Oswald and the Shot at Walker: Redressing the Balance

[Benjamin Cole]

12 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Ruminations on the identity of Kirk Coleman's man No. 1

I also think I know who Kirk Coleman's man No. 1 was, though I did not put that in my paper and it does not affect anything in the argument if this isn't right. Kirk Coleman gave a description of man No. 1 that had specific details: about 19-20 years of age, skinny, long hair, long narrow face, prominent nose.

In the odd story which appeared in Dick Russell from Brad Angers, Angers claimed that Larrie Schmidt told him, Angers, in early 1964 that Larrie's brother Robert "Bob" or "Robbie" Schmidt knew Oswald, drove Oswald the night of the shot, accompanied and assisted Oswald in taking the shot the night of the shot. Then the record shows Bob Schmidt happily went to work for Walker as Walker's chauffeur a few months later starting ca. later Oct 1963. Normal thing to do after helping Oswald take a shot which supposedly was attempted murder of General Walker, right?

On the hunch that Angers' strange story might reflect some strange decades-later hearsay version of the staged shot involving Surrey and Oswald as developed in my paper, naming a participation of Robert Schmidt and his car as assisting Oswald in that staged shot that evening, I wondered if Robert Schmidt in fact could be the missing identity of No. 1.

In my paper I wrote of the movements of man No. 1 seen by Kirk Coleman, of his standing outside of a car with the engine running (Coleman first sees him apart from his car in the parking lot walking toward an otherwise-empty car idling with its engine running and headlights on moments after the shot, then getting into the already-running car and driving away out to Turtle Creek Blvd) ... and man No. 1 from where he was standing away from his car with the engine running would have been standing with line of sight into the alley capable of eye contact with the shooter in the alley ... and that that all made excellent sense interpreted as No. 1 as a signaler in the parking lot part of the shot, capable of signal communication with both inside the Walker house and the shooter in the alley, i.e. No. 1 as part of the shot and not a car and person unrelated to the shot. However I left No. 1 unidentified in my paper apart from the argument that No. 1 too was involved in the staged shot, and was not some unrelated random church or other person standing like that, line of sight to the shooter in the alley, away from a car with its engine running, at the moment of the shot. 

From a passing mention in the WC testimony of Bernard Weissman, Robert Schmidt was 29 years old in 1963, a bit older than Kirk Coleman thought from seeing No. 1. But I found letters of Larrie Schmidt in 1963 on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site confirming that Larrie knew Robert Surrey since at least Feb 1963--moved in the same right-wing circles, Larrie mentions Robert Surrey by name in a letter of Feb 1963--and separately those letters confirm Larrie's brother Bob was in Dallas in early-mid 1963, no known employment, and that Larrie's brother Bob in fact months later began direct paid employment with General Walker as a chauffeur starting ca. late Oct 1963--brought into that paid employment for Walker by Robert Surrey.

I think Bob Schmidt is Robert L. Schmidt, 1934-1981, born and died Lincoln, Nebraska, 29 years old in 1963, US Navy vet in Korea, photo of tombstone here: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/74093487/robert-l-schmidt. 

I looked up Robert L. Schmidt's high school yearbook photo from his high school in Lincoln, Nebraska. That is the only photo known of Larrie Schmidt's brother Bob known to me in existence, nor was Larrie's brother Bob Schmidt ever interviewed by anyone re things 1963 or Walker or JFK assassination related. There is no known personal information, no obituary, no knowledge of whether he had wife or kids, no knowledge of employment, nothing about him even though his name is familiar in the Larrie Schmidt/CUSA documents and investigations following the assassination in Nov 1963. The one detail of interest learned from the photo of his tombstone (assuming this is the right person) is he was a Navy vet in Korea and not part of the Army vets in Gemany of the Larrie Schmidt and Weissman CUSA circles as generally assumed. On rechecking Larrie Schmidt's 1963 letters I cannot find any evidence Larrie's brother Bob served in Germany or in the Army, even though that has been assumed. 

