Harry Dean: Memoirs

[Thomas Graves]

Ernie - the answer to your third question is easy enough, and it is a good question to ask, because a plot would only have been worth it if LBJ was preferable to JFK. If Bircher ideology is to be taken at face value, LBJ was not much of an improvement. But for the Pentagon and the CIA there is absolutely no question that LBJ was the man they wanted to see in the White House. And that is also true for the Mafia, and for Hoover.

The Pentagon and CIA and Mafia and Hoover "absolutely" wanted LBJ?

I'm sorry but I do not understand that supposition. The senior management at those agencies continued to be JFK appointees and generally they continued the policies of both Eisenhower and JFK. For example, JFK intensified the CIA's "Operation Mongoose" program (begun by Eisenhower), which was the CIA's anti-Castro sabotage campaign and JFK even pursued Castro assassination attempts involving Mafia figures.

So what did the Mafia achieve that was so significantly better (after JFK) than what they had in previous years? Did the US Justice Dept and other law enforcement agencies suddenly stop pursuing Mafia figures or interests?

In every society there are always people with grievances because public policy choices are selected by government officials at all levels (city, county, state, national) which inevitably adversely affect somebody's personal interests. There always are what our founders called "factions" in politics. Every serious student of American history (particularly during the 1950's and 1960's) knows that there was a poisonous atmosphere within our body politic over choices made by Eisenhower and JFK.

Radical rightists were livid because Eisenhower refused to dismantle the New Deal and Fair Deal brick-by-brick -- as they had been led to believe he would. Robert Welch described Ike as a conscious dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy whose motivations were primarily ideological. i.e. he was a conscious traitor -- and (according to Welch) Eisenhower's appointments and associations indisputably "proved" Eisenhower's "treason".

Other factions were angry with Eisenhower because he used troops to enforce de-segregation in Little Rock schools and he signed new civil rights legislation into law which chipped away at the power and privileges of the white racist establishment in our southern states and he appointed "liberals" to key positions within our government --- including (according to Welch and persons with similar viewpoints -- such as Joseph Kamp) known "Communists" and "Communist sympathizers". [Again, see Welch's chapter in The Politician re: Ike's associates and appointments --- which generally reflects the prevailing viewpoint within radical right circles.]

Many foreign policy factions were angry with Eisenhower because of his supposedly weak "containment" policy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and he kept us out of Vietnam and did precious little to help the French effort against Ho Chi Minh and he did not "unleash" Taiwan's Chiang Kai Shek during the 1954-1955 "Taiwan Straits Crisis". Furthermore, Ike was suspicious of the "military industrial complex" which he thought had too much influence over our foreign policy establishment. They also rejected Ike's "Summit Diplomacy" efforts and his perceived weak response to the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. [And they had the same reaction to LBJ's reaction to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.]

And perhaps worst of all, the radical right was livid with Eisenhower because of what they perceived as his Administration's undermining of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. When LBJ came into office, the Birch Society's annual evaluation of "Communist influence and control" within the U.S. reached its zenith (i.e. 60-80% was our "score").

So why didn't the Mafia or CIA or Pentagon "plot" to assassinate Ike or why would they "absolutely" prefer LBJ?

LBJ was good for the people who wanted the Vietnam War.

Good for the CIA (and the Mafia) vis a vis their drug smuggling operations in SE Asia.

Good for the US (and Soviet) military-industrial complex.

Good for Texas-based General Dynamics and Bell Helicopter, in particular.

Wasn't JFK quietly planning to start removing one thousand US military personnel from Vietnam by the end of 1963?

Wasn't JFK planning on removing all US military personnel from Vietnam by the end of 1965?

Didn't LBJ change all of that?

--Tommy

Edited July 2, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Paul:

...

This was no mafia shooting... and I can't conceive it being simply a right-wing action. It was a very public execution, and highly coordinated. I'm also struck by the strong parallels to the contemporaneous Phoenix Program in Viet Nam (hunter-killer teams), and the assassination methods used in that action ... such professionals would never be seen or detected, and their presence and fingerprints would have been effectively removed forever. My strong intuition is that many of the same people (the "Southeast Asia" group that Gary Underhill warned of) were involved in Dealey Plaza. So if they too comprised part of the ground crew, I fear we have little hope of uncovering their identities...

Gene, you can't conceive of it being a right-wing action, but you can conceive of it being paramilitary? WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE?

In my studies of right-wing militancy in the USA, few groups stand as far to the right as the Minutemen, who were composed largely of ex-military personnel. An Ex-General like Edwin Walker in a group like the Minutemen would be a fearsome opponent. We must also remember that Walker, when he was younger, had Special Operations training in WW2. All of these maneuvers were as familiar to Walker as the back of his hand.

You say their fingerprints would be erased -- and I grant that -- except this was the USA and not Vietnam -- and there were so many photographs and films taken at Dealey Plaza at the time of JFK's murder that we have a different ball game.

...I respect your intuition about the radical right and those organizations. They form a toxic mix (i.e. the "milieu") with mercenaries, mafia, Cubans and all sorts of intelligence types... hard to keep track of who's doing whom. After wrestling with Edwin Walker (a lunatic and deviant, who nonetheless rose to the rank of general) for some time, I've come to similar terms with his role and place in the story... a diversion and a scapegoat, meant to take us off of the true path of the assassins. The radicals you speak of are analogous to the 6th floor of the TSBD and the Mannlicher-Carcano ... they serve as a diversion or red herring.

Respectfully,

Gene

Gene, respectfully sir, your opinion of Edwin Walker is far too biased for my taste. He was a US General, and deserves more credit than you give him. He certainly was no lunatic -- we have numerous psychiatrists who cleared him of that. Further, one cannot call Edwin Walker a "deviant" today without falling afoul of the Gay Politics in the USA today. Deviant? Because he was gay? If not that -- then what?

Walker was a US General, and well-respected until late 1962 when he led the riots at Ole Miss against James Meredith. Even then, a Mississippi Grand Jury acquitted Edwin Walker of all charges in those riots (in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed). Part of Walker's power was the great respect that Americans have for their victorious Generals of WW2.

Although I profoundly agree that Edwin Walker was no intellectual -- and he let Robert Welch mislead him into joining the utterly absurd John Birch Society -- that is not "deviance" because thousands upon thousands of Americans were joining the Birchers.

I have no respect for the Bircher's intellectual powers, but I do respect their American rights to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe -- and to vote in the way they wish to vote. They remain adults and citizens with rights, even if not intellectuals.

It is because I disagree so strongly with your characterization of Edwin Walker, Gene, that I also disagree sharply with your assessment of him as "a diversion and a scapegoat, meant to take us off of the true path of the assassins."

That is even more cloak-and-dagger than Joan Mellen's theories. Nothing of the kind ever happened with Edwin Walker. The Warren Commission devoted a lot of attention to Edwin Walker -- he was truly a suspect in the JFK murder, and with good cause.

You're not taking all the evidence into account, Gene. No way was Walker a "diversion" for anybody at all. No way was Edwin Walker (or Loran Hall) "a diversion or red herring." This is our sharpest disagreement, Gene. You're ignoring volumes of data about Edwin Walker.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 2, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

I still come back to one of my earlier questions but let me phrase it a little differently.

