Post by Rob Caprio on Mar 9, 2021 22:58:02 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
cdn.britannica.com/37/237837-050-1F0CE5D6/General-Edwin-Walker.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) needed to show Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was a violent man in order to get the American public to believe he could shoot and kill President John F. Kennedy (JFK). They would use two events to try and accomplish this.
Firstly, they would say he shot and killed J.D. Tippit (JDT) while trying to “escape.” Of course they NEVER explained who escaped by going to a MOVIE THEATER! All the bus stations, rail stations and airports were NOT sealed off and he could have easily gone to Mexico, but instead went to see a movie. Why would he do this? The ONY explanation that makes any sense is he went there either to find his handler or because this was his “safe house” in case anything went bad.
The WC failed miserably to link LHO to this crime as none of the ballistics could be tied to CE-143. The shell types also did NOT match the bullets inside JDT in terms of the manufacturer. Finally, while a few witnesses claimed it could have been LHO they then described clothing DIFFERENT from what he was wearing (or did NOT ID CE-150 (shirt) or CE-162 (jacket) he was wearing as what they saw). Despite this total lack of any evidence showing he shot JDT the WC went and ASSUMED he did.
Secondly, they claimed LHO shot at General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) on the night of April 10, 1963. They never tried to explain why he would shoot at a RIGHT-WING general and a LEFT-WING (that was the perception of JFK) president either. This makes NO sense UNLESS you consider he was a paid assassin (hardly given his shooting ability) or he was in the employ of intelligence agencies. Then the politics of the individual does not matter. Of course the WC did not entertain these ideas. Again, with NO evidence they just ASSUMED he shot at EAW.
Let’s look at portions of EAW’s testimony before the WC. He would single-handedly sink the WC’s conclusion as he said CE-573 (the alleged bullet fired at him) was NOT the bullet he saw and held on the night to the shooting. He would also say he had NO knowledge of LHO being the man that fired the bullet at him.
*******************************************
EAW was called before the WC on July 23, 1964 to discuss the attempt on him and the JFK case in general. Quite a few interesting things come up in this testimony including someone claiming they were involved in the staged shooting attempt, and that the Dallas Police Department (DPD) knew LHO was the one who did but REFUSED to arrest him! He was also represented by a lawyer, Gen. Watts, during this testimony.
Mr. LIEBELER. Please sit down. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an attorney on the President's Commission investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your testimony by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to the Commission by President Johnson's Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and the joint resolution of Congress No. 137.
Pursuant to the Commission's rules of procedure, you are entitled to be represented by counsel. As the record now indicates, you are represented by counsel, General Watts. I understand that you are appearing voluntarily before the Commission in response to its request to give testimony touching upon certain matters relating to Lee Harvey Oswald and to the assassination of President Kennedy.Is that correct?
General WALKER. That is correct
How would General Walker know anything regarding the shooting of JFK by LHO? Was Walker a friend or acquaintance of LHO? I don’t think so, so why was the WC calling him to testify on things he had NO idea about?
The first topic was the attempt on him on the night of April 10, 1963 that the WC attributed to LHO. I won't go into all the details as everyone should be familiar with them at this point in time. He was asked if he noticed anything outside after the shooting that could be related to it, and he said this interesting item.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you find anything outside that you could relate to this attack on you?
General WALKER. No, sir; I couldn't. As I crossed a window coming downstairs in front, I saw a car at the bottom of the church alley just making a turn onto Turtle Creek. The car was unidentifiable. I could see the two back lights, and you have to look through trees there, and I could see it moving out. This car would have been about at the right time for anybody that was making a getaway.
Well since we know the ONLY witness, Walter Coleman, mentioned two cars (white or beige 1950 Ford & a 1958 black Chevrolet with white sides) as the getaway method for two men, and we know LHO did NOT drive, this leaves us with the conclusion at this point that if LHO was the shooter (and he wasn’t based on the evidence we have) he had to have had HELP!
We know from the witness though that it was NOT LHO as he would be interviewed by FBI agents Robert Barrett and Ivan Lee and they would show him a photograph of LHO and he would say that was NOT one of the men he saw. IF you go to CE-2958 and read the descriptions of the two men you will see it could NOT be LHO he saw as one is only 19-20 years old and “real skinny” (remember, one of the Davis sisters-in-law said the shooter was a boy), and the second man was described as being about 6’1” and 200lbs.
But despite the total lack of any evidence showing it was LHO the WC just claimed it was him. They also said he got on a bus after burying the rifle. Of course they NEVER explained how he took a rifle on the bus and had NO one remember him. Or when he went back to get the rifle. Or how he then got back on a bus and again had NO remember him. Or how he cleaned the rifle when he had NO cleaning supplies. We know the rifle had to be cleaned based on the DeMohrenschildts’ comments about seeing it in the closet. They never said it was covered with dirt.
As I said, despite there being NO evidence the WC just assumed he did shoot at him and continued the questioning.
What would be the best way to shoot at EAW while he sat at his desk? Obviously head on would offer the best target, but after much discussion pertaining to CE-1007 they finally got down to the
angle used by the shooter.
