Oswald and the Shot at Walker: Redressing the Balance

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I hope the host of this thread will indulge a lengthy response to Greg.  It's related to the Walker shooting although that's not fully evident until the end.

 

Greg, in your November 24, 2021 critique of my statement on the provenance and authenticity of the 1963 datebook maintained by the enigmatic Pierre Lafitte, colleague and friend to George Hunter-White of the FBN and CI James Angleton, which you posted just eight days after the publication of the 700++ page book Coup in Dallas, you wrote,

To cut to the chase, Dick Russell gives no reason for believing it is genuine other than it contains important information if it is. Based on that--the significance of its contents if true--Dick Russell concludes "this is a crucial piece of new evidence", i.e. genuine, not forged. (The apparent logic being that surely no forgery would have such interesting content, therefore it is genuine.) Leslie Sharp says her reasons for believing are similar to Dick Russell's. None of the other writers in the book address the issue of authenticity.

My reaction is it sounds too good to be true.

This warrants renewed dissection in light of the renewed interest in the Walker incident on April 10.

GD. To cut to the chase, Dick Russell gives no reason for believing it is genuine other than it contains important information if it is.

That is simply not true, and your remark is the equivalent of Bill Barr’s misrepresentation of the findings presented in the Mueller Report. As we know, Barr launched a campaign to mislead Americans which fueled distrust of government. Similarly, your twist of the facts may have misled some forum members and fueled distrust of Hank’s investigation.

Can you tell me if you read Coup cover to cover prior to posting your critique?

For the record, Dick Russell made clear that because much of the information in the datebook corroborates what he had uncovered in the process of writing The Man Who Knew Too Much, he had reason to believe the datebook is authentic, pending professional authentication. His caveat is to be respected … that because he was not the investigator who gained access to the datebook, nor had he seen the physical instrument, he could not personally attest to authentication. Simple, succinct, logical. Had you read carefully, Dick also underscored that certain detail in the Lafitte record from 1963 was not known publicly prior to the mid-to-late ‘70s. I hope you will give that serious thought.

 

GD. Dick Russell concludes "this is a crucial piece of new evidence", i.e. genuine, not forged.  

 

You repeat your subtle attempt to erode general faith in Dick’s expertise. And again, you fail to acknowledge that Dick quite deliberately assigned a caveat to his limited analysis of the datebook, as he should have under the unique circumstances. He also indicates that based on his considerable knowledge of the investigation, which I venture surpasses your own in most areas, this [datebook] is a crucial piece of evidence for the reasons stated.

 

GD. The apparent logic being that surely no forgery would have such interesting content . . .

A ludicrous assessment, Greg, and another insult to Dick. He did not suggest he found the entries in the datebook to be “interesting” [a word search of Dick’s contributions to Coup does not produce the word “interesting.” Yet another example of your editorializing couched as fact.] 

Once again, Dick observed that certain entries — which he enumerated, btw — contain detail that wouldn’t appear in the public domain for another twelve to fifteen years. 

GD. Leslie Sharp says her reasons for believing are similar to Dick Russell's.

Are you quite certain that is my wording? Did I not stress that my reasons for trusting the authenticity and provenance were unique? 

G. None of the other writers in the book address the issue of authenticity.

Allen Kent, coauthor and trusted colleague of Hank Albarelli since 2013, had no reason to address provenance and authenticity in his contributions to the book, nor did Charles Drago — another of Hank’s trusted confidants, or @Anthony Thorne who I invited to the project to represent the continuity of the Coup in Dallas with his essay. I believe if you emailed any one of these gentlemen, they would readily supply you with reasons they chose to add their names to Hank’s effort.

 

GD/ My reaction is it sounds too good to be true.

Which leads me to your most recent exposé related to the Walker shooting.  

“There is no other candidate for Coleman's No. 1 to my knowledge. In favor of Bob Schmidt as No. 1 is the plausibility of vet Bob Schmidt known to be in Dallas and in Robert Surrey/Walker circles in early 1963 via his brother Larrie, possible need for money (reflected in the Larrie Schmidt letters), and there is the decades-later hearsay claim.”

 

In other words, Greg, you applied deductive reasoning? It seems you reject the process when it's employed by other investigative journalists.

You then write, “And then the long narrow face.”

And here you venture into facial recognition which is hardly a science unless one uses professional instruments.  Presumably you have access to said instruments and ran an analysis on that “long narrow face”?  OR, are you asking us to go along with your speculation simply because it’s yours? An appeal to authority —because you’ve studied the Dead Sea Scrolls?

You continue, “When I saw the long narrow face I said to myself, "Self, I think this may be a match." Anyway that's my best guess at identity of No. 1. Robert L. Schmidt seems to check most of the boxes as at least possible for No. 1--if this isn't a false positive.”

 

Apparently you’ve drawn a fair;u subjective assessment, based on the trajectory of your pursuit of No. 1. It happens to plausible, and you provide us with a step by step of how you arrived at your guess, but to assert it is “scholarly” is a stretch imv.  I think more accurately, impressive gumshoe detective work.

So, with all respect warranted, on the heels of your publication and in spite of your self-acknowledged guess at the identity of No. 1, esteemed journalist Jefferson Morley recently opined, The breakthrough came on March 11, when Greg Doudna, a JFK researcher from Bellingham, Washington, posted a 79-page paper about the Walker incident on his Web site, scrollery.com. The story is corroborated and fleshed out by the research of Gayle Nix Jackson, the granddaughter of Orville Nix, a bystander on November 22 who filmed JFK’s assassination.”

He continues,

I have only recently made Doudna’s acquaintance but the quality of his scholarship is obvious to anyone who reviews it. Want to know about the Dead Sea scrolls? Doudna is your dude.

 

I must ask whether In the instance of this recent limited post of yours on EF, you’re entirely comfortable with his reference to the overall quality of scholarship when you close with “it’s a guess” (paraphrasing).

I see no reference to this guess in the article.  I do see that he invoked Gayle Nix Jackson, who I highly respect fwiw, but can she corroborate your findings any more credibly than Dick Russell — who favorably analyzed the Lafitte datebook (with caveat), corroborating Hank’s primary source material to the extent he was willing to put his reputation on the line? 