1. Can everyone here agree with the proposition that the proposed planners and executioners of the plot were intelligent individuals --- perhaps even (in many cases) very intelligent?

2. If proposition in #1 is accepted -- then what, exactly, did the plotters think would be accomplished by murdering JFK? Did the subsequent developments turn out the way they originally anticipated? In other words, they achieved what they wanted to achieve? So, for example, putting LBJ into the Presidency was a much more satisfactory development and conformed to what the plotters wanted to achieve?

Because if someone tells me that replacing JFK with LBJ is what the plotters thought was their most desirable outcome -- I have a MAJOR problem with that supposition.

3. Let's put this in the context of the crowd which Harry Dean ran around with. Let's assume that Harry's story is essentially accurate. Does ANYBODY reading this thread want us to believe that the Birch Society WANTED LBJ to become President because they thought he would represent THEIR interests better or more faithfully than JFK? Now---choose any other person or group whom is alleged to have been involved in the plot (anti-Castro Cubans, the Mob, etc.) Does anybody believe that any of them preferred LBJ over JFK?

Ernie, I think these are all good questions. My responses are:

1. Rather than the word "intelligent," which I cannot stretch to include the JFK murderers -- I would use the word "shrewd." Did they have "animal intelligence?" Surely. Did they have professional acumen in the planning and execution of this crime? Surely. Were they intelligent enough to attain what they wanted by this means? NOT AT ALL.

2. My answer about what the plotters wanted is this: they wanted to blame the Communists for murdering JFK, so that the American public would invade Cuba, kill Fidel Castro, and return Cuba to Capitalism.

As for your question about whether later developments turned out the way they originally planned, my answer is: NOT AT ALL.

Further, I imagine that putting LBJ in the White House was entirely SECONDARY to their purpose. In my opinion, with the blaming of a Communist for the murder of JFK, the plotters believed that the American people would DEMAND that the USA invade Cuba, and that LBJ would have NO CHOICE but to obey the Will of the People.

So, the plotters thought that they could manipulate history, and manipulate LBJ, by this crime. THEY FAILED.

I agree with you on one point, Ernie -- the plotters didn't care one way or the other about LBJ. CUBA WAS THEIR MAIN CONCERN. The plotters honestly believed they could control LBJ by motivating the USA against the Communists.

3. Again -- the implication of Harry Dean's Memoirs is not that the John Birch Society wanted to put LBJ in the White House. Rather, as Harry plainly repeats -- the goal of the John Birch Society was to Control the USA in the War Against COMMUNISM.

The Birchers were obsessed with this utterly stupid idea that sitting US Presidents were Communist or Communist-controlled, and they saw in their fevered imaginations that the Whole World was going COMMUNIST. They saw JFK as a COMMUNIST.

This is not speculation -- this is part of the official literature -- which is MILD compared with the street talk among the John Birchers and their Minutemen cousins, according to many sources, including Harry Dean.

So, Ernie, your argument has this flaw - it focuses on LBJ. Actually, LBJ was a minor player. The hope of those who murdered JFK was that their PATSY, Lee Harvey Oswald, was so perfectly framed as a COMMUNIST that the USA would have no choice but to invade CUBA and murder Fidel Castro and return Cuba to the Capitalist fold.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 2, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...In the aftermath...The JBS and radical right also faded into obscurity... no longer relevant after 1980....

Gene

Although we agree, Gene, that the main goal of the JFK murder was REVENGE (for his alleged "Communist" treason) I must take issue with your assessment of history with regard to the John Birch Society.

In no way did "the JBS and radical right...fade into obscurity."

On the contrary. What faded into obscurity in the USA was the radical LEFT. Today the radical left-wing in America is a fried chicken wing.

On the contrary -- the right-wing in America today is a profoundly powerful force, involving Tea Party politics.

On the contrary -- the JBS today is still alive and well. You can look them up on the Internet. Furthermore, their children are almost all members of the Tea Party.

Just look at the Koch brothers, Tea Party giants -- their father was a LEADER of the John Birch Society, and raised his sons according to their principles. That best explains their Tea Party politics.

If we look deep enough into the Tea Party LEADERS, we'll find parents and grandparents who were members of the John Birch Society, I feel sure.

So, Gene, I disagree with you on this point, too. IMHO, the John Birch Society -- which should have been prosecuted for the murder of JFK -- instead remains alive and well in American right-wing politics to this very day.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 2, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Gene Kelly]

Paul:

I do respect your suspicions of Walker. He is an enigmatic character and figures prominently in the JFK story... before, during, and after. I would offer that he faded into obscurity in the next ten years. I do find him interesting but I think his profile is too 'bright' and he sought far too much public attention to be a plotter or planner. I don't think Garrison gave him much credence nor did the HSCA. And - other than his sinister associations and bitterness towards the government and Kennedys - nothing has surfaced in the last 50 years that is notable in so far as his complicity... other than the odd so-called attempt on his life.

General Walker wrote a letter to the Warren Commission requesting that Warren Reynolds (a used car dealer and a witness to the Tippit shooting and fleeing killer) be formally interviewed. According to other Forum members, the Warren Commission stepped on egg-shells with the Warren Reynolds - Edwin Walker relationship. Reynolds was asked leading questions by the Commission, and his testimony was weak and inconclusive. Not sure why Walker would be so overt in his actions after November 1963.

Allegedly, Jack Ruby’s role was to assemble a group of ‘witnesses’ to Tippit’s murder, who would testify that Oswald was the murderer... Reynolds was apparently one of those. Garrison stated that he believed Reynolds to be part of a "convoy" that was used to plant evidence and lead a trail from Tippit to the Texas Theater. Darrell Wayne Garner later allegedly shot Reynolds, and used Nancy Mooney (aka Betty MacDonald) as an alibi. Garner skipped town and Nancy was jailed and hung herself in prison. There are lots of dots to connect there.

The attempt on Reynolds’s life appears melodramatic and staged (just like the Walker attempt earlier that year). Garner and the Reynolds brothers moved in circles of arms deals and paramilitary training grounds. One wonders what the older general had in common with a young used car salesman in Dallas ... probably a personal relationship and the Minute Men. I am very skeptical of what Reynolds testified to, and also find it suspicious that Loran Hall appears to be either protecting or somehow manipulating General Walker before, during and after the JFK assassination.

Gene

[Ernie Lazar]

I would add that a number of Eisenhower's senior Generals were publicly outspoken against he and his defense politics. They accused him literally of gutting

the national defense. Read their articles and it sounds likes the same military diatribes against JFK. Ike was so mad about it hat he actually asked

the Justice Department to confirm that he could court marshal them even if they were retired - as many did. Unlike more modern, and acquisition, DOJ

opinions, he was told he couldn't do that ...and it really upset him.

Yes--very good point Larry.

For everyone here whose predicate is that, somehow, JFK represented some sort of horrific change in the status quo as compared to the policies adopted by and appointments made by Eisenhower -- and, consequently, JFK had to be eliminated -- then I think you must not be aware of the depth of venom directed toward Eisenhower and his Administration.

