Jump to content
The Education Forum

Information for Ron Ecker


Jim Root
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ron, you stated

"Jim,

I think you’ve drawn a fascinating picture with your research as set forth in this and previous posts. I tend to agree with you on the involvement of Taylor, possibly McCloy as well, on Walker and Oswald likely crossing paths for informational purposes on Oswald’s way to Russia, and the NSA’s Hurt being the Hurt that Oswald tried to reach from the Dallas jail.

That said, there are a couple of elements in the scenario you’ve presented that I question, and I wonder if you consider these elements to be essential to the mix. First, I question the idea that Oswald actually tried to shoot Walker. This is exactly what the conspirators want us to believe, of course, that Oswald was this lone nut who showed himself capable of shooting the president by having already taken a shot at this general. I see Oswald as a U.S. intelligence operative who did what he was told to do and apparently did it well. He was sent on a mission to Russia and accomplished what he was supposed to. Upon his return, he was placed in various jobs apparently for the ostensible purpose of reporting to the FBI on possible subversives (e.g. Molina at the TSBD). He built a pro-Castro legend for himself in New Orleans under the guidance of Banister and others, again being a good soldier, not knowing what the true purpose of this charade would turn out to be. This man had no reason to go take a shot at Walker, and (this brings us to the second element I question) Walker had no reason to be surprised and panic upon Oswald’s arrest. I rather suspect that Walker at least had knowledge of who the designated patsy was going to be, the same person who (it would eventually be alleged) had tried to kill him too."

Ron

I have found an interesting memo from McCone to McCloy dated April 8, 1963 two days before the attempted assassination of Edwin Walker that adds an air of mystery to this scenario. It may be of interest to those that "question the idea that Oswald actually tried to shoot Walker" while providing another connection, perhaps, to the need for the Walker assassination attempt as a lead up to the assassination of the President.

Memorandum by Director of Central Intelligence McCone/1/

Washington, April 8, 1963.

/1/Source: Central Intelligence Agency, DCI, ER Subject Files, White Papers-Nuclear Test Ban 3/1/63-1/2/64. Secret. Circulated to McCloy.

With respect to the test ban treaty, I have not gone over the last draft./2/ However, it is my understanding that the present negotiating position provides for seven on-site inspections, seven black boxes within the USSR, and an inspection area of 500 square kilometers, and that the treaty deals with all the other issues which have been developed through the years. Some consideration is being given to reducing the seven on-site inspections to six, or even to five. There is also a difference of opinion as to the value of the black boxes.

/2/Reference is to a March 23 draft comprehensive test ban treaty. (Washington National Records Center, RG 383, ACDA/CRSC Files: FRC 77 A 59, Basic Policy, Pol 3-3, Proposals to President)

One would have to make a penetrating study of the results of the Vela experiments to make a final judgment as to the adequacy of the verification provisions of the treaty. However, Mr. Foster, at a recent Executive Committee meeting,/3/ stated that the threshold is on the order of one kiloton in granite, two kilotons in tuff, and 10 to 20 kilotons (and possibly 30 kilotons) in alluvium. He added that this was the threshold for a single test. Based on a theory of probabilities, he further concluded that a series of tests which included a meaningful number of underground shots in a single location would, with a small number of inspections, undoubtedly be detected and identified as nuclear rather than natural.

/3/Not identified; the test ban was not discussed in the Executive Committee of the National Security Council during 1963.

On the basis of these threshold figures, I have expressed the view to Mr. Foster and to the President/4/ that the degree of verification is not sufficient, as it cannot prove adherence to a suspension of testing in an important area of yields. Of greater importance, however, is the fact that under present political circumstances a test ban between the U.S., USSR, and UK would not, in the final analysis, answer the "proliferation" problem because the Soviets cannot handle the Chinese Communists and we and the British cannot handle the French.