Anyway, Robert L. Schmidt's high school photo, the only known photo in existence known to me for Larrie's brother Bob who was in Dallas in 1963--the same individual named in the strange Angers story in which Angers says Larrie told him ca. early 1964 (over a few drinks? with Angers, who was in the electronic surveillance business, recording Larrie without Larrie's knowledge as Larrie spun him a tall one?--who knows) ... that strange story says Larrie's brother Bob Schmidt was with and assisted Oswald the night of the Walker shot--Robert L. Schmidt's Lincoln, Nebraska high school photo struck me for having a long, narrow face, in agreement with Kirk Coleman's physical description of man No. 1.

The plausibility of some unemployed vet already in circles known to Robert Surrey in early 1963 who could be trusted to do a job and keep his mouth shut, being the missing identification of man No. 1 with Surrey in the staged Walker shot, came together as intriguing to me.

And the known months-later explicit employment of Larrie's brother Bob Schmidt, recommended to Walker by Robert Surrey for paid employment for General Walker says if Bob Schmidt was involved with the shot April 10, 1963 it was part of a staged shot working with Surrey, not actual intent to murder Walker. (Because Bob Schmidt did not try to kill Walker when he was later hired as chauffeur and had opportunity!!!!!!--because that Walker shot of April 10, 1963 never was about trying to kill General Walker!)

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.

And then the long narrow face.

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.

Greg--

Since no one was seen outside the Walker home carrying a rifle the night of the shot...

Is it possible that shot resulted from a handgun? 

That would explain why Coleman did not see anyone carrying a rifle. 

Whoever shot Walker's window then immediately stuffed a handgun under his belt, and off they go....

[Greg Doudna]

34 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Greg--

Since no one was seen outside the Walker home carrying a rifle the night of the shot...

Is it possible that shot resulted from a handgun? 

That would explain why Coleman did not see anyone carrying a rifle. 

Whoever shot Walker's window then immediately stuffed a handgun under his belt, and off they go....

It would make a getaway (and arrival) simpler without risking being seen to be a shooter wouldn't it? I have no idea. Oswald told Marina it was the rifle, according to Marina, but then Oswald was telling her other things that were not the truth. Everyone has always thought it was a rifle. But I don't know Benjamin and I don't know enough about ballistics to be the best person to ask either. 

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

It would make a getaway (and arrival) simpler without risking being seen to be a shooter wouldn't it? I have no idea. Oswald told Marina it was the rifle, according to Marina, but then Oswald was telling her other things that were not the truth. Everyone has always thought it was a rifle. But I don't know Benjamin and I don't know enough about ballistics to be the best person to ask either. 

Right---I can't prove the Walker shot was issued from a handgun. 

Regarding ballistics, there were and are handguns that shoot rounds in the same feet per second range as the Western ammo used by the Mannlicher-Carcano. 

Ergo, if one deduces a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle could have issued the Walker shot based upon the damage done to the Walker wall and window pane, then you must also deduce a .357 Magnum handgun could have also issued the shot. Similar projectiles at similar feet per second. 

There, you are now a ballistics expert. 

The use of a handgun would explain why Coleman did not see a rifle. 

Just talking out loud....

 

[James DiEugenio]

On 3/28/2023 at 1:23 PM, Leslie Sharp said:

I'm having similar questions, Jim. Why now.

I really don't know.  Its kind of weird.

I could always speculate, but I mean with trenchcoats burying rifles in the ground--by hand no less?  Too much of that.

BTW, that steel jacketed projectile was reported to be a 30.06 by two news agencies, one of them, the DMN, sourced the info to the police, a detective inspecting the case.

Let's see how Roe squirms out of this one.

That pirouette he did on Oswald and no cleaning fluid was worthy of Nureyev.