Alternatively, if your position is that the conspirators' venom simply increased over time and it finally reached the boiling point during JFK's Administration -- so eliminating JFK suddenly became a "rational" proposition deserving of serious planning -- then you must not be aware of the background of Lyndon Johnson (a New Deal Democrat) who, arguably, achieved more (for left-wing interests) than Kennedy was ever prepared to do --- which explains why the Birch Society's score of "Communist influence and control" in our society reached its peak under LBJ. And, as I previously pointed out, after JFK was assassinated, the control of Congress by the very people whom the radical right (and other groups) supposedly despised -- increased exponentially -- which was entirely predictable!

The subsequent defeat of Goldwater by historic proportions certainly cannot be explained away as some sort of unanticipated "blip" or fluke by the conspirators!

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul:

...

This was no mafia shooting... and I can't conceive it being simply a right-wing action. It was a very public execution, and highly coordinated. I'm also struck by the strong parallels to the contemporaneous Phoenix Program in Viet Nam (hunter-killer teams), and the assassination methods used in that action ... such professionals would never be seen or detected, and their presence and fingerprints would have been effectively removed forever. My strong intuition is that many of the same people (the "Southeast Asia" group that Gary Underhill warned of) were involved in Dealey Plaza. So if they too comprised part of the ground crew, I fear we have little hope of uncovering their identities...

Gene, you can't conceive of it being a right-wing action, but you can conceive of it being paramilitary? WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE?

In my studies of right-wing militancy in the USA, few groups stand as far to the right as the Minutemen, who were composed largely of ex-military personnel. An Ex-General like Edwin Walker in a group like the Minutemen would be a fearsome opponent. We must also remember that Walker, when he was younger, had Special Operations training in WW2. All of these maneuvers were as familiar to Walker as the back of his hand.

You say their fingerprints would be erased -- and I grant that -- except this was the USA and not Vietnam -- and there were so many photographs and films taken at Dealey Plaza at the time of JFK's murder that we have a different ball game.

...I respect your intuition about the radical right and those organizations. They form a toxic mix (i.e. the "milieu") with mercenaries, mafia, Cubans and all sorts of intelligence types... hard to keep track of who's doing whom. After wrestling with Edwin Walker (a lunatic and deviant, who nonetheless rose to the rank of general) for some time, I've come to similar terms with his role and place in the story... a diversion and a scapegoat, meant to take us off of the true path of the assassins. The radicals you speak of are analogous to the 6th floor of the TSBD and the Mannlicher-Carcano ... they serve as a diversion or red herring.

Respectfully,

Gene

Gene, respectfully sir, your opinion of Edwin Walker is far too biased for my taste. He was a US General, and deserves more credit than you give him. He certainly was no lunatic -- we have numerous psychiatrists who cleared him of that. Further, one cannot call Edwin Walker a "deviant" today without falling afoul of the Gay Politics in the USA today. Deviant? Because he was gay? If not that -- then what?

Walker was a US General, and well-respected until late 1962 when he led the riots at Ole Miss against James Meredith. Even then, a Mississippi Grand Jury acquitted Edwin Walker of all charges in those riots (in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed). Part of Walker's power was the great respect that Americans have for their victorious Generals of WW2.

Although I profoundly agree that Edwin Walker was no intellectual -- and he let Robert Welch mislead him into joining the utterly absurd John Birch Society -- that is not "deviance" because thousands upon thousands of Americans were joining the Birchers.

I have no respect for the Bircher's intellectual powers, but I do respect their American rights to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe -- and to vote in the way they wish to vote. They remain adults and citizens with rights, even if not intellectuals.

It is because I disagree so strongly with your characterization of Edwin Walker, Gene, that I also disagree sharply with your assessment of him as "a diversion and a scapegoat, meant to take us off of the true path of the assassins."

That is even more cloak-and-dagger than Joan Mellen's theories. Nothing of the kind ever happened with Edwin Walker. The Warren Commission devoted a lot of attention to Edwin Walker -- he was truly a suspect in the JFK murder, and with good cause.

You're not taking all the evidence into account, Gene. No way was Walker a "diversion" for anybody at all. No way was Edwin Walker (or Loran Hall) "a diversion or red herring." This is our sharpest disagreement, Gene. You're ignoring volumes of data about Edwin Walker.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, as is your custom, you make very bold assertions as if they were indisputably factual when, in reality, you have presented not one iota of factual evidence to support your assertion.

I am particularly referring to this comment by you with respect to Edwin Walker: "... he let Robert Welch mislead him into joining the utterly absurd John Birch Society -- that is not "deviance" because thousands upon thousands of Americans were joining the Birchers."

I have studied Walker for a very long time and at least as long as you have (probably longer). BUT...I have never found ANY evidence to support your contention that Walker was ever "misled" by Welch or anybody else in the Birch Society and you have NEVER presented any evidence to support your assumption. Incidentally, this is something I find VERY troubling about your approach to argument and evidence. You CLAIM you have reviewed Walker's private papers -- but how many times have you QUOTED verbatim from them or posted copies online to support your contentions?

Walker was a true believer in the ideology which motivated the radical right in our society and he came to that position BEFORE he joined the JBS!

His personal racist viewpoints existed long before he ever came into contact with either Welch or the JBS. And his personal decisions regarding associating himself with lunatic right-wing persons and groups (including neo-nazi, racist, and paramilitary ones) were certainly NOT influenced by Welch or by the JBS.

For example his involvement with the anti-semitic crowd at American Mercury magazine (he became Military Editor of AM at one point), and his associations with Ku Klux Klan groups and his assistance with the formation of the right-wing paramilitary American Royal Rangers -- are all evidence of his complete rejection of the beliefs and principles and values which motivated Robert Welch and the JBS -- which is why Robert Welch told his National Council as early as 1962 that Walker was NOT listening to advice from people whom Welch respected or trusted as to their good intentions and that is why Welch then distanced himself from Walker.

[Ernie Lazar]

...In the aftermath...The JBS and radical right also faded into obscurity... no longer relevant after 1980....

Gene

Although we agree, Gene, that the main goal of the JFK murder was REVENGE (for his alleged "Communist" treason) I must take issue with your assessment of history with regard to the John Birch Society.

In no way did "the JBS and radical right...fade into obscurity."

On the contrary. What faded into obscurity in the USA was the radical LEFT. Today the radical left-wing in America is a fried chicken wing.

On the contrary -- the right-wing in America today is a profoundly powerful force, involving Tea Party politics.

On the contrary -- the JBS today is still alive and well. You can look them up on the Internet. Furthermore, their children are almost all members of the Tea Party.

Just look at the Koch brothers, Tea Party giants -- their father was a LEADER of the John Birch Society, and raised his sons according to their principles. That best explains their Tea Party politics.

If we look deep enough into the Tea Party LEADERS, we'll find parents and grandparents who were members of the John Birch Society, I feel sure.

So, Gene, I disagree with you on this point, too. IMHO, the John Birch Society -- which should have been prosecuted for the murder of JFK -- instead remains alive and well in American right-wing politics to this very day.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Again, Paul, you make bold assertions without presenting supporting evidence.

Fred Koch was a founding member of the JBS but NOBODY to my knowledge has EVER presented any verifiable factual evidence to support the contention that he was very involved as a JBS member or "leader". Furthermore, you do not even mention that Fred resigned from the JBS -- probably because that would undermine your argument about his supposed "leadership".

Significantly, the private papers of JBS National Council members do NOT reflect much correspondence between Koch and Welch or between Koch and other National Council members. Similarly, it is not even clear that he attended many of those National Council meetings.