/4/In a memorandum for the record, April 4, McCone wrote he had told the President that day that former President Eisenhower had expressed opposition to the present draft treaty "because of inadequate verification, the threshold, etc.," and that he, McCone, agreed with this position and also opposed it because "the Russians could no longer handle the Chinese situation and we and the British could no longer handle the de Gaulle situation, and hence the proliferation problem. The President seemed to agree, and restated that he did not think we were going to get a treaty anyway." (Central Intelligence Agency, Meetings with President, 4/1/63-6/30/63) McCone's memorandum of April 4 of a meeting held with Eisenhower on March 30 is ibid.

As for the advantages to the United States of further testing, doing so would yield a continuing improvement in our technology through the further development of small weapons, improvement of weight/yield ratios and increased knowledge of weapons effects. With respect to the first two of these items, improvements are important. Our failure to pursue them while the Soviets do so (clandestinely) would probably deprive us of our superior nuclear position. However, this would not necessarily affect the military balance as the improvements are expected to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary, although important information would be provided. With respect to effects of testing, more study would be necessary before I would have an opinion.

There is a great danger of engaging in a treaty, living under it for a number of years, and permitting our laboratories to go downhill (which they undoubtedly would do) while the Soviets covertly pursue developments in their laboratories. The Soviets could then abrogate the treaty for some reason they claim provocative, and confront us with a situation under which they had made a significant forward step in their technology. This, as will be recalled, was exactly what they did in 1961. I do not see how we can avoid this risk if we engage in a treaty unless the treaty is subscribed to by all world powers and contains substantial penalties for such abrogation.

The Plowshare problem must be considered. Meaningful Plowshare experiments involve our most advanced weapons technology and, if the inspection arrangements outlined in the treaty are undertaken, it would mean exposing to the Soviets our most advanced weapons technology. This might mean abandoning Plowshare and therefore one must consider whether Plowshare is important to our national interest.

Intelligence will make some contribution to the verification of a test ban. Some indicators which have been meaningful in the past are now lost to us, some useful indicators are still available but they, too, could be lost. Aerial surveillance might help in some circumstances, and clandestine penetrations might also help. Soviet fear of the latter might also serve as a deterrent. No useful figure can be placed on the contribution of intelligence.

It seems to me that there has been an overemphasis on the importance of the test ban treaty and the whole issue of testing for many years, and most particularly, during the last two or three years. The issue at first centered around fallout. The most responsible scientific judgment seems to indicate that the effects of fallout were vastly overemphasized by the test ban advocates. I feel the whole issue should be brought into proper perspective and question whether much is to be gained by an agreement to stop testing so long as the United States, Soviet Union, and the British continue the production of fissionable material, nuclear weapons, and delivery systems at a high rate, and in addition, the French and the Chinese Communists pursue an independent and uncontrolled program, and rumor has it that the Israelis are now doing likewise. Hence, stopping testing does not slow down the arms race, does not remove the dangers of a nuclear holocaust, and does not end the proliferation problem.

One important consideration is that if we reach an agreement with the Soviets, we have "broken through" in our effort to negotiate with the USSR on an issue of disarmament, and this might lead to other more meaningful agreements. This consideration is important and we could sacrifice a great deal to accomplish such a "break through". However, this consideration is of value only if the test suspension agreement provides reasonable means of verification and reasonable guarantee for conformance with all treaty terms, including some protection against unilateral revocation or abrogation of the treaty. If, however, we are reckless on the question of verification, then the "break through" will be a decided disservice to the United States' security interests because it will establish a precedent for further steps in disarmament without adequate means of verification.

I have not personally studied the most recent developments in detection and identification techniques and cannot render a judgment on the proposed treaty. However, Mr. Foster's disclosure of the threshold set forth in the second paragraph of this memorandum represents a drastic departure from US policy so often stated, i.e. we will only agree to a suspension of tests which can, in the opinion of responsible and informed people, be verified with reasonable assurance.