Edited March 30, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Leslie Sharp]

On 3/29/2023 at 8:29 AM, Greg Doudna said:

Ruminations on the identity of Kirk Coleman's man No. 1

I also think I know who Kirk Coleman's man No. 1 was, though I did not put that in my paper and it does not affect anything in the argument if this isn't right. Kirk Coleman gave a description of man No. 1 that had specific details: about 19-20 years of age, skinny, long hair, long narrow face, prominent nose.

In the odd story which appeared in Dick Russell from Brad Angers, Angers claimed that Larrie Schmidt told him, Angers, in early 1964 that Larrie's brother Robert "Bob" or "Robbie" Schmidt knew Oswald, drove Oswald the night of the shot, accompanied and assisted Oswald in taking the shot the night of the shot. Then the record shows Bob Schmidt happily went to work for Walker as Walker's chauffeur a few months later starting ca. later Oct 1963. Normal thing to do after helping Oswald take a shot which supposedly was attempted murder of General Walker, right?

On the hunch that Angers' strange story might reflect some strange decades-later hearsay version of the staged shot involving Surrey and Oswald as developed in my paper, naming a participation of Robert Schmidt and his car as assisting Oswald in that staged shot that evening, I wondered if Robert Schmidt in fact could be the missing identity of No. 1.

In my paper I wrote of the movements of man No. 1 seen by Kirk Coleman, of his standing outside of a car with the engine running (Coleman first sees him apart from his car in the parking lot walking toward an otherwise-empty car idling with its engine running and headlights on moments after the shot, then getting into the already-running car and driving away out to Turtle Creek Blvd) ... and man No. 1 from where he was standing away from his car with the engine running would have been standing with line of sight into the alley capable of eye contact with the shooter in the alley ... and that that all made excellent sense interpreted as No. 1 as a signaler in the parking lot part of the shot, capable of signal communication with both inside the Walker house and the shooter in the alley, i.e. No. 1 as part of the shot and not a car and person unrelated to the shot. However I left No. 1 unidentified in my paper apart from the argument that No. 1 too was involved in the staged shot, and was not some unrelated random church or other person standing like that, line of sight to the shooter in the alley, away from a car with its engine running, at the moment of the shot. 

From a passing mention in the WC testimony of Bernard Weissman, Robert Schmidt was 29 years old in 1963, a bit older than Kirk Coleman thought from seeing No. 1. But I found letters of Larrie Schmidt in 1963 on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site confirming that Larrie knew Robert Surrey since at least Feb 1963--moved in the same right-wing circles, Larrie mentions Robert Surrey by name in a letter of Feb 1963--and separately those letters confirm Larrie's brother Bob was in Dallas in early-mid 1963, no known employment, and that Larrie's brother Bob in fact months later began direct paid employment with General Walker as a chauffeur starting ca. late Oct 1963--brought into that paid employment for Walker by Robert Surrey.

I think Bob Schmidt is Robert L. Schmidt, 1934-1981, born and died Lincoln, Nebraska, 29 years old in 1963, US Navy vet in Korea, photo of tombstone here: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/74093487/robert-l-schmidt. 

I looked up Robert L. Schmidt's high school yearbook photo from his high school in Lincoln, Nebraska. That is the only photo known of Larrie Schmidt's brother Bob known to me in existence, nor was Larrie's brother Bob Schmidt ever interviewed by anyone re things 1963 or Walker or JFK assassination related. There is no known personal information, no obituary, no knowledge of whether he had wife or kids, no knowledge of employment, nothing about him even though his name is familiar in the Larrie Schmidt/CUSA documents and investigations following the assassination in Nov 1963. The one detail of interest learned from the photo of his tombstone (assuming this is the right person) is he was a Navy vet in Korea and not part of the Army vets in Gemany of the Larrie Schmidt and Weissman CUSA circles as generally assumed. On rechecking Larrie Schmidt's 1963 letters I cannot find any evidence Larrie's brother Bob served in Germany or in the Army, even though that has been assumed. 