 

For this reason, I recently joined with Jim di Eugenio to ask, “why now”? I hope you can stay with me on this . . . 

As Jeff is aware having been invited by me to peruse first-hand the Lafitte datebook — and as highlighted by Dick Russell in his limited analysis — one of the most significant entries in the Lafitte book dated April 7 — three days before the shots were fired at the Walker residence in Dallas — reads,

 

Walker — Lee and pictures. Planned soon — can he do it? Won’t.

 Dick writes,

·       The name of WALKER appears more than once, initially concerning the shooting attempt on his life that Oswald was later accused of. “April 7 – Walker – Lee and pictures. Planned soon – can he do it? Won’t.” (it’s possible that the word is ‘Wait.’) The indication is, someone was setting up Oswald to do this, but he didn’t want to. The shot was fired at Walker on April 10. Later references indicate that General Walker was in fact aware of, if not in on, the plot to kill JFK.

 

Admittedly, I continue to harbor frustration that in 2013, Hank provided Jeff with details of two entries in the Lafitte datebook — August 16 and August 21 that reference Joannides; one references a meeting at Antoine’s in New Orleans; one identifies Martello and Quiqley as well as Labadie (I assume you know the significance of all of these names); Hunter-White; Siragusa; and [J.C.] King; however, for reasons known to Jeff and Hank, Jeff failed to pursue the Joannides lead Hank handed him on a platter. I believe the current working theory is that the last batch of withheld documents will include proof that Joannides initiated an operation in NOLA that involved Oswald three months before the assassination ... late August. Surely you grasp the significance, and why it might be concerning that Hank's source material, shared with Jeff in 2013, may well serve to confirm those documents. And please consider that if the documents have been locked away for 60 years, how could Lafitte have known about Joannides in New Orleans at Antoines discussing Oswald?  And, according to Lafitte, Wm. King Harvey, Joseph Silverthorne, and Santo Trafficante showed up  in NOLA just days prior to the first Joannides entry?

To conclude, I hope you can appreciate that it’s mildly concerning that Jeff meets you and within a few weeks, designates your guesswork which included amateur facial recognition to be scholarly, while you both remain skeptical of Hank’s primary source material that — and herein lies the confusing logic — actually supports the current hypothesis that the Walker shooting was staged.  Is not far more logical to maintain an open mind instead of jumping to, that datebook is“too good to be true”? I’m perfectly willing to indulge your guesswork because “logic” suggests that facts are converging to indicate we are all pursuing significant evidence the Walker shooting was indeed staged, and Oswald was somehow involved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can’t speak for Greg, but until the datebook is fully authenticated by independent experts, it will not be taken seriously by a large portion of JFK community, let alone the general public. If you want people to stop thinking the datebook is a fake you need to prove it isn’t fake. It’s as simple as that. 

If something seems too good to be true, it probably is, so you can’t blame people for having doubts about a datebook with such comically incriminating entries like “rifle into building”, etc.

If the datebook is ever authenticated, and that’s a big if, it would instantly become one of the most important items of evidence in the entire JFK case. Everyone and their brother would obsessively analyze the entries until their eyes bled, and Coup in Dallas would sell like Twilight. If I were you I’d drop everything and put all my energy into arranging for an in-depth forensic examination.

Based on a cursory Google search, a new method for the absolute Carbon dating of paper just came out last year, and was tested with extremely accurate results (<3yrs) on paper samples from 1950-2018: 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35195289/

Of course, the entires could have just been written on old paper, so you’d need to take it a step further to really convince people. Here’s a Nov. 2021 literature review of forensic analytical approaches to document dating that should contain everything you’d need to know to authenticate the datebook: 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0026265X21008080

Edited March 31, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Greg Doudna]

Leslie, I was not meaning at all to "erode general faith in Dick’s expertise" as you are trying to make me out. I came to a different opinion on a matter on which reasonable people will disagree. That does not mean someone is criticizing someone else's expertise. To answer your question, I did not read every word of Coup in Dallas (never claimed to, and doubt I ever will, for reason explained below). 

I have just reread Dick Russell's Foreward (pp. v-vi) and "The Lafitte Datebook: A Limited Analysis" (ix-xiii), in Coup in Dallas. In "A Limited Analysis", here Dick Russell expresses belief in authenticity of the Lafitte datebook in the second sentence bolded below, and gives his explanation in that same sentence ("based on the entries I have seen"):

"Pending verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts, I have carefully reviewed the 1963 datebook allegedly written by Jean Pierre Lafitte. Based on the entries I have seen, cryptic as many of them are (no doubt intentionally), this is a crucial piece of new evidence indicating a high-level conspiracy that resulted in the assassination that November 22 of President John F. Kennedy. Many of the names are familiar to me ... A number of these names, however, were not [Russell's bold] known publicly in 1963 and for more than a decade thereafter. Thus, assuming the datebook entries were indeed set down at that time by Lafitte, this adds substantial credibility to the likelihood that the document contains never-before-revealed information about a conspiracy involving..." (bold added)

The first sentence with bolding is a caveat. The second sentence with bolding is a statement affirming authenticity citing a reason: "based on the entries I have seen". 

The apparent basis is the existence of names dated in the datebook to 1963 which only became known in JFK assassination documents and to researchers in later times. To some (such as me) that increases the question as to authenticity. To others, apparently including Russell, that becomes an argument weighing the other way, in favor of authenticity. In his Foreward, Russell states that the Lafitte datebook is authentic ("contains the strongest evidence ever published ... I state that unequivocally ... adds corroboration ... of immeasurable importance"), giving no reasons in the Forward for the belief in authenticity. But as noted, he did give a reason in "A Limited Analysis", above.

Here is the problem: the first verified knowledge of existence of the Lafitte datebook's writing occurred decades later, after those names familiar to researchers were known and familiar. So far as I can tell, Albarelli does not give an exact date for when he first saw the Lafitte datebook but says at some point widow Rene Lafitte showed it to him (pp. xv-xviii), with indication that this occurred sometime after he met her which was before he finished his book published in 2009, A Terrible Mistake. The question of the Lafitte datebook's writing's existence in 1963, as the writing internally claims, is what is in question and remains unverified. (No handwriting analyses, witness affidavits, ink analyses, etc. of which I am aware, unless you have something of this nature.) 

