseph Goebbels, as I recall, just to shock people. George DM was always convinced of his superiority, having been born very rich.

As Mae Brussell liked to point out, after the De Mohrenschildt family lost their Estate in Russia due to the 1917 Russian Revolution, young George DM and his brother tried at first to topple the USSR any way they could, including supporting the Third Reich for awhile. They failed, so they came to America to start over. They did fairly well.

Volkmar Schmidt, who associated with George DM socially (beyond the oil business) still preferred to keep George away from his wife and children. Before he (allegedly) committed suicide, George DM was penniless, his wife and children abandoned him, and George begged Volkmar Schmidt to come to live with him -- but Volkmar's wife would not have him in the house.

So -- George DM had moral issues -- nobody denies that, not even his friends. Also, George DM supported the Third Reich for awhile, trying to get his Russian Estate back, but he gave that up when he came to the USA. Around 1962, some say he made a deal with the CIA to baby-sit Lee Harvey Oswald in exchange for connections in Haiti to make a lucrative oil development contract. This was his business and he finally struck it rich. The trouble was that he couldn't stop himself from meddling in Oswald's life.

In any case, knowing that Haiti is populated almost entirely by African-Latin-Americans, George DM made a big show about how non-racist he was. He openly said many times that he liked Lee Harvey Oswald because Oswald showed some sympathy toward the plight of Black Americans.

It was for money, one may argue, but George DM's persona in Dallas was that of a LIBERAL. It may have been all a show, but George DM mocked General Walker and called him General FOKKER. This made Lee Harvey Oswald laugh. (If you haven't read George DM's final confession, "I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!" you'll find most of this data in there.)

Even in his Warren Commission testimony, George DM put in a negative word about General Walker.

#2:

Actually, Dallas was the right-wing capital of the USA. But one thinks too one-sidedly if one believes that Dallas had ZERO non-conformists. Yuppies are well-known for their Liberality. Contrary to the vast majority in Dallas, there were a few young Liberals in Dallas in 1963. Quakers, for example.

#3:

Volkmar Schmidt made the argument on FRONTLINE that Walker was a public enemy -- and could have turned into another Hitler if he hadn't been checked.

Michael Paine expressed his racial liberality even to the Warren Commission. So did George DM.

Your argument, Tommy, seems to be based on rigid, either/or logic that since Dallas was mostly right-wing, then it must have been ALL right-wing, and there were no liberals at all anywhere in Dallas.

The written and video evidence we have shows the EXCEPTION to the rule. There were a few Liberals in Dallas -- and George DM was among them -- so were Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine and their friends.

Sadly, following Mae Brussell, one can tend to conclude that Michael Paine was a CIA agent working for the secret Nazi government in the USA. There are only a few valuable tidbits in Mae Brussell's work, IMHO, and her general theory of a Nazi plot to kill JFK is one-sided and appreciates no nuances.

Michael Paine was Conservative, mostly, but this doesn't make him a CIA spy -- the way the Mae Brussell camp likes to believe.

I realize that my position is in the minority among the JFK research community, but my position has the advantage of a lot of evidence, and a less one-sided approach to the evidence.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 8, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Burnham]

[ ... ]

I realize that my position is in the minority among the JFK research community, but my position has the advantage of a lot of evidence, and a less one-sided approach to the evidence.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I agree that there is less than one side (perhaps only a third of a side) to your approach as it is so narrowly focused. But, I disagree that your position has a "lot of evidence" since

you have yet to provide any beyond very, very monotonous--albeit lengthy--anecdotal story telling, constituting repetitive claims...never proved or even supported by any type of

documentation. That is not evidence. At best it is conjecture.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Greg Burnham

[Paul Trejo]

I agree that there is less than one side (perhaps only a third of a side) to your approach as it is so narrowly focused. But, I disagree that your position has a "lot of evidence" since you have yet to provide any beyond very, very monotonous--albeit lengthy--anecdotal story telling, constituting repetitive claims...never proved or even supported by any type of documentation. That is not evidence. At best it is conjecture.

Well, Greg, you're quite mistaken.