I think we are getting to the point (as usual) where we need you to present CLEAR definitions of the terms you use. You seem to routinely use lowest-common-denominator reasoning and you seem to accept every caricature or falsehood ever posted online as long as it supports your preferred narrative.

Oh -- one more thing: The JBS DID "fade into obscurity" -- particularly after the huge internal disputes and financial problems which the JBS experienced during the 1970's and 1980's -- which ultimately resulted in numerous high-profile resignations with bitter recriminatory letters by major figures in the JBS -- such as Gary Allen and Alan Stang -- and even Mrs. Robert Welch!

The JBS had a peak membership of approximately 80,000 but by 1987 it was down to 21,294. This figure was discovered when the JBS moved its HQ from Belmont MA to Wisconsin and they threw a membership mailing list into a dumpster -- which was retrieved by Political Research Associates.

The specific membership by states was as follows:

AK=76, AL=459, AR=148, AZ=577, CA=2648, CO=590, CT=118, DC=6, DE=20

FL=1154, GA=949, HI=29, IA=311, ID=439, IL=447, IN=635, KS=210, KY=290, LA=257,MA=247, MD=159, ME=31, MI=412, MN=553, MO=225,M=225, MT=345, NC=529, ND=214, NE=421, NH=71, NJ=416, NM=139, NV=108, NY=773, OH=726, OK=501, OR=345, PA=586, RI=17, SC=289, SD=324, TN=694, TX=1232, UT=516, VA=235, VT=0, WA=873, WI=605, WV=23, WY=98, PR (Puerto Rico)=2

THEN -- it got even worse!

In 1997, Alan Stang posted an internal JBS membership summary document on his website (now defunct) which showed that in 1993 there were only 13,806 "active" JBS members. However, those figures reflect people who had "lifetime" membership dues paid ($1000) -- including infant children!

There is no verifiable factual evidence to support the idea that the JBS accomplished anything of substance during its history -- although it definitely played a critical role in many national controversies. However, many times individual members never identified themselves as JBS members -- so it is not possible to know with certainty who was responsible in those controversies.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Paul:

I do respect your suspicions of Walker. He is an enigmatic character and figures prominently in the JFK story... before, during, and after. I would offer that he faded into obscurity in the next ten years. I do find him interesting but I think his profile is too 'bright' and he sought far too much public attention to be a plotter or planner. I don't think Garrison gave him much credence nor did the HSCA. And - other than his sinister associations and bitterness towards the government and Kennedys - nothing has surfaced in the last 50 years that is notable in so far as his complicity... other than the odd so-called attempt on his life.

General Walker wrote a letter to the Warren Commission requesting that Warren Reynolds (a used car dealer and a witness to the Tippit shooting and fleeing killer) be formally interviewed. According to other Forum members, the Warren Commission stepped on egg-shells with the Warren Reynolds - Edwin Walker relationship. Reynolds was asked leading questions by the Commission, and his testimony was weak and inconclusive. Not sure why Walker would be so overt in his actions after November 1963.

Allegedly, Jack Ruby’s role was to assemble a group of ‘witnesses’ to Tippit’s murder, who would testify that Oswald was the murderer... Reynolds was apparently one of those. Garrison stated that he believed Reynolds to be part of a "convoy" that was used to plant evidence and lead a trail from Tippit to the Texas Theater. Darrell Wayne Garner later allegedly shot Reynolds, and used Nancy Mooney (aka Betty MacDonald) as an alibi. Garner skipped town and Nancy was jailed and hung herself in prison. There are lots of dots to connect there.

The attempt on Reynolds’s life appears melodramatic and staged (just like the Walker attempt earlier that year). Garner and the Reynolds brothers moved in circles of arms deals and paramilitary training grounds. One wonders what the older general had in common with a young used car salesman in Dallas ... probably a personal relationship and the Minute Men. I am very skeptical of what Reynolds testified to, and also find it suspicious that Loran Hall appears to be either protecting or somehow manipulating General Walker before, during and after the JFK assassination.

Gene

Gene, I hope you'll increase your suspicions of Edwin Walker, because I propose to present -- above and beyond the eye-witness claims of Harry Dean -- that Edwin Walker deserves far more attention than JFK research has afforded him in 50 years, and for this very reason has failed to connect all the dots.

Walker is not as enigmatic as he seems, except that he seems made of Teflon -- the negative simply bounces away from him. He was able to get away with the riots of Ole Miss in 1962 (which was the real reason that Robert Welch distanced himself from Walker).

You say that "his profile was too bright" to be a plotter or planner. Yet it is precisely this "brightness" which allowed him to get away with one outrage after another! One can detect a pattern with it.

Consider this -- there is plenty of documented evidence that Edwin Walker was directly behind the beating and spitting at Adlai Stevenson in Dallas one month before JFK arrived. It was a well-known fact in Dallas -- printed in the periodical, The Big D, shortly after the incident.

Did you know that? Why wasn't Edwin Walker prosecuted in the slightest bit for these attacks on Adlai Stevenson?

I will offer my opinion -- Edwin Walker was made of Teflon, being a victorious World War Two US General. He could do no wrong in the eyes of Dallas society. He was a leader's leader among the extreme right-wing in Dallas, and he could get away with anything.

Walker got away with the riots at Ole Miss. Walker got away with the attacks on Adlai Stevenson in Dallas. Would this same fanatic allow JFK -- the world's most powerful Communist (in Walker's honest opinion) -- to drive by in a parade only blocks away from Walker's home on Turtle Creek Boulevard in Dallas?

I think we underestimate Walker because we think of him as just a fanatic old codger. This is a completely mistaken notion of a former US General (the only US General to resign in the 20th century) who ran for Governor of Texas only the year before!

Walker had plenty of fight left in him in 1963. He bore a black eye after the riots at Ole Miss, mainly because JFK and RFK threw him into an insane asylum after the riots. Historians generally report that fact, but they also tend to omit the fact that famous psychiatrist Thomas Szasz reacted immediately to get Edwin Walker released in only two days from that insane asylum! In fact, even the ACLU opposed JFK and RFK on this decision!

Psychiatrists came from everywhere to defend Edwin Walker from "political psychiatry." Brilliantly, Walker's attorneys argued in his case before the Mississippi Grand Jury that Edwin Walker was a victim in these Ole Miss trials, rather than a perpetrator! They won.

So, history shows that Edwin Walker could walk under the radar, no matter how outrageous his actions were.

I totally agree with you that Garrison and the HSCA just dismissed him as uninteresting. That's the Teflon. Walker's name appears hundreds of times in the Warren Commission volumes. He was one of the most interesting figures to the Warren attorneys at the time, and there were many (even aside from Jack Ruby) who suspected Walker and the JBS of the murder of JFK.

Nothing has surfaced about Walker in the past 50 years you say? But actually the horrible beating that the Memoirs of Harry Dean have taken in this regard -- even here on this Forum -- are part of the suppression of a discussion for this Teflon Ex-General.

Even in our sister web site of Spartacus, to this very day, false information about Harry Dean's case vis-a-vis the JBS and Loran Hall is spread by Spartacus (i.e. they spread the W.R. Morris nonsense that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI Agent and even a CIA Agent). That happens to be a lie.