Even if the physical notebook were itself verified authentic from 1963 in date of its paper or manufacture or sale, the issue is whether the writing is from that year. Even if the handwriting were authenticated as written by Pierre Lafitte (who died sometime earlier than 2009)--my understanding is not even that has been done--that would rule out other forgers but would not rule out forgery, e.g. by Pierre Lafitte later in life. Instead, the logic of this project progresses from a start with a caveat statement (expressed by Dick Russell); then the rest of the book ignores that caveat, either concludes or assumes the Lafitte datebook writing is authentic to 1963; then saying, idiomatically put, "trust us"; then on to hundreds of pages of complex labyrinths of analysis and details based upon the premise that the authenticity of the writing in the datebook in 1963 has been established.

To me this has every red flag of suspected forgery, which are so very, very common in the world of literature, art, and history. Books are written about forgeries of this kind of genre. Most commonly, though not always, the motive is financial, in which if experts with reputations can be found to vouch for authenticity, an appraisal value can be documented which can be monetized, sometimes in the form of a tax deduction for a donation, other times in outright sale or appraised value. Sometimes it is a long process over years to obtain status of authenticity from experts. I am not saying this is the case here. I am saying I suspect it is, and know of no sound cause not to suspect such. Typically in such forgeries very sincere persons become advocates who are not themselves knowledgeable of any wrongdoing.

The whole thing is circular until there is that "verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts" that Dick Russell mentioned. If you would like to start a new thread on this, I am willing to continue this discussion with you there provided you agree to attempt to stick to substance and avoid ad hominem as will I to the best of my ability. However my preference would be not to discuss this, out of self-interest of not wanting a war with you. I am offering this only to get this, which has nothing to do with the Walker case, moved off of DiEugenio's page which is about the article in Kennedys and King dealing with the Walker case. 

Edited March 31, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

I can’t speak for Greg, but until the datebook is fully authenticated by independent experts, it will not be taken seriously by a large portion of JFK community, let alone the general public. If you want people to stop thinking the datebook is a fake you need to prove it isn’t fake. It’s as simple as that. 

If something seems too good to be true, it probably is, so you can’t blame people for having doubts about a datebook with such comically incriminating entries like “rifle into building”, etc.

If the datebook is ever authenticated, and that’s a big if, it would instantly become one of the most important items of evidence in the entire JFK case. Everyone and their brother would obsessively analyze the entries until their eyes bled, and Coup in Dallas would sell like Twilight. If I were you I’d drop everything and put all my energy into arranging for an in-depth forensic examination.

Based on a cursory Google search, a new method for the absolute Carbon dating of paper just came out last year, and was tested with extremely accurate results (<3yrs) on paper samples from 1950-2018: 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35195289/

Of course, the entires could have just been written on old paper, so you’d need to take it a step further to really convince people. Here’s a Nov. 2021 literature review of forensic analytical approaches to document dating that should contain everything you’d need to know to authenticate the datebook: 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0026265X21008080

Thanks, Tom.  There's no reason for you to be aware of the "water under the bridge" (which is by now DEEP GREEN $$$$) related to authentication. Assuming you haven't read Coup, I'll provide a brief summary momentarily.  (and I trust you realize that Hank, and (on his behalf), I have turned stones you haven't thought of.)

Before I do, I think it's only fair that in addition to your opinion of how we should proceed, you would address the issues raised in my response to Greg Doudna related to the Walker shooter and the Lafitte datebook entry that confirms the current working hypothesis. 

Would you be willing to do that before I recap what is in print in Coup related to the provenance and authentication — in Hank's own words, not mine?

Edited March 31, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

46 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Leslie, I was not meaning at all to "erode general faith in Dick’s expertise" as you are trying to make me out. I came to a different opinion on a matter on which reasonable people will disagree. That does not mean someone is criticizing someone else's expertise. To answer your question, I did not read every word of Coup in Dallas (never claimed to, and doubt I ever will, for reason explained below). 

I have just reread Dick Russell's Foreward (pp. v-vi) and "The Lafitte Datebook: A Limited Analysis" (ix-xiii), in Coup in Dallas. In "A Limited Analysis", here Dick Russell expresses belief in authenticity of the Lafitte datebook in the second sentence bolded below, and gives his explanation in that same sentence ("based on the entries I have seen"):

"Pending verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts, I have carefully reviewed the 1963 datebook allegedly written by Jean Pierre Lafitte. Based on the entries I have seen, cryptic as many of them are (no doubt intentionally), this is a crucial piece of new evidence indicating a high-level conspiracy that resulted in the assassination that November 22 of President John F. Kennedy. Many of the names are familiar to me ... A number of these names, however, were not [Russell's bold] known publicly in 1963 and for more than a decade thereafter. Thus, assuming the datebook entries were indeed set down at that time by Lafitte, this adds substantial credibility to the likelihood that the document contains never-before-revealed information about a conspiracy involving..." (bold added)

The first sentence with bolding is a caveat. The second sentence with bolding is a statement affirming authenticity citing a reason: "based on the entries I have seen". 

The apparent basis is the existence of names dated in the datebook to 1963 which only became known in JFK assassination documents and to researchers in later times. To some (such as me) that increases the question as to authenticity. To others, apparently including Russell, that becomes an argument weighing the other way, in favor of authenticity. In his Foreward, Russell states that the Lafitte datebook is authentic ("contains the strongest evidence ever published ... I state that unequivocally ... adds corroboration ... of immeasurable importance"), giving no reasons in the Forward for the belief in authenticity. But as noted, he did give a reason in "A Limited Analysis", above.

Here is the problem: the first verified knowledge of existence of the Lafitte datebook's writing occurred decades later, after those names familiar to researchers were known and familiar. So far as I can tell, Albarelli does not give an exact date for when he first saw the Lafitte datebook but says at some point widow Rene Lafitte showed it to him (pp. xv-xviii), with indication that this occurred sometime after he met her which was before he finished his book published in 2009, A Terrible Mistake. The question of the Lafitte datebook's writing's existence in 1963, as the writing internally claims, is what is in question and remains unverified. (No handwriting analyses, witness affidavits, ink analyses, etc. of which I am aware, unless you have something of this nature.) 