Anyway, Robert L. Schmidt's high school photo, the only known photo in existence known to me for Larrie's brother Bob who was in Dallas in 1963--the same individual named in the strange Angers story in which Angers says Larrie told him ca. early 1964 (over a few drinks? with Angers, who was in the electronic surveillance business, recording Larrie without Larrie's knowledge as Larrie spun him a tall one?--who knows) ... that strange story says Larrie's brother Bob Schmidt was with and assisted Oswald the night of the Walker shot--Robert L. Schmidt's Lincoln, Nebraska high school photo struck me for having a long, narrow face, in agreement with Kirk Coleman's physical description of man No. 1.

The plausibility of some unemployed vet already in circles known to Robert Surrey in early 1963 who could be trusted to do a job and keep his mouth shut, being the missing identification of man No. 1 with Surrey in the staged Walker shot, came together as intriguing to me.

And the known months-later explicit employment of Larrie's brother Bob Schmidt, recommended to Walker by Robert Surrey for paid employment for General Walker says if Bob Schmidt was involved with the shot April 10, 1963 it was part of a staged shot working with Surrey, not actual intent to murder Walker. (Because Bob Schmidt did not try to kill Walker when he was later hired as chauffeur and had opportunity!!!!!!--because that Walker shot of April 10, 1963 never was about trying to kill General Walker!)

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.

And then the long narrow face.

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.

Greg, Have you developed this to include your hypothesis to explain Surrey's staging of the event? Have you pursued his history yet?

 

[Greg Doudna]

8 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Greg, Have you developed this to include your hypothesis to explain Surrey's staging of the event? Have you pursued his history yet?

Yes I thought I explained how it would fit. In my paper I argued Coleman's man No. 1 was part of the staged shot (as a signaler to the shooter, not as shooter), and so if that was Larrie Schmidt's brother Robert Schmidt, that would be the involvement. In the Angers story, Larrie told him Robert knew Oswald, that over a few beers they decided as a lark to just off General Walker. Oswald volunteered he had a rifle; Robert drove, presumably to where the rifle was, to a bridge over Turtle Creek (presumably Oswald picked up his rifle there); then in the Larrie/Angers version, Robert with Oswald proceeded on foot to the front of Walker's house and shot at Walker through a front window and missed. I am suggesting this sounds like a version of the staged shot on behalf of Walker, not an attempted murder, and Angers, who was a raconteur and may have been speaking from memory, got details wrong (or maybe Larrie Schmidt did not have the details straight when he told the story to Angers). The actual shot was taken from the alley in the back of the Walker house, not the front. The reconstruction would be Robert may have assisted Oswald that evening, then was alone with car No. 1 in the church parking lot seen by Kirk Coleman, acting as a signaler both to the house and to Oswald in the alley. The engine left running of the car of No. 1 when No. 1 was out of the car at the time of the shot possibly could have been for an expedited getaway if needed but Oswald ran the other way. 

Angers at one point may have attempted to use some knowledge of the story he had from Larrie Schmidt, which Angers told Dick Russell he had on tape, to blackmail Walker for money. This was in 1969. Here is Walker's version of what Walker interpreted as Angers' blackmail or shakedown attempt (https://ia601302.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/6/items/eawalkerdataset/Edwin Walker.zip&file=19691212_EAW_on_Curry.pdf). According to Walker, Angers (who was friends with Dallas Police Chief Curry) wanted a donation of $10,000 (in 1969 dollars) to assist in South American distribution of Chief Curry's newly-published book on the JFK assassination, and Angers pointedly told Walker twice in the course of making the request for that voluntary donation that they had Walker's "police file at Chief Curry's house". Walker interpreted that as a reference to the Walker shot of April 10, 1963 and an attempted shake-down. Walker did not clarify what could be in his Dallas Police file that Angers might think Walker would pay $10,000 not to have become public. 