The documented evidence I have is very large -- it begins with the Warren Commission documents.

I realize this is a problem for one-sided, either/or thinkers, because I totally reject the conclusion of the Warren Report. The Warren Report was tragically slanted to make Lee Harvey Oswald into the "Lone Shooter" according to the mandate of J. Edgar Hoover. Therefore, the FBI stomped on all evidence that suggested any accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald -- including ballistics and medical evidence. So, there is much in the Warren Report to question.

Nevertheless, the Warren Report also has thousands of pages of testimony from eye witnesses, and this remains valuable and indispensable to this very day.

The fact is, that in the first five volumes of the Warren Commission volumes alone, the name of Ex-General Edwin Walker appears more than 500 times. In 1963-1964, people who watched the news knew that Edwin Walker was a prime suspect.

After that time, even somebody close to the New Orleans episode of the Oswald legacy, like Jim Garrison, lost touch with the importance of Edwin Walker as a suspect in the JFK murder.

Aside from the Warren Commission, we also have the personal papers of Edwin Walker made available to historians at the Dolph Briscoe Center for American History at UT Austin. That's 90 boxes of historical documentation.

Aside from that, FBI documents appear as a result of FOIA activity, even in this Forum, e.g. through the efforts of Ernie Lazar, that suggest Edwin Walker's activities along with suspects like Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Also, a new book will emerge next year by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield to focus on Edwin Walker's role in the JFK murder -- the first of such documentation in fifty years -- including, e.g. a direct connection between Joseph Milteer, Stanley Drennan, Robert Allen Surrey and Edwin Walker in Dallas.

So, you see, Greg, there's plenty of documentation on my side -- and you're entirely mistaken.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 7, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Tom Hume]

Paul T, a couple of questions to expand on Paul B's question from post #539.

I agree that the John T Martin film that Harold Weisberg and Gary Schoener received from Martin in 1968 (Martin appearing to be around thirty at the time) could be potentially important. If it is legit, it would appear to establish some kind of link between Oswald and General Walker.

You stated that you viewed a copy of the John T Martin film provided by Gary Mack, and that it contained only about one second of footage of Oswald handing out leaflets in New Orleans, yet Weisberg and Schoener claimed to have studied that same segment for days. This doesn't sound like the footage you viewed.

A couple of years ago on the "Jack S Martin Jr" thread, you posted a letter your received from Gary Schoener; here is a segment:

"I'm still looking around for my copy of the film to screen it and see what they are talking about. If this is accurate I would have trouble explaining: 1. why Martin told us what he did; 2. why Martin would have given us the film. Unfortunately, there are many John Martin's in the phone book here and I have not had the time to try to locate him. I feel old just saying this -- but it was 25 years ago! Can so much time have passed? "

Gary Schoener has only posted once on this forum, but he is still listed as a member. Do you think it would be worthwhile to see if you could procure the original film attributed to John T Martin? I, for one, would really like to see it.

Also, while many men named "John" refer to themselves as "Jack", many, perhaps most, do not. You most often refer to "John T Martin" as "Jack Martin". If there is a source for this man using the name "Jack", could you please direct me to it?

Thanks,

Tom

Edited November 7, 2014 by Tom Hume

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T, a couple of questions to expand on Paul B's question from post #539.

I agree that the John T Martin film that Harold Weisberg and Gary Schoener received from Martin in 1968 (Martin appearing to be around thirty at the time) could be potentially important. If it is legit, it would appear to establish some kind of link between Oswald and General Walker.

You stated that you viewed a copy of the John T Martin film provided by Gary Mack, and that it contained only about one second of footage of Oswald handing out leaflets in New Orleans, yet Weisberg and Schoener claimed to have studied that same segment for days. This doesn't sound like the footage you viewed.