Even if the physical notebook were itself verified authentic from 1963 in date of its paper or manufacture or sale, the issue is whether the writing is from that year. Even if the handwriting were authenticated as written by Pierre Lafitte (who died sometime earlier than 2009)--my understanding is not even that has been done--that would rule out other forgers but would not rule out forgery, e.g. by Pierre Lafitte later in life. Instead, the logic of this project progresses from a start with a caveat statement (expressed by Dick Russell); then the rest of the book ignores that caveat, either concludes or assumes the Lafitte datebook writing is authentic to 1963; then saying, idiomatically put, "trust us"; then on to hundreds of pages of complex labyrinths of analysis and details based upon the premise that the authenticity of the writing in the datebook in 1963 has been established.

To me this has every red flag of suspected forgery, which are so very, very common in the world of literature, art, and history. Books are written about forgeries of this kind of genre. Most commonly, though not always, the motive is financial, in which if experts with reputations can be found to vouch for authenticity, an appraisal value can be documented which can be monetized, sometimes in the form of a tax deduction for a donation, other times in outright sale or appraised value. Sometimes it is a long process over years to obtain status of authenticity from experts. I am not saying this is the case here. I am saying I suspect it is, and know of no sound cause not to suspect such. Typically in such forgeries very sincere persons become advocates who are not themselves knowledgeable of any wrongdoing.

The whole thing is circular until there is that "verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts" that Dick Russell mentioned. If you would like to start a new thread on this, I am willing to continue this discussion with you there provided you agree to attempt to stick to substance and avoid ad hominem as will I to the best of my ability. However my preference would be not to discuss this, out of self-interest of not wanting a war with you. I am offering this only to get this, which has nothing to do with the Walker case, moved off of DiEugenio's page which is about the article in Kennedys and King dealing with the Walker case. 

 

Quickly, to put this to bed once and for all, I have a written testimonial from the executive (just starting out in his father and uncle's business in 1963) in charge of the 1962 Christmas / New Year annual promotion launched by their New England-based, national food distributorship Sweet Life Foods.  He confirms that the datebook was printed for the purpose of gifting the company's favored clients, most of whom were chefs. Although he was too young at the time to have traveled to personally hand out the datebooks, his uncle — approaching his mid-90s — didn't remember Pierre Lafitte by name or photo, but said it was likely Pierre [Jean Martin?] picked up the blank 1963 datebook either in the restaurant in up state NY or at a food expo held in New Orleans.

The instrument itself has been authenticated.

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Leslie, I was not meaning at all to "erode general faith in Dick’s expertise" as you are trying to make me out. I came to a different opinion on a matter on which reasonable people will disagree. That does not mean someone is criticizing someone else's expertise. To answer your question, I did not read every word of Coup in Dallas (never claimed to, and doubt I ever will, for reason explained below). 

I have just reread Dick Russell's Foreward (pp. v-vi) and "The Lafitte Datebook: A Limited Analysis" (ix-xiii), in Coup in Dallas. In "A Limited Analysis", here Dick Russell expresses belief in authenticity of the Lafitte datebook in the second sentence bolded below, and gives his explanation in that same sentence ("based on the entries I have seen"):

"Pending verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts, I have carefully reviewed the 1963 datebook allegedly written by Jean Pierre Lafitte. Based on the entries I have seen, cryptic as many of them are (no doubt intentionally), this is a crucial piece of new evidence indicating a high-level conspiracy that resulted in the assassination that November 22 of President John F. Kennedy. Many of the names are familiar to me ... A number of these names, however, were not [Russell's bold] known publicly in 1963 and for more than a decade thereafter. Thus, assuming the datebook entries were indeed set down at that time by Lafitte, this adds substantial credibility to the likelihood that the document contains never-before-revealed information about a conspiracy involving..." (bold added)

The first sentence with bolding is a caveat. The second sentence with bolding is a statement affirming authenticity citing a reason: "based on the entries I have seen". 

The apparent basis is the existence of names dated in the datebook to 1963 which only became known in JFK assassination documents and to researchers in later times. To some (such as me) that increases the question as to authenticity. To others, apparently including Russell, that becomes an argument weighing the other way, in favor of authenticity. In his Foreward, Russell states that the Lafitte datebook is authentic ("contains the strongest evidence ever published ... I state that unequivocally ... adds corroboration ... of immeasurable importance"), giving no reasons in the Forward for the belief in authenticity. But as noted, he did give a reason in "A Limited Analysis", above.

Here is the problem: the first verified knowledge of existence of the Lafitte datebook's writing occurred decades later, after those names familiar to researchers were known and familiar. So far as I can tell, Albarelli does not give an exact date for when he first saw the Lafitte datebook but says at some point widow Rene Lafitte showed it to him (pp. xv-xviii), with indication that this occurred sometime after he met her which was before he finished his book published in 2009, A Terrible Mistake. The question of the Lafitte datebook's writing's existence in 1963, as the writing internally claims, is what is in question and remains unverified. (No handwriting analyses, witness affidavits, ink analyses, etc. of which I am aware, unless you have something of this nature.) 

Even if the physical notebook were itself verified authentic from 1963 in date of its paper or manufacture or sale, the issue is whether the writing is from that year. Even if the handwriting were authenticated as written by Pierre Lafitte (who died sometime earlier than 2009)--my understanding is not even that has been done--that would rule out other forgers but would not rule out forgery, e.g. by Pierre Lafitte later in life. Instead, the logic of this project progresses from a start with a caveat statement (expressed by Dick Russell); then the rest of the book ignores that caveat, either concludes or assumes the Lafitte datebook writing is authentic to 1963; then saying, idiomatically put, "trust us"; then on to hundreds of pages of complex labyrinths of analysis and details based upon the premise that the authenticity of the writing in the datebook in 1963 has been established.