As Angers told the story to Dick Russell (The Man Who Knew Too Much [1992], 325-27), Angers taped Larrie Schmidt ca. early 1964 telling the story of Larrie's brother's complicity with Oswald in the Walker shot, and Angers said that was taped with Larrie's consent. Larrie when asked in later years denied the story, though confirmed he had known Angers. I find it difficult to believe that Larrie would knowingly or willingly incriminate his brother on tape that way, which is why I believe if there was such a tape (none has ever surfaced; Angers died in 2016) it would have been a taping without Larrie's knowledge. 

One of the most surprising postscripts of the Angers story is that Dick Russell then went to General Walker with that story and asked Walker for his reaction. Russell was stunned when Walker told him, Russell, that "several people" had "raised that possibility" to him, Walker, already, and that it was "natural to suspect" that. (Of course the version of the story Walker was referring to was that it was an attempted murder.) Walker thought it was "natural to suspect" that a young man he employed in Oct and Nov 1963 to be in his house and drive him as his chauffeur (Robert Schmidt) would have tried to knock him off earlier in April but not in Oct or Nov 1963. 

[Leslie Sharp]

11 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Yes I thought I explained how it would fit. In my paper I argued Coleman's man No. 1 was part of the staged shot (as a signaler to the shooter, not as shooter), and so if that was Larrie Schmidt's brother Robert Schmidt, that would be the involvement. In the Angers story, Larrie told him Robert knew Oswald, that over a few beers they decided as a lark to just off General Walker. Oswald volunteered he had a rifle; Robert drove, presumably to where the rifle was, to a bridge over Turtle Creek (presumably Oswald picked up his rifle there); then in the Larrie/Angers version, Robert with Oswald proceeded on foot to the front of Walker's house and shot at Walker through a front window and missed. I am suggesting this sounds like a version of the staged shot on behalf of Walker, not an attempted murder, and Angers, who was a raconteur and may have been speaking from memory, got details wrong (or maybe Larrie Schmidt did not have the details straight when he told the story to Angers). The actual shot was taken from the alley in the back of the Walker house, not the front. The reconstruction would be Robert may have assisted Oswald that evening, then was alone with car No. 1 in the church parking lot seen by Kirk Coleman, acting as a signaler both to the house and to Oswald in the alley. The engine left running of the car of No. 1 when No. 1 was out of the car at the time of the shot possibly could have been for an expedited getaway if needed but Oswald ran the other way. 

Angers at one point may have attempted to use some knowledge of the story he had from Larrie Schmidt, which Angers told Dick Russell he had on tape, to blackmail Walker for money. This was in 1969. Here is Walker's version of what Walker interpreted as Angers' blackmail or shakedown attempt (https://ia601302.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/6/items/eawalkerdataset/Edwin Walker.zip&file=19691212_EAW_on_Curry.pdf). According to Walker, Angers (who was friends with Dallas Police Chief Curry) wanted a donation of $10,000 (in 1969 dollars) to assist in South American distribution of Chief Curry's newly-published book on the JFK assassination, and Angers pointedly told Walker twice in the course of making the request for that voluntary donation that they had Walker's "police file at Chief Curry's house". Walker interpreted that as a reference to the Walker shot of April 10, 1963 and an attempted shake-down. Walker did not clarify what could be in his Dallas Police file that Angers might think Walker would pay $10,000 not to have become public. 

As Angers told the story to Dick Russell (The Man Who Knew Too Much [1992], 325-27), Angers taped Larrie Schmidt ca. early 1964 telling the story of Larrie's brother's complicity with Oswald in the Walker shot, and Angers said that was taped with Larrie's consent. Larrie when asked in later years denied the story, though confirmed he had known Angers. I find it difficult to believe that Larrie would knowingly or willingly incriminate his brother on tape that way, which is why I believe if there was such a tape (none has ever surfaced; Angers died in 2016) it would have been a taping without Larrie's knowledge. 