The memo is interesting because it seems that McCloy has been out of the loop in the test ban talks for some time. Between September 1961 and August 1962 I can only find reference to McCloy in two meetings dealing with the subject yet he receives a memo from McCone on April 8, 1963 and Walker is shot at two days later. Coincidence perhaps.

McCloy was being pushed out of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty negotiaiton from a very early point and by an interesting cabal of persons. On June 26, 1961 we find this quote in a memo from McGeorge Bundy to President Kennedy:

"One great advantage of closing out these talks quickly is that they are pre-occupying McCloy at a time when we really should be pressing for serious headway on an agreed disarmament plan. Another reason, I fear, is that the gossip at the second level is that we are not doing a very good job in this particular debate (this kind of gossip should be taken with some reservation, because it often means simply that our spokesman is not saying exactly what the gossip wishes he would). McCloy is our man, and we can't substitute someone else at this point. So the best way may be to let the talks end after a few more days.

One further thought--Foster is a serious administrator, and perhaps his first crash job could be to take the disarmament position and wrestle it into shape."

Four days later at a meeting with the President and Soviet Ambassador Zorin (McCloy was also present) that took place on June 30, 1961 we can find this quote from Zorin:

"Mr. Zorin said that he had had a rather extensive exchange of views with Mr. McCloy. However, frankly speaking, greater progress could have been achieved if a more definite discussion of specific programs had been conducted. He said that sooner or later we would have to deal with such programs."

As the meeting continued we find this exchange:

"The President then expressed his disappointment over the lack of progress in the nuclear test negotiations. He said he had hoped that agreement in that area could set the stage for progress in the general field of disarmament. He felt that the nuclear test issue was rather easy to resolve and that agreement on that problem would have a very favorable effect not only on US-USSR relations but also on the world at large. The President said he believed that the respective positions of the two sides at Geneva were not very far apart and that agreement on a nuclear test ban could also make these discussions more profitable. Furthermore, it would show the world the usefulness of the US and the USSR's discussing these difficult matters. The President reiterated his disappointment but said that he was still hopeful that agreement could be reached at Geneva.

Mr. McCloy noted the difference of views between the two sides on the purpose of the present talks. He said that our interpretation of our mission differed from Mr. Zorin's interpretation but that in spite of that he felt that this exchange of views had been useful. He expressed the hope that both sides could agree on a proper forum and framework for negotiations and then engage in serious negotiations.

The President again expressed his pleasure at meeting Mr. Zorin and his group and said that he wanted to see all matters standing between the US and the USSR settled; therefore, he felt that any progress in these talks would be useful.

Mr. Zorin said he appreciated very much the President's willingness to devote his time to this meeting and said that he would, of course, inform his government of the wishes expressed by the President. However, he said, success could be achieved only as a result of efforts by both sides and not just one. Therefore, he hoped that Mr. McCloy would receive appropriate instructions so that in Moscow progress could be made on the basis of the views of both sides.."

Futher we find:

"In telegram 205 from Moscow, July 20, McCloy reported that on the basis of meetings held so far he saw "little prospect" of reaching agreement on a set of principles to guide general disarmament negotiations or on a suitable forum for such negotiations. While he believed the United States had built a "reasonable record" on a number of contended points, he considered that there was "little point in continuing while Zorin talks about plans and I talk about principles," and wanted to suggest to Zorin winding up the meetings on July 26 or 27 and convening a meeting of the full Disarmament Commission in September. (Ibid., 600.0012/7-2061)"

By September we find very little further imput by McCloy.

Nearly two years later he is informed of the negitive position the CIA holds of the test ban treaty about to be entered into. Two days later Walker is shot at. Four months later the Limited Test Ban Treaty becomes law. Three months later Kennedy is dead. Two months after that McCloy is back in Geneva negotiating at the Nuclears Arms talks.

Coincidence?