A couple of years ago on the "Jack S Martin Jr" thread, you posted a letter your received from Gary Schoener; here is a segment:

"I'm still looking around for my copy of the film to screen it and see what they are talking about. If this is accurate I would have trouble explaining: 1. why Martin told us what he did; 2. why Martin would have given us the film. Unfortunately, there are many John Martin's in the phone book here and I have not had the time to try to locate him. I feel old just saying this -- but it was 25 years ago! Can so much time have passed? "

Gary Schoener has only posted once on this forum, but he is still listed as a member. Do you think it would be worthwhile to see if you could procure the original film attributed to John T Martin? I, for one, would really like to see it.

Also, while many men named "John" refer to themselves as "Jack", many, perhaps most, do not. You most often refer to "John T Martin" as "Jack Martin". If there is a source for this man using the name "Jack", could you please direct me to it?

Thanks,

Tom

Well, Tom, I agree with you that the version currently displayed online by the Sixth Floor Museum is probably not same one that Gary Schoener obtained from John (Jack) Martin in 1968. Not the way they described it -- or even the way that Martin Shackelford described it in his famous film list of the 1990's.

Since you asked about the name "Jack" Martin, I use that name because I first learned about this film was from Martin Shackelford's famous list, which is still available online in many places, for example, at this URL:

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/MS/3pe.html

The confusing thing, of course, is that Jack S. Martin, Sr. was one of the detectives working for Guy Banister, and who originally spilled the beans to Jim Garrison about the role of Guy Banister and David Ferrie and Clay Shaw. But he was fifty years old in 1963, while the "Jack Martin Film" was made by a youngster of 19 or 20.

Anyway, read Martin Shackleford's description of this film -- it doesn't match the online presentation by the Dallas Sixth Floor Museum, IMHO.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 7, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Tom Hume]

Paul,

I did not get my “implied” question answered. I’ll be more direct.

At one time you had corresponded with Gary Schoener who at that time had possession of the original “John T Martin” film. Since you have a connection with Gary, will you try get a hold of the film so we can all have a chance to study it?

Trying your link to Martin Shackelford's famous list yields this: “Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.”

However, this from your January 9, 2012 post #22 on the “Jack S Martin” thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4738&hl=%20jack%20%20martin&page=6

“Bill, my source for this interesting item is Martin Shackelford's 1996 listing of films with Lee Harvey Oswald as the subject. Here is an excerpt from that listing. I include not only the "Jack Martin Film" but also the "James Doyle Film" to show that they are not the same film:

<snip>

THE NEW ORLEANS FILMS (by Martin Shackelford):

Oswald's activities in New Orleans attracted the attention of both tourists and a professional cameraman.

2a. The Jack Martin Film (8-9-63) In another of those aforementioned ironic twists, a tourist named Jack Martin was in Dallas in August 1963. His film records his view from the airplane. Next, he visits General Edwin Walker, under whom he had served, allegedly target of an assassination attempt by Lee Oswald in April of that year. The film documents the scene of that attempt: the window through which the shot was fired, the bullet hole, and the wall from behind which it was most likely fired, ending with shots of Walker's flag and mailbox, and a nearby building under construction (allegedly also photographed by Oswald prior to the attempt!) .

Then we see the entrance to a movie theater, cypress trees, a seal at the edge of a pool,and the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Park in New Orleans. Aroused by a commotion on Canal Street, Martin crossed to see what was happening, and began filming. We see Lee Oswald, leaflets in hand,standing on the sidewalk, being harangued by anti-Castro militants including Carlos Bringuier. Four police officers are seen arriving. The film ends with a view of the yellow leaflets scattered on the sidewalk after Bringuier knocked them out of Oswald's hands, and a brief aerial view of a subdivision. Parts of the film have only been used, to my knowledge, on the French television documentary, "Le Mystere Kennedy." The documentary is available on video, and frames from the film as well, from The Collector's Archives. A still from this film was finally published in Robert Groden's 1995 book, "The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald," an essential photo archive on Oswald.