One of the most surprising postscripts of the Angers story is that Dick Russell then went to General Walker with that story and asked Walker for his reaction. Russell was stunned when Walker told him, Russell, that "several people" had "raised that possibility" to him, Walker, already, and that it was "natural to suspect" that. (Of course the version of the story Walker was referring to was that it was an attempted murder.) Walker thought it was "natural to suspect" that a young man he employed in Oct and Nov 1963 to be in his house and drive him as his chauffeur (Robert Schmidt) would have tried to knock him off earlier in April but not in Oct or Nov 1963. 

Greg, I'm glad you emphasize Dick Russell's accounts as being substantive because it provides an opportunity for me to emphasize that Dick provided a "limited analysis" of the Pierre Lafitte datebook for both a film company in Australia and our publisher, Skyhorse, which no doubt you recall from reading Coup in Dallas cover to cover.  

Dick writes,

I believe, presuming the datebook is verified as having been written by Lafitte in 1963, that this constitutes probably the strongest evidence that has ever come to light of a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. (emphasis added)

·       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: 

Edited March 31, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Greg Doudna]

10 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Greg, I'm glad you emphasize Dick Russell's accounts as being substantive because it provides an opportunity for me to emphasize that Dick provided a "limited analysis" of the Pierre Lafitte datebook for both a film company in Australia and our publisher, Skyhorse, which no doubt you recall from reading Coup in Dallas cover to cover.  

Don't mislabel Angers' story as if it is an account of Dick Russell. The story comes from Angers claiming that is what Larrie Schmidt told him. Dick Russell reported it but it is not Dick Russell's account nor does Dick Russell have anything to do with whether the story is true or not (assuming Russell accurately reported the Angers interview). That is like evaluating whether a letter you receive in the mail is to be believed based on how well you judge the character of the mailman--has nothing to do with it. Nothing to do with Coup in Dallas (no offense intended).  

[Leslie Sharp]

17 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Don't mislabel Angers' story as if it is an account of Dick Russell. The story comes from Angers claiming that is what Larrie Schmidt told him. Dick Russell reported it but it is not Dick Russell's account nor does Dick Russell have anything to do with whether the story is true or not (assuming Russell accurately reported the Angers interview). That is like evaluating whether a letter you receive in the mail is to be believed based on how well you judge the character of the mailman--has nothing to do with it. Nothing to do with Coup in Dallas (no offense intended).  

You write, (assuming Russell accurately reported the Angers interview). yet you then quote Dick, One of the most surprising postscripts of the Angers story is that Dick Russell then went to General Walker with that story and asked Walker for his reaction. Russell was stunned when Walker told him, Russell, that "several people" had "raised that possibility" to him, Walker, already, and that it was "natural to suspect" that. Do you also only assume that Dick has accurately reported what Walker told him.

 

This actually has everything to do with Coup in Dallas, Greg, in light of your analysis of my subjective analysis which you posted on this forum just eight days after Coup was published in November 2021, a remarkable feat as has been noted by a number of researchers who have studied Hank's investigations for years.  It took many of them weeks to absorb the content of Coup. I've wondered if you had read the book cover to cover before your critique?  I've also wondered why you chose to attack my candid analysis rather than read and challenge Hank's introduction which lays out in detail the provenance of the Lafitte material and the reason why he was 100% certain it was authentic? 

 

Edited March 31, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Matt Allison]

FWIW, here is the January 1965 Look Magazine article on Schmidt. The photo in the article was reprinted in higher quality in Dick Russell's book. If someone has that or another copy with better resolution, it would be great if it could be posted.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/S Disk/Schmidt Larrie/Item 01.pdf

[Greg Doudna]

7 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

You write, (assuming Russell accurately reported the Angers interview). yet you then quote Dick, One of the most surprising postscripts of the Angers story is that Dick Russell then went to General Walker with that story and asked Walker for his reaction. Russell was stunned when Walker told him, Russell, that "several people" had "raised that possibility" to him, Walker, already, and that it was "natural to suspect" that. Do you also only assume that Dick has accurately reported what Walker told him.