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

Thanks for the info. I think that in your posts you have laid out a plausible scenario in which Taylor, Walker, and McCloy can be seen as co-conspirators, first in helping get Oswald into Russia to pass U-2 info and sabotage the Paris Summit, and secondly in the JFK assassination. As I've said, it seems to me that your suggestion that Walker was surprised by Oswald’s return from Russia, and that Oswald deliberately shot at him for using him with the U-2 stuff in 1959, are unnecessary assumptions, the less likely of possibilities. It seems more likely to me, based on your scenario, that Walker’s resignation from an association in 1963 in protest of an award given to McCloy, and McCloy's resulting letter to Walker taking exception to Walker's action, were a little charade to put distance between them publicly as they were busy conspiring in private. And the shot taken at Walker by some unknown operative was an act to help frame Oswald as a loose cannon while at the same time deflecting suspicion from Walker, ostensibly an intended assassination victim himself, in the subsequent JFK assassination. So in sum, and as you once put it, the same people running Oswald in 1959 were running him in 1963. (And poor Oswald may have thought, till he landed in the Dallas jail, that things were going as well, for whatever purpose, in 1963 as they did in 1959.)

You have previously suggested that Oswald was not expected to return from Russia. In that sense Walker and others would have been surprised to find him back, but then could have found Oswald handy as a patsy. But this raises a question I have often wondered about. How did Oswald return, i.e. leave Russia so easily? The U.S. could not have told Russia that it wanted its spy back, and Russia said okay we'll send him right over and you can have his wife too. The only way Russia would have made it so easy for Oswald to leave would be if he had been turned, he was going back to the U.S. to spy for the Russians. (If that is the case, then Oswald was a double agent, or, if he was really working for U.S. intelligence when he got back home, a triple agent.) Otherwise I don't see how his easy return from Russia took place.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron

I do not have all of my information handy but let me attempt to answer some of your major question. "How did Oswald return, i.e. leave Russia so easily?" If you start from Oswald's diary entry or from the first letter that is received at the US Embassy in Moscow, It took Oswald about 17 months, from start to finish, to secure his exit from Russia (January 1961 to June 13, 1962). I am not in a position to say if that exit experience was an easy experience or it was not so unusual for a US Citizen that had defected but had not given up his US citizenship.

Once again I do not have my folder in hand so I am drawing from memory on this. When the US Embassy in Moscow received Oswald's request they forwarded to the US State Department. There was a flurry of research and messages that went back and forth before it was decided that Oswald had never formally given up his rights as an American and he would therefore be allowed to reenter the US. It is immediatly at this point in time that General Walker begins his Pro Blue Program that lands him in hot water with the Kennedy administration a few months later. What I have found interesting about this is that (17 month later) when Oswald returns, Walker has a new identity (Right Wing Nut/Leader).

After studying Walkers career for over a decade: to have a soldier that has been highly decorated, is closely connected to some of the top Army Officiers of the time (i.e. Taylor, etc.), has been placed and involved in some of the most sensitive Cold War jobs of the period (Taiwan, Greece, POW exchange in Korea, Little Rock), I find it difficult to believe that this man, who was trained it seems in counter intelligence, would suddenly go whacky (as the Warren Commissioners would have us believe).

Having said that one most also consider the fact that his mentor, Maxwell Taylor, is during this period emerging as the top military leader in the Kennedy administration. Three of the missions stated above were given to Walker by Taylor. If Oswald were to return to the US and IF he could identify Walker as the man who provided him with the information necessary to enter the Soviet Union and IF Oswld had provided the Russians with information that was used to down the American U-2 on May 1, 1960, the Army, Taylor and others could have a big problem. How much would they let Walker know about the return of Oswald to the US? I would assume as little as possible. It does not make any sense that these military people would approach Walker and say,"we have a problem and we need you to ruin your career to help us solve it." I would assume that he was given an order and he clicked his heels and carried the order out that he was given (in my opinion to infiltrate the far right in America). From what I know of Walker he would follow the order that was given to him.