So -- when the lies about the Walker Case extend even to this very day, Gene, I cannot agree with you when you conclude that the past 50 years have produced nothing suspicious about Walker. These very lies about Harry Dean tend to protect Walker's image to this very day! These contemporary lies are themselves suspicious!

As for Walker's pushing of the Warren Reynolds issue -- Walker was attempting to obscure his guilt, IMHO, by pushing on the FBI regarding Oswald's shooting at him in 10 April 1963. His personal papers mention this consistently until the year he died.

Walker also pushed on the HSCA on this same score. He wanted to assure his place as a victim of the JFK investigation, rather than as a suspect. Again -- he succeeded brilliantly.

The attempt on Reynold's life was real -- and the Dallas Police actually solved it. His shooter was known, but had an air-tight alibi also sealed by death. This was well known, even by the Warren Commission lawyers who dismissed Reynold's bizarre claim that Walker's second shooter was also his shooter. Walker was evidently the source of that lie.

Finally, Gene, I'm glad you recognize the possibility that Loran Hall could have been trying to protect Walker before, during and after the JFK murder -- it is critical information, IMHO.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited July 3, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Gene Kelly]

Paul:

I appreciate your passion about Walker. I don't dismiss him, anymore than one can dsimiss anyhting in this morass of rabit holes called the JFK assassination. Walker is very close to may key events in the murder... before, during and after. Jim Root's tireless work to connect Walker dots in WWII, intelligence, Willoughby, Helms, Oswald and Maxell Taylor are quite interesting. Walker was pro-Blue (and anti-red) in an era where that was fashionable... and he was a general, so he deserves respect. I am keenly aware of his involvement in the "wanted for treason" posters and the earlier Stevenson incident. His behavior in the riots and other events is a discrace to his uniform ... in my opinion, the Kennedy's were justified in having him decommissioned, institutionalized and frankly prosecuted. No wonder they referred to it as "nut country" when they visited Texas.

It's very hard for me to evaluate his role in retrospect, and I do so cautiously. He was a miltary man, and he didn't like JFK or his policies... so he is by definition on the list. He lived in Dallas near Hidell Hardware. Add in all of the radical causes and reactionaries floating around him, and you have a person of interest. The attempt on his life is one of those key enigmas that seem to be at the heart of the games being played. I also see his connection to Warren Reynolds (and the Tippit affair) as another strong link of suspicion. But I'm entitled to my assessment and opinion... and there's just something too obvious about him for my tastes.

Many have branded him as an embarrassemnt to the military and government; others say he hated Earl Warren and wanted him impeached as well... a rationalization for his assertive interaction with the Warren Commission. He had aspirations to run for governor and even president, and he was an iconic figure at radical right rallies and conventions. But he had no official responsibilities or positions of power in 1963. He was not married, and there were overtones about deviant behaviour that later got him in trouble and (if my memory serves me) arrested. In his pictures and actions, he appears as an angry (and unhappy) man... a craeture of the times who seems pathetic in retrospect. That's how he lands upon me. So I simply can't reconcile him as a plotter or a big fish in the storyline. I view him as a convenient lightning rod to ground energy, and just another patsy (albeit a prominent one) in the murder case.

Gene

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul:

I do respect your suspicions of Walker. He is an enigmatic character and figures prominently in the JFK story... before, during, and after. I would offer that he faded into obscurity in the next ten years. I do find him interesting but I think his profile is too 'bright' and he sought far too much public attention to be a plotter or planner. I don't think Garrison gave him much credence nor did the HSCA. And - other than his sinister associations and bitterness towards the government and Kennedys - nothing has surfaced in the last 50 years that is notable in so far as his complicity... other than the odd so-called attempt on his life.

General Walker wrote a letter to the Warren Commission requesting that Warren Reynolds (a used car dealer and a witness to the Tippit shooting and fleeing killer) be formally interviewed. According to other Forum members, the Warren Commission stepped on egg-shells with the Warren Reynolds - Edwin Walker relationship. Reynolds was asked leading questions by the Commission, and his testimony was weak and inconclusive. Not sure why Walker would be so overt in his actions after November 1963.

Allegedly, Jack Ruby’s role was to assemble a group of ‘witnesses’ to Tippit’s murder, who would testify that Oswald was the murderer... Reynolds was apparently one of those. Garrison stated that he believed Reynolds to be part of a "convoy" that was used to plant evidence and lead a trail from Tippit to the Texas Theater. Darrell Wayne Garner later allegedly shot Reynolds, and used Nancy Mooney (aka Betty MacDonald) as an alibi. Garner skipped town and Nancy was jailed and hung herself in prison. There are lots of dots to connect there.

The attempt on Reynolds’s life appears melodramatic and staged (just like the Walker attempt earlier that year). Garner and the Reynolds brothers moved in circles of arms deals and paramilitary training grounds. One wonders what the older general had in common with a young used car salesman in Dallas ... probably a personal relationship and the Minute Men. I am very skeptical of what Reynolds testified to, and also find it suspicious that Loran Hall appears to be either protecting or somehow manipulating General Walker before, during and after the JFK assassination.

Gene

Gene, I hope you'll increase your suspicions of Edwin Walker, because I propose to present -- above and beyond the eye-witness claims of Harry Dean -- that Edwin Walker deserves far more attention than JFK research has afforded him in 50 years, and for this very reason has failed to connect all the dots.

Walker is not as enigmatic as he seems, except that he seems made of Teflon -- the negative simply bounces away from him. He was able to get away with the riots of Ole Miss in 1962 (which was the real reason that Robert Welch distanced himself from Walker).

You say that "his profile was too bright" to be a plotter or planner. Yet it is precisely this "brightness" which allowed him to get away with one outrage after another! One can detect a pattern with it.

Consider this -- there is plenty of documented evidence that Edwin Walker was directly behind the beating and spitting at Adlai Stevenson in Dallas one month before JFK arrived. It was a well-known fact in Dallas -- printed in the periodical, The Big D, shortly after the incident.

Did you know that? Why wasn't Edwin Walker prosecuted in the slightest bit for these attacks on Adlai Stevenson?

I will offer my opinion -- Edwin Walker was made of Teflon, being a victorious World War Two US General. He could do no wrong in the eyes of Dallas society. He was a leader's leader among the extreme right-wing in Dallas, and he could get away with anything.

Walker got away with the riots at Ole Miss. Walker got away with the attacks on Adlai Stevenson in Dallas. Would this same fanatic allow JFK -- the world's most powerful Communist (in Walker's honest opinion) -- to drive by in a parade only blocks away from Walker's home on Turtle Creek Boulevard in Dallas?

I think we underestimate Walker because we think of him as just a fanatic old codger. This is a completely mistaken notion of a former US General (the only US General to resign in the 20th century) who ran for Governor of Texas only the year before!

Walker had plenty of fight left in him in 1963. He bore a black eye after the riots at Ole Miss, mainly because JFK and RFK threw him into an insane asylum after the riots. Historians generally report that fact, but they also tend to omit the fact that famous psychiatrist Thomas Szasz reacted immediately to get Edwin Walker released in only two days from that insane asylum! In fact, even the ACLU opposed JFK and RFK on this decision!

Psychiatrists came from everywhere to defend Edwin Walker from "political psychiatry." Brilliantly, Walker's attorneys argued in his case before the Mississippi Grand Jury that Edwin Walker was a victim in these Ole Miss trials, rather than a perpetrator! They won.