To me this has every red flag of suspected forgery, which are so very, very common in the world of literature, art, and history. Books are written about forgeries of this kind of genre. Most commonly, though not always, the motive is financial, in which if experts with reputations can be found to vouch for authenticity, an appraisal value can be documented which can be monetized, sometimes in the form of a tax deduction for a donation, other times in outright sale or appraised value. Sometimes it is a long process over years to obtain status of authenticity from experts. I am not saying this is the case here. I am saying I suspect it is, and know of no sound cause not to suspect such. Typically in such forgeries very sincere persons become advocates who are not themselves knowledgeable of any wrongdoing.

The whole thing is circular until there is that "verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts" that Dick Russell mentioned. If you would like to start a new thread on this, I am willing to continue this discussion with you there provided you agree to attempt to stick to substance and avoid ad hominem as will I to the best of my ability. However my preference would be not to discuss this, out of self-interest of not wanting a war with you. I am offering this only to get this, which has nothing to do with the Walker case, moved off of DiEugenio's page which is about the article in Kennedys and King dealing with the Walker case. 

Greg, if you're reading my post carefully, I have repeatedly emphasized that the datebook, and the Walker shooting, are symbiotic so in my opinion, there is no reason to move this conversation.  If Jim di prefers that we do, I'm amenable; otherwise, I hope you will stop suggesting that the questions are distinct from one another.  Walker and Datebook.  I haven't yet added the rest of Lafitte's entries that implicate Walker fully in the Skorzeny plot. It's precisely because of those entries I asked why you had never pursued the motivation of No. 1 and brother to take a shot at Walker?  And you've yet to acknowledge Hilaire du Berrier who stated he was at Walker's on November 22. Du Berrier is in the Lafitte datebook just days before the shot at Walker in Dallas in April.

 

If you're pursuing the investigation in good faith, I ask that you set aside your somewhat knee-jerk assessment of Hank's investigation and consider the aforementioned. And I hope you will reconsider reading the book you attacked eight days after it was published.  I think that was unconscionable, regardless of who authored the book.

Edited March 31, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

@Greg Doudna @Tom Gram
Delving into the Ed Forum 'way back machine,' the following is a solid foundation from which to resume the question of Surrey's motives.

Sounds very interesting, Corey. As for Walker and Surrey -- they were early critics of the Warren Commission ("Impeach Earl Warren!") and they also provided the original Conspiracy Theory -- namely, that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for a Communist Conspiracy.

It was astounding to Walker and Surrey, IMHO, that J. Edgar Hoover devised the "Lone Nut" theory before 11/22/1963 was over -- and nobody in the Mass Media wanted to hear anything but this FBI doctrine anymore.

Hoover's "Lone Nut" doctrine spelled FAILURE for Walker and Surrey, who had hoped that the JFK murder would result in the invasion of Cuba and the toppling of Fidel Castro.

So, Walker and Surrey gathered all the newspaper data they could from the week of the JFK murder to try to make their case again -- that the COMMUNISTS really killed JFK. They failed again. Their book was not a best-seller as they hoped -- and the most publicity it ever received was from the Warren Commission.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

 

Well, Steve, it appears you have arrived at about the same conclusion as Dr. Jeff Caufield in his recent book, "General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy" (2015).

For Caufield, too, a 'false flag event' had been plotted with the intent of sparking an invasion of Cuba and the assassination of Fidel Castro. If the Radical Right (led by General Walker) had been successful, then Cuba would have been Capitalist again by 1964.

However -- as history turned out -- the entire Red Plot theory, of which Oswald was at the center -- fell on its face when J. Edgar Hoover proposed the Lone Nut theory to LBJ, Allen Dulles and Earl Warren -- and they accepted it.

We have FBI evidence that Hoover announced his Lone Nut theory as early as 3pm on 11/22/1963, in records of his telephone calls with RFK. Dallas officials were pushing the idea of a Red Plot with Oswald at the center in the FPCC and the CPUSA -- however, J. Edgar Hoover had a fat file on Oswald in New Orleans, showing that Oswald was really working in a bogus FPCC run by Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street.

Also, J. Edgar Hoover had complete files on every Red in the USA -- and Oswald's name wasn't on that list. So, Hoover called RFK at about 3pm to report that Oswald was (1) not officially in the FPCC; and (2) not officially a Red.

In my reading of Caufield's new book, J. Edgar Hoover figured out General Walker's Red Plot theory of the JFK assassination within 2.5 hours. Why risk WW3 over General Walker? That was the issue of the day -- and LBJ sided with Hoover. 

The result was a Lone Nut theory that was promoted by the USA as Unquestionable Dogma (in the interest of National Security). It is still effective today, as many Journalists continue to repeat the myth that Oswald was a Red.

We apparently agree that before 4pm on 11/22/1963, the Red Plot theory of General Walker had fizzled out. This tells us more about the genius of J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI files than about the folly of General Walker.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Based on a cursory Google search, a new method for the absolute Carbon dating of paper just came out last year, and was tested with extremely accurate results (<3yrs) on paper samples from 1950-2018: 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35195289/

Even though this is off-topic of Walker, this is truly interesting Tom, thanks, I didn't know that--this is new and significant. I know quite a bit about radiocarbon dating and for texts, about +/- ca. 30 years (one standard deviation, 68% confidence) is about the edge of the envelope best that is possible. But, this shows that for paper, and in principle it should follow for any other organic artifact, after 1950, the article shows precision of as good as +/- 3 is obtainable (due to the rapid dropoff of atmospheric carbon measurements following the end of atmospheric nuclear bomb testing). Good find!

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Greg, if you're reading my post carefully, I have repeatedly emphasized that the datebook, and the Walker shooting, are symbiotic so in my opinion, there is no reason to move this conversation.  If Jim di prefers that we do, I'm amenable; otherwise, I hope you will stop suggesting that the questions are distinct from one another.  Walker and Datebook.  I haven't yet added the rest of Lafitte's entries that implicate Walker fully in the Skorzeny plot. It's precisely because of those entries I asked why you had never pursued the motivation of No. 1 and brother to take a shot at Walker?  And you've yet to acknowledge Hilaire du Berrier who stated he was at Walker's on November 22. Du Berrier is in the Lafitte datebook just days before the shot at Walker in Dallas in April.