I do know that Walker attempted to explain his "new" position to the people of his home town. Calling together friends and relative he called a town hall meeting where he apparently spoke about the times and how each American had to do his duty as they saw fit etc. I add this piece of information because I feel that he was concerned about what he was doing and how it would be perceived by his oldest friends. From what I understand he did not give a right wing speech to this group, just a "trust me" type of speech.

I look at the possibility that the shot taken at Walker possibly alerted those "conspirators" that they may have had a ready made "patsy" at their disposal. It is at this time that the CIA seems to begin watching the moves of Oswald and as you suggest, may have made contact with him and started to build his "legend."

Was Oswald a double or triple agent? Was he an "orchid man?" I leave open the possibility that he was the Orchid man and unaware of just who he was working for. I also believe that the conspirators were not sure who he was working for and that the KGB and CIA were not sure who he was working for.....giving all a reason to be willing to participate in a coverup. I still believe that perhaps only two people would have known for sure, McCloy at the top, and Taylor, perhaps the only man who knew that Oswald had been helped into the Soviet Union by his man , Walker.

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"....suddenly go whacky."

Jim, an other look at Walkers mind can be got from here:

http://www.collectmad.com/fbi/data/Bufile-Documents.html

An insight into General Walkers fervent anti-communism may be had from his phone call on the fifth of February 1959, from Arkansas to the FBI alerting them of the subversive nature of M.A.D. magazine particularly pointing out 'disparaging remarks about the military, industry, and American institutions.'

(In response to this and other letters, particularly those from kids around the country writing to J E Hoover asking for membership cards to 'The Draft Dodgers Club', Hoover instructed an agent to go see the Owners of M.A.D. magazine to inform them of Hoovers disapproval.

(in one memo from the FBI in response to concerned parent, we are informed that A.E. Neuman is a fictional character.))

The lawyer (also an officer) who defended Walker and organised an investigation into the Walker shooting also wrote to the FBI about MAD magazine. The agent that this Lawyer (from Oklahoma) approached for information in reporting this (and other attempts at contact) seems to have regarded him as a nuisance. Generally it seems that the FBI regarded these diligent citizens as loonies. One agent wrote on one bufile where a parent complained about the communist rag MAD that his kid probably blew his dad a raspberry.

Anyway, the point is, the magazine was hitting hard on the JBS and other organisations such as the FBI, and Walker was already then being regarded as a bit of a screwball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim and Ron

I tend to agree with Ron, that the Walker window shooting was a frame job by MI/ONI to get ready to frame Oswald.......

He was either a double or a triple agent, and since he could be painted as a "communist"

and could be logically seen to be a Manchurian Candidate assassin for the USSR,

certain parties knew that the whole truth would not get out and the story would end with the

Communist Russia connec tion and the Walker shooting "proving" he was a volatile communist....

What really went on? We will never know but he was manipulated ten ways to tuesday

by Atsugi US sponsors, Baron George DeMorenschildt and others, like David Phillips and agent Hosty ........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John

As a young child I remember Elvis Presley being on the Ed Sullivan show. The networks and most "good Americans" were pleased by the fact that, in good taste, the network required that the cameras stay focused on Elvis above the waist only. It seems that they and their sponsers were concerned about the negitive publicity that they might receive if they were to do otherwise.

The McCarthy era was still fresh in everyones minds, people in my neighborhood were building bomb shelters, Richard Nixon became VP based upon his willingness to uncover communists everywhere, lynchings were still common, the missle gap was preceived as real, the Soviets had launched the first sattelite, Kruschev was pounding his shoes on the table at the UN and people were scarred of the reds.

In hind sight it all seems so silly. At the time I would sometimes wake up at night in a cold sweat dreaming about the Nuclear War we all knew might begin at any minute. Every Friday at exactly 10 AM the Airaid horns would sound and each school child would drop and cover. We were taught to be on the alert for subversives......A Russian spy was actually arrested that lived in the same apartment complex that we were staying in.