So, history shows that Edwin Walker could walk under the radar, no matter how outrageous his actions were.

I totally agree with you that Garrison and the HSCA just dismissed him as uninteresting. That's the Teflon. Walker's name appears hundreds of times in the Warren Commission volumes. He was one of the most interesting figures to the Warren attorneys at the time, and there were many (even aside from Jack Ruby) who suspected Walker and the JBS of the murder of JFK.

Nothing has surfaced about Walker in the past 50 years you say? But actually the horrible beating that the Memoirs of Harry Dean have taken in this regard -- even here on this Forum -- are part of the suppression of a discussion for this Teflon Ex-General.

Even in our sister web site of Spartacus, to this very day, false information about Harry Dean's case vis-a-vis the JBS and Loran Hall is spread by Spartacus (i.e. they spread the W.R. Morris nonsense that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI Agent and even a CIA Agent). That happens to be a lie.

So -- when the lies about the Walker Case extend even to this very day, Gene, I cannot agree with you when you conclude that the past 50 years have produced nothing suspicious about Walker. These very lies about Harry Dean tend to protect Walker's image to this very day! These contemporary lies are themselves suspicious!

As for Walker's pushing of the Warren Reynolds issue -- Walker was attempting to obscure his guilt, IMHO, by pushing on the FBI regarding Oswald's shooting at him in 10 April 1963. His personal papers mention this consistently until the year he died.

Walker also pushed on the HSCA on this same score. He wanted to assure his place as a victim of the JFK investigation, rather than as a suspect. Again -- he succeeded brilliantly.

The attempt on Reynold's life was real -- and the Dallas Police actually solved it. His shooter was known, but had an air-tight alibi also sealed by death. This was well known, even by the Warren Commission lawyers who dismissed Reynold's bizarre claim that Walker's second shooter was also his shooter. Walker was evidently the source of that lie.

Finally, Gene, I'm glad you recognize the possibility that Loran Hall could have been trying to protect Walker before, during and after the JFK murder -- it is critical information, IMHO.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul: There you go again!

You continue to make definitive assertions for which you have NO evidence.

For example, your assertion about Walker that: "He was able to get away with the riots of Ole Miss in 1962 (which was the real reason that Robert Welch distanced himself from Walker). "

How do you know "the real reason" why Welch distanced himself from Walker? Did you speak with Welch? Or have you seen letters that Welch wrote to Walker or to Birch Society members about Walker? Did you see anything in Walker's private papers to support your "real reason" assertion?

HARRY AS "AGENT":

You are probably the only person in our country who could read Harry's numerous online comments but NOT expect anybody to believe that Harry was some sort of intelligence "agent".

Keep in mind that one dictionary definition of "agent" is "one engaged in undercover activities" and furthermore Harry has sometimes described himself as a "double agent" for U.S. intelligence agencies.

In addition, Harry has always claimed he acquired special knowledge about intelligence matters and practices which came about as a result of his personal intimacy with people who actually were FBI or CIA Agents and that purported special knowledge exceeds what a mere "informant" or "confidential source" could possibly know.

Lastly, as I have repeatedly told you, most people do NOT make the kind of fastidious distinctions that you want us to make.

When they read about the exploits of self-described "undercover informants" or people who describe themselves as "spying on" or "providing intelligence" on various people or groups, they naturally convert that in their minds to "AGENT" -- as EVEN YOU DID in April 2012 when YOU WROTE:

By 1962, Harry Dean had successfully completed a mission for the FBI as an undercover agent investigating and reporting on Fidel Castro in Cuba. Now, in 1963, Harry Dean was on a mission for the FBI as an undercover agent investigating and reporting on the John Birch Society in Southern California.

And, as we have previously discussed, many people, in different locations, and in different years -- came away from their personal contacts with Harry believing that he was some sort of intelligence AGENT!

I understand your desire to de-value or dismiss EVERYTHING that falsifies your personal bias in favor of Harry -- but no impartial observer believes you nor accepts your contention that Spartacus website is repeating any sort of "lie" about Harry.

And perhaps most significantly, there is virtually nothing in the public record during the 1960's where Harry clearly and definitively issued any sort of disclaimer about this matter such as by writing or saying: "I was never an 'Agent' for the FBI or the CIA or any other intelligence or law enforcement agency. All I ever did was provide some information which I thought they would want to know about -- just like many other Americans did every day. I have no idea what they did with my information because I had no access to their internal procedures or practices." Instead, Harry just let everybody (including newspaper reporters) believe whatever they wanted to believe and write whatever would generate the most publicity for Harry's narrative.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Paul: There you go again!

You continue to make definitive assertions for which you have NO evidence.

For example, your assertion about Walker that: "He was able to get away with the riots of Ole Miss in 1962 (which was the real reason that Robert Welch distanced himself from Walker). "

How do you know "the real reason" why Welch distanced himself from Walker? Did you speak with Welch? Or have you seen letters that Welch wrote to Walker or to Birch Society members about Walker? Did you see anything in Walker's private papers to support your "real reason" assertion?

Yes, Ernie, in fact I have seen those letters, and evidently more than you have. It is from Robert Welch's own words about Edwin Walker that I made my statement.

Once again, you jump in with both feet with eyes closed.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul:

I appreciate your passion about Walker. I don't dismiss him, anymore than one can dsimiss anyhting in this morass of rabit holes called the JFK assassination. Walker is very close to may key events in the murder... before, during and after. Jim Root's tireless work to connect Walker dots in WWII, intelligence, Willoughby, Helms, Oswald and Maxell Taylor are quite interesting. Walker was pro-Blue (and anti-red) in an era where that was fashionable... and he was a general, so he deserves respect. I am keenly aware of his involvement in the "wanted for treason" posters and the earlier Stevenson incident. His behavior in the riots and other events is a discrace to his uniform ... in my opinion, the Kennedy's were justified in having him decommissioned, institutionalized and frankly prosecuted. No wonder they referred to it as "nut country" when they visited Texas.

It's very hard for me to evaluate his role in retrospect, and I do so cautiously. He was a miltary man, and he didn't like JFK or his policies... so he is by definition on the list. He lived in Dallas near Hidell Hardware. Add in all of the radical causes and reactionaries floating around him, and you have a person of interest. The attempt on his life is one of those key enigmas that seem to be at the heart of the games being played. I also see his connection to Warren Reynolds (and the Tippit affair) as another strong link of suspicion. But I'm entitled to my assessment and opinion... and there's just something too obvious about him for my tastes.

Many have branded him as an embarrassemnt to the military and government; others say he hated Earl Warren and wanted him impeached as well... a rationalization for his assertive interaction with the Warren Commission. He had aspirations to run for governor and even president, and he was an iconic figure at radical right rallies and conventions. But he had no official responsibilities or positions of power in 1963. He was not married, and there were overtones about deviant behaviour that later got him in trouble and (if my memory serves me) arrested. In his pictures and actions, he appears as an angry (and unhappy) man... a craeture of the times who seems pathetic in retrospect. That's how he lands upon me. So I simply can't reconcile him as a plotter or a big fish in the storyline. I view him as a convenient lightning rod to ground energy, and just another patsy (albeit a prominent one) in the murder case.

Gene

Gene, I appreciate your perspective, and I also appreciate your openness to my arguments.