If you're pursuing the investigation in good faith, I ask that you set aside your somewhat knee-jerk assessment of Hank's investigation and consider the aforementioned. And I hope you will reconsider reading the book you attacked eight days after it was published.  I think that was unconscionable, regardless of who authored the book.

OK I see your point, the Lafitte datebook refers to the Walker shot, if its authentic that would be relevant to Walker. If we had some bread we could have a ham sandwich, if we had some ham. To me it isn't relevant, because nothing in that Lafitte datebook is relevant or of interest unless it is vetted for authenticity first, because I assume it is inauthentic unless shown otherwise.

(I accept what you report on the physical notebook or instrument of the paper being 1963, which clears up that detail. It is also what would be expected in any case of an actual forgery not done by total amateurs--use paper of the correct ancient date which will carbon-date to the right age, etc. The single most important next question would be forensic identification of the writer of the handwriting, on the basis of comparative examples examined by handwriting experts. The absence of any expert analysis on the record stating it is Pierre Lafitte's handwriting makes more likely a reconstruction that it was someone other than Pierre Lafitte who wrote it, in a genuine datebook from 1963 that did belong to Pierre Lafitte. Incidentally, is the widow not willing to make a simple statement under oath stating specific dates and circumstances to the best of her memory of this item? Why not? Why should anyone in the JFK research community reasonably rely upon an artifact that no one else saw for decades if even the widow who produced it will not vouch for it?) 

You say "you've yet to acknowledge Hilaire du Berrier who stated he was at Walker's on November 22". First, I don't see what that has to do with April 10, 1963 and the Walker shot in terms of evidence I recognize, the question with which my paper dealt with. Second, I never heard of Hilaire du Berrier, the American Mercury (right-wing) correspondent, but I did look him up just now in the index of Coup in Dallas and found the information on pp. 428-29. He says he was staying at Walker's house on Nov 22 when Walker was gone to Shreveport. The only connection of him with April 10 comes from the Lafitte datebook, which to me should not be considered until the authenticity issue is resolved. So you have to take that up with others, I'm not your person for that. 

Edited April 1, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

OK I see your point, the Lafitte datebook refers to the Walker shot, if its authentic that would be relevant to Walker. If we had some bread we could have a ham sandwich, if we had some ham. To me it isn't relevant, because nothing in that Lafitte datebook is relevant or of interest unless it is vetted for authenticity first, because I assume it is inauthentic unless shown otherwise.

(I accept what you report on the physical notebook or instrument of the paper being 1963, which clears up that detail. It is also what would be expected in any case of an actual forgery not done by total amateurs--use paper of the correct ancient date which will carbon-date to the right age, etc. The single most important next question would be forensic identification of the writer of the handwriting, on the basis of comparative examples examined by handwriting experts. The absence of any expert analysis on the record stating it is Pierre Lafitte's handwriting makes more likely a reconstruction that it was someone other than Pierre Lafitte who wrote it, in a genuine datebook from 1963 that did belong to Pierre Lafitte. Incidentally, is the widow not willing to make a simple statement under oath stating specific dates and circumstances to the best of her memory of this item? Why not? Why should anyone in the JFK research community reasonably rely upon an artifact that no one else saw for decades if even the widow who produced it will not vouch for it?) 

You say "you've yet to acknowledge Hilaire du Berrier who stated he was at Walker's on November 22". First, I don't see what that has to do with April 10, 1963 and the Walker shot in terms of evidence I recognize, the question with which my paper dealt with. Second, I never heard of Hilaire du Berrier, the American Mercury (right-wing) correspondent, but I did look him up just now in the index of Coup in Dallas and found the information on pp. 428-29. He says he was staying at Walker's house on Nov 22 when Walker was gone to Shreveport. The only connection of him with April 10 comes from the Lafitte datebook, which to me should not be considered until the authenticity issue is resolved. So you have to take that up with others, I'm not your person for that. 

I was just sharing with a friend that I'll be leaving the forum today.  It's the last day of Women's History Month, somewhat an auspicious milestone considering the experience. It happens that we plan to publish a facsimile of the Lafitte datebook with a brief narrative per entry so the time spent here will be better applied to that project.  As I told the friend, this isn't a fight or flight scenario, nor is it a taking my toys and storming home drama but instead, "I did what I came to do." 

Someone else suggested that those behind Hank's investigation 100% are  "well meaning" and "best intentioned".  That's something one might say about a poor performance or a debate gone awry.  We will continue to argue the facts revealed in Lafitte's records, not bullets, window sills, not distance from Lee Parkway to the church. The Lafitte datebook and records are fact and represent possibly the most significant breakthrough in decades. 

As even the team of examiners have noted, authentication can often become a canard. In our case, "I won't take anything seriously Hank uncovered, regardless of the revelations, because I haven't seen a document saying I can trust the datebook."  A red herring?

We also discussed what will likely happen when the datebook is authenticated. We predict the authenticator will then be vilified for at least a year by an element within this community.  The examiner working on the db said to me, be prepared because whoever "loses" will cry foul no matter what.  It's a racket. Hank knew it was a racket, I've learned it's a racket, and I suspect some of these people including you, Greg, know it's a racket.

 

I'll close out with explaining, again, that the du Berrier entry in the datebook is three days before the shots at the Walker house ... the theme of this thread. I guess the fact fails to prompt the slightest curiosity in you? It's always been my understanding that curiosity is a prerequisite for a committed investigative journalist. 

 

Edited April 1, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

OK I see your point, the Lafitte datebook refers to the Walker shot, if its authentic that would be relevant to Walker. If we had some bread we could have a ham sandwich, if we had some ham. To me it isn't relevant, because nothing in that Lafitte datebook is relevant or of interest unless it is vetted for authenticity first, because I assume it is inauthentic unless shown otherwise.