Our pastor would give sermons (about evey other week) on the evils of communism, the wearing of makeup and the subliminal subversive messages in Rock and Roll.

There were a whole lot of paranoid people at that time....most were considered mainstream.

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our pastor would give sermons (about evey other week) on the evils of communism, the wearing of makeup and the subliminal subversive messages in Rock and Roll.

Our church back then ran off its pastor because he didn't see anything wrong with the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Most of the congregation thought the RSV was part of the international Communist conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, I think I get what youre saying here. I had considered the whole thing as a 'sign of the times'. What surprised me at the time of reading these FOI BUFILES on the matter was the rational response of the agents assigned to deal with it.

The lawyer makes repeated attempts to get info on MAD from Sullivan, Sullivan brushes him off. Letters by 'concerned citizens' are responded to with form letters and 'out of town, sorry but...'.

One very well written complaint has a note attached to it to the effect that 'this person is known to find communist influences in all sorts of places...'

So, the point is: the crazy persona of Walker et al APPEARS to have been in formation and recognised by the FBI PRIOR to 1 jan 1961. BUFILES released under FOI indicates that this may be the case.

Walker is on record as contacting the FBI by phone over this matter in feb '59. This was brought to attention of Hoover. So, when did the progression to whacky persona start? It seems to me that it was not a sudden one when Oswald started his moves to return to USA. And it seems that Hoover and Sulloivan knew this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John

I am sorry it has taken me so long to reply. I am attempting to reorganize and relocate my materials in a manner that will be more conducive to continued research.

Walker's commitment to fighting the communist movement in every conceivable nook and corner that it might be found is something I am very willing to concede even to the the point of the MAD Magizine incident. Where I have trouble is in the arena of racism and anti-government rethoric that I feel that things do not add up when looking at the sum of the mans life.

Several comments that I have seen or read about his attitude toward the integrated military seem to indicate that Walker did not hold the racial bias that many of the "Southern" officiers displayed in such an obvious manner during the 30's and 40's. His willingness to accept any assignment, dispite the risks both in war and in peace lead me to believe that he believed in his country and was loyal, perhaps to a fault.

This is the enigma of Walker, what he is remembered for in history (right wing racist) versus what he was in reality (loyal, patriotic American who played a central roll in the development of Special Forces and Covert Opps while being involved in military intelligence/counter intelligence). A man who is connected to several of the leading Generals in the Kennedy administration while being an outspoken administration critic. Walker is the "other" person who Lee Harvey Oswald is accused of shooting at but whom no one wants to connect to Lee Harvey Oswald.

His life and his role in the assassination of JFK is a contridiction......

that continues to bother me.

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John

I am sorry it has taken me so long to reply. I am attempting to reorganize and relocate my materials in a manner that will be more conducive to continued research.

Walker's commitment to fighting the communist movement in every conceivable nook and corner that it might be found is something I am very willing to concede even to the the point of the MAD Magizine incident. Where I have trouble is in the arena of racism and anti-government rethoric that I feel that things do not add up when looking at the sum of the mans life.

Several comments that I have seen or read about his attitude toward the integrated military seem to indicate that Walker did not hold the racial bias that many of the "Southern" officiers displayed in such an obvious manner during the 30's and 40's. His willingness to accept any assignment, dispite the risks both in war and in peace lead me to believe that he believed in his country and was loyal, perhaps to a fault.

This is the enigma of Walker, what he is remembered for in history (right wing racist) versus what he was in reality (loyal, patriotic American who played a central roll in the development of Special Forces and Covert Opps while being involved in military intelligence/counter intelligence). A man who is connected to several of the leading Generals in the Kennedy administration while being an outspoken administration critic. Walker is the "other" person who Lee Harvey Oswald is accused of shooting at but whom no one wants to connect to Lee Harvey Oswald.