If Jim Root's work pans out, then we will have a closer link with Walker and Lee Harvey Oswald than I can find evidence for. I have serious reservations that it will pan out. If Gerry Patrick Hemming is Root's best witness, we must add an additional grain of salt.

Dick Russell is a more plausible source. He relates in his famous, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1993) that the butler of H.L. Hunt reported that he overheard H.L. Hunt and Edwin Walker speaking about Lee Harvey Oswald in a private meeting only days before the JFK murder. He heard no details, but the name was unmistakable, he said.

One key fact about Walker I'd like to emphasize -- you write: "the Kennedys were justified in having him decommissioned..." but in fact that's incorrect. JFK offered Walker a better job in Hawaii. Walker resigned his post (and was the only US General to do so in the 20th century). This was the second time Walker submitted his resignation -- the first time was in 1959, to President Eisenhower, around the same time Walker joined the Birchers, and he cited a "conspiracy" as his reason for quitting.

Eisenhower denied the resignation, and instead sent Walker to Germany, where, after two years, he resigned again. JFK's offer of a job in Hawaii was fruitless. JFK accepted Walker's resignation. Walker resigned WITHOUT A PENSION and with his eyes wide open. The fact is that H.L. Hunt in Dallas had prepared a way for Walker, and would soon finance Walker's bid for Texas Governor.

Anyway, I think that's an important historical point to clarify.

By the way, I very much appreciate your notation about "Hidell Hardware" in Dallas. If that link pans out, then we might have a stronger confirmation of Jim Root's theory, which tries to link Walker and Oswald as early as 1959. I'm open to new information, Gene, truly.

I realize I have a lot of work to do to convince the skeptics. The attempt on Walker's life on 10 April 1963 is the main sticking point. Having dived into that morass rather deeply, I'm convinced that the attack was genuine, and that Lee Harvey Oswald was one of two shooters that night.

There is ample evidence from the Warren Commission (whose conclusions I reject, but whose testimony I largely accept) that George De Mohrenschildt was the key plotter against Walker, in conjunction with Michael Paine and Volkmar Schmidt. They worked on Lee Harvey Oswald who was reactively spouting Marine rhetoric about shooting JFK over the Bay of Pigs.

De Mohrenschildt, Paine and Schmidt worked to convert Oswald into a "liberal" and yet they were shocked when Oswald took them at their word and actually tried to murder Walker. Then they ran like scared rabbits. Volkmar Schmidt gave his confession to this on film. He is eminently believable.

(By the way, this in no way proves, as the Warren Commission suggested, that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Lone Shooter at JFK, and had no accomplices. Oswald had several accomplices as Jim Garrison showed.)

It was this attack on Walker's life -- I maintain -- that got Walker involved in the plot to kill JFK. Walker says in his personal papers that he learned that Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter only days after the shooting. That would be probably Easter Sunday, 1963, since that was the day that George De Mohrenschildt confessed to Mr and Mrs Igor Voshinin, who told Dick Russell that they called the FBI immediately.

The FBI told Walker, evidently -- because Walker recounts his April 1963 knowledge of Oswald several times in his personal papers -- year after year in letters to powerful people and to newspapers. The evidence for this theory is material. The suspicions that many have about the shooting being staged seem to originate with Gerry Patrick Hemming. Enough said.

Again -- I hope I'm not being tedious here -- the fact that Walker is too obvious as a suspect is one of his best defenses! Walker didn't mind being obvious -- he could walk between the raindrops.

(By the way, Gene, may I ask you to please reconsider the phrase, "too obvious?" Obvious should mean obvious by any definition. It should be a flashing red light.)

You were already aware that Walker led the attacks on Adlai Stevenson in October 1963 -- yet you are among the few I've spoken with who has expressed that knowledge. This is a central fact, IMHO, because again, Walker walks away from that crime scot free.

As for Walker's demand to impeach Earl Warren -- that came from his adoption of the famous John Birch Society slogan. Warren was the Supreme Court promoter of the Brown Decision (1954) to racially integrate US public schools. The South called for his impeachment, and the John Birch Society found this to be its most successful rallying cry.

Walker did behave as a racist, but I think it's important to note that Walker never spoke as a racist in any of the published speeches he ever delivered -- as far as I could tell from his personal papers. He catered to racist audiences -- but he always stopped short of the "N" word -- at a time when other politicians, and even Presidential candidates (e.g. George Wallace) were not shy about using that word.

There is one claim that he once used the "N" word in Oklahoma, but it is unconfirmed.

The issue is that Walker always wanted to return to politics. He thought he had a chance. The South was the only venue open to him, and so he took it, and tried his best. We must remember his youth -- President Woodrow Wilson had been famous in the South for keeping Princeton University lily-white. This was Conservatism for Walker's generation.

Yes, Walker was arrested -- twice -- in his golden years for homosexual behavior in public. He was a lifelong closet homosexual, and this was perhaps his main political failing. His personal life is a deep dark mystery (and he has no personal papers on display that discuss it). Yet I believe that if historians can break this mystery, that the JFK murder can also be illuminated.

(There is one item in his personal papers -- his secretary Julia Knecht, sent him a news clipping in the 1980's about the legalization of homosexuality in Germany, with an encouraging notation.)

Walker was far from a lightening rod, far from a patsy, far from a distraction. He will one day prove to be the very key to solving the JFK murder, in my humble opinion.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<minor edits>

Edited July 4, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul: There you go again!

You continue to make definitive assertions for which you have NO evidence.

For example, your assertion about Walker that: "He was able to get away with the riots of Ole Miss in 1962 (which was the real reason that Robert Welch distanced himself from Walker). "

How do you know "the real reason" why Welch distanced himself from Walker? Did you speak with Welch? Or have you seen letters that Welch wrote to Walker or to Birch Society members about Walker? Did you see anything in Walker's private papers to support your "real reason" assertion?

Yes, Ernie, in fact I have seen those letters, and evidently more than you have. It is from Robert Welch's own words about Edwin Walker that I made my statement.

Once again, you jump in with both feet with eyes closed.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

THEN QUOTE FROM THEM -- or better yet, post them online. My eyes are not closed -- that is why I ask for VERIFIABLE FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

The fact that you cannot understand a normal request for EVIDENCE reveals everything deficient about your intellect.

By way of contrast, I have repeatedly quoted verbatim from minutes of JBS National Council meetings where Welch discussed Walker -- and Welch specifically identified Medford Evans and J. Evetts Haley as two individuals from whom Walker was accepting advice and counsel -- and Welch did not trust them. I also referred to Welch's comment concerning the owner of American Mercury magazine which Walker had associated himself with -- and Welch had described them as anti-semites.

So unless and until you provide specific verifiable FACTS - (and preferably copies posted online) -- there is no reason to believe your assertion that the "real reason" was exclusively or even predominantly the Ole Miss incident.

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul:

I appreciate your passion about Walker. I don't dismiss him, anymore than one can dsimiss anyhting in this morass of rabit holes called the JFK assassination. Walker is very close to may key events in the murder... before, during and after. Jim Root's tireless work to connect Walker dots in WWII, intelligence, Willoughby, Helms, Oswald and Maxell Taylor are quite interesting. Walker was pro-Blue (and anti-red) in an era where that was fashionable... and he was a general, so he deserves respect. I am keenly aware of his involvement in the "wanted for treason" posters and the earlier Stevenson incident. His behavior in the riots and other events is a discrace to his uniform ... in my opinion, the Kennedy's were justified in having him decommissioned, institutionalized and frankly prosecuted. No wonder they referred to it as "nut country" when they visited Texas.