 

This actually has everything to do with Coup in Dallas, Greg, in light of your analysis of my subjective analysis which you posted on this forum just eight days after Coup was published in November 2021, a remarkable feat as has been noted by a number of researchers who have studied Hank's investigations for years.  It took many of them weeks to absorb the content of Coup. I've wondered if you had read the book cover to cover before your critique?  I've also wondered why you chose to attack my candid analysis rather than read and challenge Hank's introduction which lays out in detail the provenance of the Lafitte material and the reason why he was 100% certain it was authentic? 

I've never seen a problem with Dick Russell's accuracy in reporting of his interviews. Its been a while since the conversation over Coup in Dallas to which you refer and this is from memory, but I am sure I did not focus on the content of the Lafitte notebooks or read word for word the discussions of the contents of those notebooks, because I looked for the discussions on authenticity, and expressed skepticism on that. I am not convinced it is genuine JFK assassination foreknowledge or that Lafitte was project manager of the assassination and I don't buy the case for authenticity, didn't see that forensic examination of the artifact by outside experts had been done. I realize Hank Albarelli believed it was authentic and Dick Russell does and I realize you do but I was not convinced. I have tried to stay out of those discussions since.  

Edited March 31, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

On 3/21/2023 at 6:53 AM, Mark Ulrik said:

No, the police report only states that the trajectory from window to wall was downward. However, the shot came from an elevated position due to the sloping of Walker's backyard, and the trajectory was already downward when the bullet hit the window. Nicking the upper edge of the glass pane must have caused a slightly upward deflection, just enough to miss the intended target.

 

One correction in my paper concerns the question of whether there was a blind on the window. Walker told police there was a blind but it was up, but officers Dellinger and Rose in a written police report said there was no blind on the window. In my paper I noted the inconsistency and did not know which was incorrect. It turns out this question has an answer and it is the police report that was in error (Walker was correct there was a blind). This was brought to attention by "lanceman" (I don't know any other name for this dude) at ROKC (https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2701p25-reopen-the-case-of-the-walker-shot). (Note to lanceman: I resigned from the ROKC forum and am unable to log in and answer you there. Please contact me by email [you can find it on my website at www.scrollery.com] if you wish to reach me.) 

The film of the blind on the window: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjXkDLRFzOg or (same in a longer newscast) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBFZSP4gR9c&t=0s.

The bullet through the glass in the photos of Mark says to me the room was air conditioned with the window pane down sealing the room from air outside. However the blind was up, allowing the shooter (Oswald) a direct line of sight into the room. It is not that the window pane itself was up. But the blind was up. The blind was not up to let in fresh air from outside, for the glass pane sealed the room. But the blind happened to be up, making the shot possible. Most people I would think have blinds down at night in an air-conditioned lighted room. But maybe not everyone.

Lanceman also says the full moon that night would have been at elevation 28 degrees at 9 pm on April 10, 1963 according to the "Stellarium" website and suggests: "assuming the Walker house was 25-30 feet high, the moon would have been well above the house to illuminate much of the backyard and the shooter's position". I think the house was not blocking the moon rising from the southeast but rising elevation behind Walker's house would, and all accounts (Walker, others) report it  was dark in the alley behind Walker's house, not lit by moonlight, at the time of the shot. So although the moon was 28 degrees above the horizon, it can be assumed landscape or trees prevented the moon from lighting the alley and the location of the shooter at 9 pm. The "Stellarium" site (cool site) is https://stellarium-web.org (second hat tip to the lanceman dude). 

Lanceman also suggests a possible natural explanation to the barking dog who was sick the next day which her owner, Mrs. Bouve, believed was a result of having been poisoned related to the shot: "A plausible alternative explanation is that owners often keep food and water outside for their dogs. It had been an extremely hot day. The dog could very well have consumed food or water that had a high bacteria count resulting from the high temperatures."  

On the backyard floodlight out, as Steve Roe noted to me, that light may have been on 24/7 when Walker was gone on his trip and this in a time before LEDs, incandescent bulbs could burn out quickly and not be too unusual.