(I accept what you report on the physical notebook or instrument of the paper being 1963, which clears up that detail. It is also what would be expected in any case of an actual forgery not done by total amateurs--use paper of the correct ancient date which will carbon-date to the right age, etc. The single most important next question would be forensic identification of the writer of the handwriting, on the basis of comparative examples examined by handwriting experts. The absence of any expert analysis on the record stating it is Pierre Lafitte's handwriting makes more likely a reconstruction that it was someone other than Pierre Lafitte who wrote it, in a genuine datebook from 1963 that did belong to Pierre Lafitte. Incidentally, is the widow not willing to make a simple statement under oath stating specific dates and circumstances to the best of her memory of this item? Why not? Why should anyone in the JFK research community reasonably rely upon an artifact that no one else saw for decades if even the widow who produced it will not vouch for it?) 

You say "you've yet to acknowledge Hilaire du Berrier who stated he was at Walker's on November 22". First, I don't see what that has to do with April 10, 1963 and the Walker shot in terms of evidence I recognize, the question with which my paper dealt with. Second, I never heard of Hilaire du Berrier, the American Mercury (right-wing) correspondent, but I did look him up just now in the index of Coup in Dallas and found the information on pp. 428-29. He says he was staying at Walker's house on Nov 22 when Walker was gone to Shreveport. The only connection of him with April 10 comes from the Lafitte datebook, which to me should not be considered until the authenticity issue is resolved. So you have to take that up with others, I'm not your person for that. 

No bread, no ham, you provide the cheese Greg? 

I've just gotten started on Coup In Dallas.  That there was a coup is a fact by now to me.  There is enough there, there for me to not dismiss Laffite out of hand.  It all is worthy of considered, deep analysis at this point in time.  It may well provide context for understanding the assassination than has ever existed before.  Your dismissal eight days after its publication seems a little hasty.  Personally, I fail to see why anyone would have gone to the trouble to have made this up.  It doesn't seem to be a mockingbird concoction because it seems to implicate members of that operation.  Who else would bother to dream such up, manufacture the datebook?

[Paul Brancato]

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

No bread, no ham, you provide the cheese Greg? 

I've just gotten started on Coup In Dallas.  That there was a coup is a fact by now to me.  There is enough there, there for me to not dismiss Laffite out of hand.  It all is worthy of considered, deep analysis at this point in time.  It may well provide context for understanding the assassination than has ever existed before.  Your dismissal eight days after its publication seems a little hasty.  Personally, I fail to see why anyone would have gone to the trouble to have made this up.  It doesn't seem to be a mockingbird concoction because it seems to implicate members of that operation.  Who else would bother to dream such up, manufacture the datebook?

I agree with you Ron - focus on Lafitte is long overdue. But I would also say that Greg weighing in on authenticity of lafitte notes or diary is in character with a speciality of his - document authentication. It is of course critically important to authenticate them, but also to realize that, as Leslie says, even if they were, the authenticator would be called into question. That’s why I suggested previously that Greg and everyone else should, at least for now, put aside the authentication question and focus on the corroborating evidence dug up by Albarelli over a lifetime of good work regarding Lafitte, George Hunter White. If we are paying attention to another important thread on missing LBJ Bundy phone calls, we notice that Hoover, in addition to being lied to by CIA, or kept out of the loop on Oswald’s possible Mexico City excursion and the imposter, also specifically mentions French espionage activities. What? Come on folks, what is that about? Does that not intersect with Albarelli’s suspicions about Souetre? 
This is an opportunity for us to focus on the possible mechanics of the Dallas operation. And I would add that none of this conflicts with suspicions about Joannides and Oswald and DRE in New Orleans, or William Harvey and the QJWIN operation, or Cuban exile activities, or CIA Miami Station, or what LeMay was up to at Bethesda. It’s all part of the same octopus. The coverup of what really happened continues. Can’t we focus on that, instead of on Oswald? 

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

I agree with you Ron - focus on Lafitte is long overdue. But I would also say that Greg weighing in on authenticity of lafitte notes or diary is in character with a speciality of his - document authentication. It is of course critically important to authenticate them, but also to realize that, as Leslie says, even if they were, the authenticator would be called into question. That’s why I suggested previously that Greg and everyone else should, at least for now, put aside the authentication question and focus on the corroborating evidence dug up by Albarelli over a lifetime of good work regarding Lafitte, George Hunter White. If we are paying attention to another important thread on missing LBJ Bundy phone calls, we notice that Hoover, in addition to being lied to by CIA, or kept out of the loop on Oswald’s possible Mexico City excursion and the imposter, also specifically mentions French espionage activities. What? Come on folks, what is that about? Does that not intersect with Albarelli’s suspicions about Souetre? 
This is an opportunity for us to focus on the possible mechanics of the Dallas operation. And I would add that none of this conflicts with suspicions about Joannides and Oswald and DRE in New Orleans, or William Harvey and the QJWIN operation, or Cuban exile activities, or CIA Miami Station, or what LeMay was up to at Bethesda. It’s all part of the same octopus. The coverup of what really happened continues. Can’t we focus on that, instead of on Oswald? 

Paul, you keep trying to drag the group back to focusing on what's important--who killed JFK--while avoiding the rabbit holes Salandria warned about 25 years ago. Thankless work, that, but I hope you keep it up.  My first reaction to the Walker thread was if Oswald didn't do it, why does it matter to us looking at the JFKA whether he or someone else took a shot at Walker?

FYI I'm still working on the question of Souetre in Dallas. I posted some fragments of what I think happened on ROKC yesterday.  I hope to have a more complete piece on of these days. Hint: it was Souetre, not Roux, who the French reporter spoke to before breaking story of of the Dallas expulsion.

What missing LBJ-Bundy phone calls are you talking about?  

 

[Paul Brancato]

3 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Paul, you keep trying to drag the group back to focusing on what's important--who killed JFK--while avoiding the rabbit holes Salandria warned about 25 years ago. Thankless work, that, but I hope you keep it up.  My first reaction to the Walker thread was if Oswald didn't do it, why does it matter to us looking at the JFKA whether he or someone else took a shot at Walker?

FYI I'm still working on the question of Souetre in Dallas. I posted some fragments of what I think happened on ROKC yesterday.  I hope to have a more complete piece on of these days. Hint: it was Souetre, not Roux, who the French reporter spoke to before breaking story of of the Dallas expulsion.

What missing LBJ-Bundy phone calls are you talking about?  