His life and his role in the assassination of JFK is a contridiction......

that continues to bother me.

Jim Root

Jim, I think your view on Walker makes sense.

A few days ago I came across this article. (I meglected to copy source.I'll search and see if I can find it again if necessary) However I got a distinct impression that it was a rightwing groupings newspaper called 'All the Way'.

'Nationalist Movement' seems to be one group mentioned in many of the articles. So, one would expect it to be apologetic with regards to Walker. It seems very hard to find anecdotes about the person Walker.

With the perspective you present this article makes more sense to me now.

1:

"Walker was Noteworthy for Recanting 1957

LITTLE ROCK -- The enigma which was General Edwin A. Walker's life lives on. Walker, a decorated war veteran, commanded federal troops which bludgeoned Americans in the streets to force minorities into Central High School in 1957. The event was the subject of a Redeem '57 protest at the school in 1992 by The Nationalist Movement. But Walker later recanted and led forces opposed to de-Americanization during pro-majority demonstrations at the University of Mississippi in 1962.

Walker spent most of his life maintaining that the Little Rock Invasion was a "colossal mistake" which needed to be corrected through repeal of the Civil Rights' Acts. He stubbornly declined his Army pension to protest military force against peaceful citizens. He lived a subsistence lifestyle, though he eventually accepted the pension for health reasons.

The general's health worsened after Attorney General Robert Kennedy committed Walker to Fort Leonard Wood's psychiatric facility following the commander's repudiation of the Kennedy-ordered Invasion. Rumors, never confirmed, held that mind-altering drugs had been administered to "brainwash" Walker. "

2:

"Earning Earl Warren's Wrath

Chief Justice Earl Warren overturned 1,000 years of English law in order to deny $1 million in libel damages awarded to Walker by a Texas jury. In Walker v. Associated Press, Warren ruled that reporters can lie, even knowing that they are publishing false information. The wire service falsely reported that Walker was "leading a charge" against federal troops at Ole Miss, although he simply made a speech against de-Americanization.

Walker became a political power-house in Dallas, where he died at 84, after organizing the widely acclaimed protest against the 1963 visit of liberal spokesman Adali Stevenson. Even critics credit Walker with helping perpetuate Texas' rightist aura. But the gnawing guilt of Central High School preyed on Walker. He even insisted his phone was bugged.

On the speakers' stump, Walker was brusque and outspoken. He once knocked a drinking glass off the podium, showering a spectator, and laughed it off as "hazardous duty pay". He told the editor of All The Way that history would prove that Cuba, not Little Rock, should have been invaded, and that the majority, not the minorities, should rule America."

____________________________

If it reflects Walkers views, the Ole' Miss crisis was a 'Kennedy Led Invasion' and Walker was the leader of a 'Nationalist Pro-Majority Resistance'.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John

Few points to make. Walker died in 1993 some 30 years after the death of Kennedy and some 31 years after the event that is quoted, "The general's health worsened after Attorney General Robert Kennedy committed Walker to Fort Leonard Wood's psychiatric facility following the commander's repudiation of the Kennedy-ordered Invasion. Rumors, never confirmed, held that mind-altering drugs had been administered to "brainwash" Walker."

Slandering of public officials and public figures is as American as the 1st Amendment. The quote, "Chief Justice Earl Warren overturned 1,000 years of English law in order to deny $1 million in libel damages awarded to Walker by a Texas jury" hardly needs any explaining.

What is interesting is exactly how Walker's pension was restored. It seem he had reapplied for his pension following all the normal channels only to be denied. He then exhausted all the normal appeal processes when "suddenly" his pension was approved by persons unknown......another mystery of the Walker saga.