2b. The James Doyle Film (8-9-63) James Doyle was a 16 year old teenager, visiting New Orleans with his family in early August 1963. His film begins in Lafayette Park, New Orleans, and includes a view of the Andrew Jackson statue. He, too, then noticed a commotion along Canal Street, crossed over to investigate, and began filming. Lee Oswald, back to the camera, is talking with Carlos Bringuier, when a police officer arrives, pushes Bringuier aside, and talks with Oswald, who gestures. Oswald is then seen through the crowd, under arrest, obscured, moving to the left, and we see him and the officer at curb side. The film ends with harbor views. To my knowledge, this film has only appeared in one television program, the British "Dispatches: The Day the Dream Died," available (as are frames) from The Collector's Archives or from All That Video (405 Hopkins Court,North Wales PA 19434, phone (213) 361-1365.) A still from this film was also first published in the 1995 Groden book.”

This film appears to be an important piece of evidence, especially for your “theory”. I can think of at least three possibilities: (1) There was in fact a connection between Walker and Oswald before the assassination. (2) Somebody tried to fabricate a connection. (3) The John T Martin film is a very unlikely coincidence.

Tom

[Thomas Graves]

Question #1:

So de Mohrenschildt claimed late in life to hate Edwin Walker. Now why would George De Mohrenschildt hate Edwin Walker?

Because Walker was a violent segregationist?

Because Baron von Mohrenschildt, being so pro-democracy, was afraid that General Walker would lead a far right military putsch against the government, or start a civil war?

Question #2:

Do you think Dallas was a hotbed of liberal-minded anti-segregationsts, yuppie oil engineers or otherwise, in 1963?

Question #3:

As I recall, most anti-segregations at the time were liberal across the board.

On what other issues were Volkmar Schmidt, Michael Paine, and George de Mohrenschildt known to have taken a liberal stance?

(Michael Paine's belonging to the ACLU and attending a few meeting doesn't qualify IMHO. He could have been spying on it and it's Dallas members.)

--Tommy

[...]

Well, Paul, since you didn't really answer Question #1, let me rephrase it for you--

Why did George de Mohrenschildt hate Edwin Walker so much that he and his friends encouraged Oswald, as you claim, to kill Walker?

Because de Mohrenschildt, a Russian-born baron whom British Intelligence believed was a Nazi agent, loved black people so much and hated Walker for being a high-profile and powerful racist?

Because "The Baron" loved the United States' democratic process so much and was afraid that right-wing Walker would lead a putsch against the government?

Because "The Baron" was so afraid that Walker would start a Far-Right-versus-Far-Left civil war?

Once again, why would the conservative "Baron", whom British Intelligence believed was a Nazi agent, hate ultra-conservative Edwin Walker so darn much that he and his friends would encourage Oswald, as you claim, to kill Walker?

Answer: If George de Mohrenschildt and his right-wing buddies actually encouraged Peaceful "Marxist" Oswald to try to kill Walker, it makes more sense to me that they so in order to make him appear to be Violent "Marxist" Oswald in some future event (which might even have been unknown to them).

--Tommy

Edited November 8, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Well, Paul, since you didn't really answer Question #1, let me rephrase it for you--

Why did George de Mohrenschildt hate Edwin Walker so much that he and his friends encouraged Oswald, as you claim, to kill Walker?

Because de Mohrenschildt, a Russian-born baron whom British Intelligence believed was a Nazi agent, loved black people so much and hated Walker for being a high-profile and powerful racist?

Because "The Baron" loved the United States' democratic process so much and was afraid that right-wing Walker would lead a putsch against the government?

Because "The Baron" was so afraid that Walker would start a Far-Right-versus-Far-Left civil war?

Once again, why would the conservative "Baron", whom British Intelligence believed was a Nazi agent, hate ultra-conservative Edwin Walker so darn much that he and his friends would encourage Oswald, as you claim, to kill Walker?

Answer: If George de Mohrenschildt and his right-wing buddies actually encouraged Peaceful "Marxist" Oswald to try to kill Walker, it makes more sense to me that they so in order to make him appear to be Violent "Marxist" Oswald in some future event (which might even have been unknown to them).

--Tommy

Well, Tommy, I thought I answered Question #1 fully, so let me take a second shot at it.

George de Mohrenschildt (DM) hated Edwin Walker because he saw the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany, and the devastation that this blind racism caused to Germany (in addition to the devastation it caused to European Jews, and to Europe generally).