It's very hard for me to evaluate his role in retrospect, and I do so cautiously. He was a miltary man, and he didn't like JFK or his policies... so he is by definition on the list. He lived in Dallas near Hidell Hardware. Add in all of the radical causes and reactionaries floating around him, and you have a person of interest. The attempt on his life is one of those key enigmas that seem to be at the heart of the games being played. I also see his connection to Warren Reynolds (and the Tippit affair) as another strong link of suspicion. But I'm entitled to my assessment and opinion... and there's just something too obvious about him for my tastes.

Many have branded him as an embarrassemnt to the military and government; others say he hated Earl Warren and wanted him impeached as well... a rationalization for his assertive interaction with the Warren Commission. He had aspirations to run for governor and even president, and he was an iconic figure at radical right rallies and conventions. But he had no official responsibilities or positions of power in 1963. He was not married, and there were overtones about deviant behaviour that later got him in trouble and (if my memory serves me) arrested. In his pictures and actions, he appears as an angry (and unhappy) man... a craeture of the times who seems pathetic in retrospect. That's how he lands upon me. So I simply can't reconcile him as a plotter or a big fish in the storyline. I view him as a convenient lightning rod to ground energy, and just another patsy (albeit a prominent one) in the murder case.

Gene

Gene, I appreciate your perspective, and I also appreciate your openness to my arguments.

If Jim Root's work pans out, then we will have a closer link with Walker and Lee Harvey Oswald than I can find evidence for. I have serious reservations that it will pan out. If Gerry Patrick Hemming is Root's best witness, we must add an additional grain of salt.

Dick Russell is a more plausible source. He relates in his famous, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1993) that the butler of H.L. Hunt reported that he overheard H.L. Hunt and Edwin Walker speaking about Lee Harvey Oswald in a private meeting only weeks before the JFK murder. He heard no details, but the name was unmistakable, he said.

One key fact about Walker I'd like to emphasize -- you write: "the Kennedys were justified in having him decommissioned..." but in fact that's incorrect. JFK offered Walker a better job in Hawaii. Walker resigned his post (and was the only US General to do so in the 20th century). This was the second time Walker submitted his resignation -- the first time was in 1959, to President Eisenhower, around the same time Walker joined the Birchers, and he cited a "conspiracy" as his reason for quitting.

Eisenhower denied the resignation, and instead sent Walker to Germany, where, after two years, he resigned again. JFK's offer of a job in Hawaii was fruitless. JFK accepted Walker's resignation. Walker resigned WITHOUT A PENSION and with his eyes wide open. The fact is that H.L. Hunt in Dallas had prepared a way for Walker, and would soon finance Walker's bid for Texas Governor.

Anyway, I think that's an important historical point to clarify.

By the way, I very much appreciate your notation about "Hidell Hardware" in Dallas. If that link pans out, then we might have a stronger confirmation of Jim Root's theory, which tries to link Walker and Oswald as early as 1959. I'm open to new information, Gene, truly.

I realize I have a lot of work to do to convince the skeptics. The attempt on his life on 10 April 1963 is the main sticking point. Having dived into that morass rather deeply, I'm convinced that the attack was genuine, and that Lee Harvey Oswald was one of two shooters that night.

There is ample evidence from the Warren Commission (whose conclusions I reject, but whose testimony I largely accept) that George De Mohrenschildt was the key plotter, in conjunction with Michael Paine and Volkmar Schmidt. They worked on Lee Harvey Oswald who was reactively spouting Marine rhetoric about shooting JFK over the Bay of Pigs. They worked to convert Oswald into a "liberal" and yet they were shocked when Oswald took them at their word and really tried to kill Walker. Then they ran like scared rabbits. Volkmar Schmidt gave his confession to this on film. He is eminently believable.

It was this attack on Walker's life -- I maintain -- that got Walker involved in the plot to kill JFK. Walker says in his personal papers that he learned that Lee Harvey Oswald was his shooter only days after the shooting. That would be probably Easter Sunday, 1963, since that was the day that George De Mohrenschildt confessed to Mr and Mrs Igor Voshinin, who told Dick Russell that she called the FBI immediately.

The FBI told Walker, evidently -- because Walker repeats his knowledge of Oswald since April 1963 several times in his personal papers -- year after year in letters to powerful people and to newspapers. The evidence for this theory is material. The suspicions that many have about the shooting being staged seem to originate with Gerry Patrick Hemming. Enough said.

Again -- I hope I'm not being tedious here -- the fact that Walker is too obvious is one of his best defenses! He didn't mind being obvious -- he could walk between the raindrops.

You were already aware that Walker led the attacks on Adlai Stevenson in October 1963 -- yet you are among the few I've spoken with who has expressed that knowledge. This is a central fact, IMHO, because again, Walker walks away from that crime scot free.

As for Walker's demand to impeach Earl Warren -- that came from his adoption of the famous John Birch Society slogan. Warren was the Supreme Court promoter of the Brown Decision (1954) to racially integrate US public schools. The South called for his impeachment, and the John Birch Society found this to be its most successful rallying cry.

Walker did behave as a racist, but I think it's important to note that Walker never spoke as a racist in any of the published speeches he ever delivered -- as far as I could tell from his personal papers. He catered to racist audiences -- but he always stopped short of the "N" word -- at a time when other politicians, and even Presidential candidates (e.g. George Wallace) were not shy about using that word.

There is one claim that he once used the "N" word in Oklahoma, but it is unconfirmed.

The issue is that Walker always wanted to return to politics. He thought he had a chance. The South was the only venue open to him, and so he took it, and tried his best. We must remember his history -- President Woodrow Wilson had been famous for keeping Princeton University lily-white. This was Conservatism for Walker's generation.

Yes, Walker was arrested -- twice -- in his golden years for homosexual behavior in public. He was a lifelong closet homosexual, and this was perhaps his main political failing. His personal life is a deep dark mystery (and he has no personal papers on display that discuss it). Yet I believe that if historians can break this mystery, that the JFK murder can also be illuminated.

(There is one item in his personal papers -- his secretary Julia Knecht, sent him a news clipping in the 1980's about the legalization of homosexuality in Germany, with an encouraging notation.)

Walker was far from a lightening rod, far from a patsy, far from a distraction. He will one day prove to be the very key to solving the JFK murder, in my humble opinion.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- you have got to be kidding -- right?

Walker never spoke as a racist? Why do you think organizations such as Americans for the Preservation of the White Race invited Walker to be their main speaker and he accepted?

Why do you think Walker made this comment in June 1965 in a speech to the American Conservative Club in Harrisburg PA?

“I think I can match three good Americans in the KKK for every one in the Americans For Democratic Action or the Anti-Defamation League"

OR THIS ONE IN HIS LETTER TO CONDE MCGINLEY'S VICIOUSLY RACIST AND ANTI-SEMITIC PAPER, COMMON SENSE, 11/15/65, p5?

“I’ll bet you will find more good Americans in the Ku Klux Klan than in the Americans For Democratic Action.”