A few interesting facts. It has always been considered illegal for the military to spy on civilians in America, at least in time of peace. If Walker, as I suggest, was assigned to infiltrate the far right a legal necessit would be his resignation from the military. Also I might point out that before the HSCA began its meetings the Army destroyed its collection of intelligence information that had been gathered on civilians in American....because it had been decided that it had been aquired illegally. (They therfore never turned over any information that they had on Lee Harvey Oswald).

The Walker papers are stored at the Univ. of Texas at Austin. Access is denied to all researchers.

Would I love to have a few hours and copy machine access at that library.

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, I push the, (to my mind neglected), Civil Rights angle as it leads to a wealth of material that overlaps into the persons of interest. The Ole' Miss Uni. files and the recently available Mississippi Sovereignty Commission Files* are also a source worth persuing.

I came across a letter written by a student in Oxford October '62 that made me aware of another kind of source that may be fruitful: anecdotes. In this letter a young woman writes to a sibling describing the crisis from inside the Lyceum where Walker is supposed to be directing the insurrection.

Bear in mind that this is October '62 and Walker is said to hold the view that attention should be on Cuba and this is just when the Bay of Pigs is current. Yet, for him, fighting an armed struggle in Mississippi, over the issue of integration and all that meant to the South, was the thing to do.

This is also when the FBI had Martin Luther King labeled the 'most dangerous Negro alive' and had him logged as a Communist. (Another anti Communist : Guy Bannister, had applied (I don't know the outcome of the application) to The Mississippi Sovereignty Commission as investigator (they amongst other things gathered intelligence on Citizens which was used to destroy livelihoods). The Bannister - Walker connection has been mentioned elsewhere. An other (Van- ex FBI agents previously mentioned in relation to the case were working for the Comission.

So, Walker:the War Hero, anti-Communist, Insurrectionist, Litigator, Politician, Nutcase, (assassin?)?? ...Will the real Walker please stand up?

(A photo of Walker from those days would be nice for illustration.)

____________________

*The MSCF's are by accounts heavily redacted, scattered and withheld on grounds of persons not giving consent. Nevertheless, the recent Bill opening up the avenue of prosecuting and investigating unsolved Civil Rights murders is a path to information.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... The Walker papers are stored at the Univ. of Texas at Austin. Access is denied to all researchers.

Would I love to have a few hours and copy machine access at that library.

Jim, the Sixth Floor Museum has a "Walker Collection," papers deposited with them by Walkers former personal secretary. I don't know what the difference, if any, is between what you're referring to v. what 6FM's got.

At some point in the near future, I'm planning on going there to peruse what is there; Gary says it's mostly news clippings and such, but I'll see if I can't give you some sort of synopsis based on my own observation. They may also have a catalog or something available, and if so, I'll manage to get you a copy.

If I recall correctly, a friend of mine has copies of the original police report of the April 9 Walker shooting, which states, among other things, that the slug found embedded in his wall was a "steel jacketed .38-cal bullet."

Somewhat along the lines of the MSC are the "(White) Citizens Councils" formed in many Southern cities, which Dallas likewise had (tho' they didn't use the "white" imprimatur). A book entitled The Decision Makers: The Power Structure of Dallas (Carol Estes Thometz; SMU Press, Dallas, November 1963) takes a pretty interesting look at it and sort-of "names names" inasmuch as it identifies the individuals by profession, but not specifically by name. Its membership is a matter of public record, and may even be available online. One of their chief functions was "picking" the mayor and city council.

The Decision Makers was referred to extensively in an article entitled "Tussle in Texas" by Saul Friedman in The Nation (Feb 3 1964, pp 114-117), a copy of which can be read on this forum here. A more readable copy can be found on Ken Rahn's site, The Academic JFK Assassination Site, the basic thrust of which is "if you think scientifically and critically, you can only reach the same conclusions I have," or the more succinct version: "I am right, you are wrong."

This is why all scientists agree with evolution. I mean, with intelligent design. No, no, I mean creationism. Well, you know what I mean that they all agree on!

Edited by Duke Lane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...