Still, three things not simply worked in the shooter's favor but were essential to have in unison: the blind up; the dog not barking; and the backyard floodlight inoperable. If the shot had been an actual murder attempt instead of a staged shot, a fourth necessary item would be added: Walker in the room.

That is some luck for those three or four things to coincide fortuitously for a lone-nut shooter. A non-luck interpretation would be that more than one person was involved in the shot and the shot was staged (Walker not in the room until after the shot was fired).   

[Leslie Sharp]

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I've never seen a problem with Dick Russell's accuracy in reporting of his interviews. Its been a while since the conversation over Coup in Dallas to which you refer and this is from memory, but I am sure I did not focus on the content of the Lafitte notebooks or read word for word the discussions of the contents of those notebooks, because I looked for the discussions on authenticity, and expressed skepticism on that. I am not convinced it is genuine JFK assassination foreknowledge or that Lafitte was project manager of the assassination and I don't buy the case for authenticity, didn't see that forensic examination of the artifact by outside experts had been done. I realize Hank Albarelli believed it was authentic and Dick Russell does and I realize you do but I was not convinced. I have tried to stay out of those discussions since.  

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 fairly subjective conclusion, based on the trajectory of your pursuit of No. 1.  It happens to be plausible imo, 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, it is an impressive bit of 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 confusion caused by a refusal to apply logic — actually supports the current hypothesis that the Walker shooting was staged.  Isn't it far more logical to maintain an open mind instead of jumping to, that datebook is just “too good to be true”? I’m perfectly willing to indulge your guesswork because “logic” suggests that facts are converging to indicate we're all pursuing significant evidence the Walker shooting was indeed staged, and Oswald was somehow involved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Paul Brancato]

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I've never seen a problem with Dick Russell's accuracy in reporting of his interviews. Its been a while since the conversation over Coup in Dallas to which you refer and this is from memory, but I am sure I did not focus on the content of the Lafitte notebooks or read word for word the discussions of the contents of those notebooks, because I looked for the discussions on authenticity, and expressed skepticism on that. I am not convinced it is genuine JFK assassination foreknowledge or that Lafitte was project manager of the assassination and I don't buy the case for authenticity, didn't see that forensic examination of the artifact by outside experts had been done. I realize Hank Albarelli believed it was authentic and Dick Russell does and I realize you do but I was not convinced. I have tried to stay out of those discussions since.  

To interject here, the question of provenance, of Lafitte being project manager, has superseded any discussion of what Hank researched regarding Skorzeny and his connections. Same thing happened to Ganis with his source material purchased at auction. Coup in Dallas isn’t an easy read. I’m starting to plow through again, slowly. I know this thread is about the Walker shooting, so I’ll stop there and draw a small analogy. We almost never talk about Walker himself. That’s too bad in my opinion. Whether Oswald had a rifle that he buried, whether he was manipulated, whether Marina was truthful about what he said to her, all of that would matter greatly if Oswald was the, or an assassin. But if he wasn’t, then we are being unwittingly directed to examining in great detail something that isn’t even particularly consequential. 

[Ron Ege]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

To interject here, the question of provenance, of Lafitte being project manager, has superseded any discussion of what Hank researched regarding Skorzeny and his connections. Same thing happened to Ganis with his source material purchased at auction. Coup in Dallas isn’t an easy read. I’m starting to plow through again, slowly. I know this thread is about the Walker shooting, so I’ll stop there and draw a small analogy. We almost never talk about Walker himself. That’s too bad in my opinion. Whether Oswald had a rifle that he buried, whether he was manipulated, whether Marina was truthful about what he said to her, all of that would matter greatly if Oswald was the, or an assassin. But if he wasn’t, then we are being unwittingly directed to examining in great detail something that isn’t even particularly consequential. 

Paul, thank you; well said.

As usual, seemingly, we may just be discussing yet another - "look over there" - as a distraction.  Just my opinion.