 

The thread called ‘missing LBJ McGeorge Bundy conversations’ has this story. It also has Hoover’s complaints about CIA keeping him out of the loop on Oswald and ‘French espionage activities’. I also think it might be Souetre by the physical description, though the girls failed to confirm this if I’m recalling correctly. 

[Greg Doudna]

Comments on the staged shot

A starting point: it should not be thought unusual that the shot would be staged as if that is unlikely in principle. It was a case of an unsolved shot, no witnesses, no serious injury, public figure hungry for publicity. Those four factors are equivalent to police coming upon a murdered wife and a living husband next to the dead body who says an intruder to the house killed her and got away--it could be true, police don't know until they investigate, but until police find evidence exculpating the husband, the husband is going to be a suspect because "half" the time that is who did it in cases like that. 

Or like arson investigators at commercial establishment fires and the insurance was worth more than the building and an unsolved arson is found: an owner-hired arson is going to be on the short list of investigators' radar because that is the cause of the fire about "half" the time in cases like that.  

Similarly with the unsolved attempt on a public figure's life with no witnesses and no serious injury as in the case of the Walker shot--it starts out ambiguous, it could be real or faked, until there is evidence that tells the story. It is not as if the staged shot is an unusual or extraordinary explanation.

To be the devil's advocate against the staged shot for a moment, the backyard floodlight of Walker's house could be out by accident. The poisoned dog next door could be done by Oswald--a cruel thing to do but it looks like someone was that cruel, just don't know who. The blind could be up on the window--the lattice fence at the end of Walker's back yard might be some partial privacy from view outside to anyone walking in the alley, or Walker didn't care who saw in, people vary.

The shot missing, Roe has plausibly noted that Oswald was in a hurry, took one shot and ran away, did not even operate the bolt to reload or eject the first shell hull.

On conflicting stories of Walker remembering differently whether he had suddenly moved or not at the moment of the shot, that could be Walker simply didn't remember or know himself. The story Oswald told Marina of running, stashing the rifle away from the house in some bushes near RR tracks or whatever, then bus home, is all believable.

An experienced professional sniper would likely not have missed the shot, but Oswald was not an experienced or professional sniper and if the rifle was sighted-in at 100 yards versus the 35-40 yards of the Walker shot, it would mean a direct aim would go high unless accounted for, etc.--an inexperienced shooter could miss. 

But there are two things that are not so easy to explain. One, Robert Surrey in the house at the time of the shot but telling police and FBI differently. And two, all the planning and preparation Oswald did (from photos of the Walker house) seems like a lot of work to take a chance that Walker would be in a lighted room with the blind up at night--as if Oswald had accomplices (Robert Surrey) or rather Oswald as shooter was an accomplice to Surrey.

Robert Surrey seen going to his car in the church parking lot after the shot by Kirk Coleman, Surrey coming from the alley which means out the back door of the Walker house after the shot, is the key point. Kirk Coleman seeing his man No. 2 get into a parked car was Robert Surrey getting into his car, is the pivotal point. Why doesn't Surrey tell police he was in the house at the time of the shot, and later to FBI and WC?

One reason could be Walker told a reporter the night of the shot that he was alone in the house at the time, which was published in a Dallas newspaper the next day, possible motive for Surrey to back up Walker's story. But more than that, if Surrey had told he was in the house, he would be asked why he went out the back into the alley to get to his car which makes no sense if an unknown shooter just shot from there. (And why did Surrey not check to see if Walker was OK before leaving the house and driving home two miles away and then being called by Walker to come back because someone had taken a shot?)

The simplest explanation for Surrey's witnessed behavior and its timing (by Kirk Coleman) is because Surrey was complicit in the shot. 

Surrey for sure isn't complicit in a real murder attempt of Walker with Oswald or with anyone else, that's absurd, but the staged shot makes sense. Surrey is the explanation for Coleman's man and car No. 2, and in my paper I also offered what I believe is a credible explanation of the movements of Coleman's man and car No. 1 as well--the one standing in the parking lot away from his car with the headlights on and engine running, standing with line of sight to the shooter in the alley, capable of being a signaler, part of the staged shot.

None of the evidence connecting Oswald to the shot says the shot was a real murder attempt as opposed to a staged shot with the exception of Marina's testimony, but Marina's testimony does not truly answer that question unless it can be known Oswald told Marina the truth, which cannot be known.

Then, as brought out in the detailed work of Larry Hancock and others but also familiar to the FBI and Warren Commission investigations too, there is the known behavior pattern of Oswald--not what most people do, but Oswald did--of Oswald connecting to unsavory right-wing types on purpose, in agreement with Oswald telling Michael Paine directly, with reference to Walker, that he was infiltrating/spying on the radical right in Dallas.

A staged shot in which Oswald was one of two or three collaborating participants explains the logistics better than Oswald acting alone and being that lucky to find or know Walker would be in a lighted room with a window with no blind down at a time a shot could be fired in the darkness without being seen or a dog barking. 

The case for the shot having been a real murder attempt in the end comes down to Walker looks convincing saying it was, and Marina said that Lee told her it was a real murder attempt. But neither of those arguments are fully substantial or decisive if one thinks about it, if there is evidence otherwise. In Walker's case all that needs to be supposed is he stuck to a story, not so hard to imagine.

Against those two positive arguments for it having been a real murder attempt are the reasons adding up to the shot was staged, by Walker aide Surrey utilizing two Walker supporters on Walker's behalf ... of whom Oswald was behaving as one at that time and place, and was one of those two.

Edited April 2, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Michael Griffith]

On 3/20/2023 at 5:31 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Scott Reid who did a previous interesting story for K and K, takes another look at the Walker shooting.

Really interesting is this:  the "Walker note" might not have ben about theWalker incident. 

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance

Great article. Definitely worth reading. Very informative. 

I can't think of a reason that Gen. Walker would have lied about the bullet in 1979. What motive would he have had for claiming that the bullet in evidence was not the bullet he saw and handled on the night of the shooting? 

Just looking at the case ideologically, why in the world would a man who wanted Walker dead have also wanted JFK dead? A violent leftist would indeed have wanted Walker dead, but it is hard to fathom why such a person would have wanted JFK dead.