George DM did support the Nazi Party temporarily -- hoping to get his family's large Estate back if the USSR could be defeated. The Nazi Party failed to defeat the USSR. The Nazi Party further failed to keep Berlin from being bombed into little bits of rubble. The Nazi Party failed in all its missions.

So, even though George DM supported the Nazi Party in 1940, he also turned againt the Nazi Party after 1945. That's important. In order to make that change of politics, George DM tried very hard to become an AMERICAN. That means that he bent over backwards to erase his former, European prejudice against Black people. George DM's testimony to the Warren Commission, and his booklet to the HSCA, repeat again and again how fair-minded George DM could be, especially with regard to minority races, and to Black people in general.

In other words, George DM (for whatever reasons) became a LIBERAL, at least on the subject of racial equality. It is interesting to note that the testimony that his wife, Jeanne DM gave to the Warren Commision, showed that she herself didn't even like New York because there were so many colored people. She admitted she felt more comfortable in Dallas, where most people were white, and where white people could congregate freely in wealthy society, without colored people. George DM did not challenge his wife on the topic, but he, himself, was strident about racial equality.

Now -- the friend of George DM, Volkmar Schmidt, said that shortly after that engineer's party in Dallas, Lee Oswald went out and bought himself some weapons, and then tried to murder Edwin Walker. Volkmar said that he often felt "a little bit responsible" for that, but he emphasized, "I certainly didn't tell him to shoot Walker." So, he came to forgive himself.

My point is that the question of HATING Edwin Walker and KILLING Edwin Walker must be separated. George DM wanted to be sure that Lee Harvey Oswald HATED General Walker -- and so he would call him, "General FOKKER," when in Lee Oswald's presence.

Lee Oswald had already expressed his sympathy with the Civil Rights movement. The one thing JFK did that Lee Oswald strongly approved was his positive stand on Civil Rights for Black Americans. This was a point of agreement between Oswald and George DM.

Whether George DM wanted Lee Harvey Oswald to KILL Edwin Walker must be a moot point. The Saturday after the shooting, in response to the many Dallas news reports about the Walker shooting, George and Jeanne DM were so worried that they paid a 10 PM visit to the Oswald home -- got them out of bed -- and Jeane DM searched for any weapons. She found Oswald's Manlicher-Carcano with a scope on it. That was when George DM guessed that Oswald had taken a 'pot-shot' at Edwin Walker, and Oswald didn't deny it -- but then George laughed to break the ice, and they all laughed. (Actually, there are differing versions of that story in the Warren Commission volumes.)

Did George DM tell Lee Oswald to KILL Edwin Walker? All we can opine with some certainty is that Lee Harvey Oswald BELIEVED that Edwin Walker (and Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine and the yuppie engineers in Dallas) WANTED him to kill Edwin Walker.

The writing on the backyard photograph of Oswald in the possession of George DM, "Hunter of Fascists, ha ha", and signed by Lee Harvey Oswald himself, lends itself to a tragic conclusion.

So, Tommy, the flaw in your question as worded is your assumption that because George DM was a Nazi supporter in the 1940's, that he could never change his mind and become Liberal after he moved to the USA, in order to fit in better with American Society. We must also remember that George DM was fairly close to the family of Jackie Kennedy -- a very LIBERAL family. George DM changed.

If you can't accept that a rightist Baron could convert and become a Liberal oil-engineer in the wake of World War Two, then there's no reason to continue this specific debate.

As for any "Marxist" angle, that doesn't really enter into the legitimate picture. That was always a "front" for Oswald, and never figured into any of the language used by George DM, Volkmar Schmidt or Michael Paine. They had no interest in that. They might not have wanted to see Edwin Walker killed (but they wouldn't have minded seeing him dead, I suppose) and they certainly wanted to have no part in any murder plot -- but Lee Harvey Oswald also liked to shock people -- and I think he did this act on his own to shock his "liberal" friends.

Edwin Walker, however, believed that the Liberals (read Communists) in Dallas conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot Walker dead.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 13, 2014 by Paul Trejo