Mr. LIEBELER. Sideways to the window? I am trying to drive at what kind of shot the man had at you. Was he shooting at you from the side, from the back, or from the front? I think it would be from the side.
General WALKER. More from the side than the front. Definitely from
the side but a little at an angle, because I was facing the center of the room.
Now why would the shooter, especially LHO who was NOT a great shooter to begin with, choose this type of angle when he would have had more luck from a frontal angle? Funny, Liebeler spent NO time exploring this either. Of course the same thing has been debated for years regarding why NO shot was fired from the front when JFK’s limo was on Houston St. too. It seems LHO liked the HARDEST shots possible IF you buy the WC’s version of events.
Some would say he was just trying to scare him, but NOT kill him, but this was NOT the argument of the WC! They claimed this was a genuine attempt by LHO to kill EAW, thus, the positioning of the shooter is a very valid one.
Was the shooter in a hurry as he was afraid someone would see him? I don't know why as Walker Exhibit 1 shows what great cover he would have had.
www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/walk1.jpg
What is this picture of?
Mr. LIEBELER. Now are you able to tell from looking at that picture what it shows?
General WALKER. Yes; I can identify this picture. It is the backyard of my house at 4011 Turtle Creek. It is a view from a position taken near the west fence line, taken of the rear of my house, camera pointed east. It shows the fence running down on the left side between my rented property, and the church property.
Hmmm, he would have had a fence just like Dealey Plaza (DP), and he would have been up against a church that I am assuming was NOT in session or they/he would NOT have chosen that time to do the shooting. Why would they feel rushed or be afraid they would be seen? There really is NO reason.
Where did the shot come from according to EAW?
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; Walker Exhibit No. 1. Were you able to determine to your satisfaction the place from which the shot was fired?
General WALKER. I was convinced there wasn't any doubt the shot was fired about where this cameraman was standing, or a little bit behind him and outside the lattice fence, probably firing through the fence which had spaces in it, squares of about 4 to 6 inches. Certainly the lineup of the holes in the two, in the window and in the wall, gives the direction. The distance would be questionable to this point, based on the information I have.
So does anyone believe a man who was not a great shot to start with would choose to shoot THROUGH a fence? Heck, I guess he was practicing for shooting THROUGH a tree in DP! Just kidding, the fence was not really that bad, here is a picture of it.
www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/walk2.jpg
The question would again be based on this picture, why choose a SIDE angle when he could easily have chosen a frontal angle? The distance was estimated to be between 100 and 120 feet from the fence to the place EAW was sitting. What did Walker think of the shooter?
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever say in words or substance after this shot was fired at you that the guy must have been a lousy shot? That sounds like something you might say, doesn't it?
General WALKER. Yes.
No if it was LHO as the WC would have us believe, how did he go from a lousy shot in April to one of the best in the world by 11/22/63? Where is all the practicing that would be required to make this transformation possible? Why couldn't the WC really show us where LHO practiced at all?
Of course the WC had him "amend" his early comment to the police of the man being a horrible shot because they couldn't claim he performed one of the greatest shooting feats in history and be this bad just 7 months before!
General WALKER. The police asked me to sit down when I got there and they went through the motions of lining up the shot from inside and outside. And one policeman said, "He couldn't have missed you." And one said, a lieutenant I believe it was, said, "It was an attempted assassination." And I said, "What makes you call it that?" And he said, "Because he definitely was out to get you."
How could the cop know this by the evidence? IF the shooter was really out to get him why did he fail? This was an easier shot than the DP alleged shooting sequence.
And I said, "Your remark sounds like a natural remark." But as I later was analyzing the thing, he couldn't see either with a scope or without a scope. He couldn't see from his position any of the lattice work either in the windows or in the screens because of the light. It would have looked like one big lighted area, and he could have been a very good shot and just by chance he hit the woodwork.
Does anyone else buy this? Did EAW have SEARCHLIGHTS set up at his house? How much light could have blinded the shooter? If any thing, I would think the fact the General was in light while the shooter was outside would have illuminated him perfectly for him/them.
What's with the photo of the car?
mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce5.jpg)
We all know the license plate was removed from it and the WC blamed LHO for this when it was allegedly found with his belongings, but many researchers have shown the actual hole appeared AFTER it was in DPD or FBI custody. Let's put that aside for a minute. Why would EAW NOT recognize the car if it belonged to someone he knew? And why would someone take a picture of this?
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize anything else? Specifically, I draw your attention to the automobile that is shown in there.
General WALKER. I do not recognize the car.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Charles Klihr?
General WALKER. Would you spell it again?
Mr. LIEBELER. I will spell it right in just a minute. K-l-i-h-r. 2046 Rosebud Street, Irving, Tex. Do you know that man?
General WALKER. Not that spelling. I know a Charles Clyr. As I know the spelling, it is C-l-y-r.
Shouldn't this have caused alarms to go off? I mean the WC has a man under a DIFFERENT name from what Walker knows?
In fact there is more confusion when Walker states the address they give him does NOT sound familiar, and he again states he does NOT recognize the car when asked yet again. They then go on to this.
Mr. LIEBELER. This gentleman that we may be talking about we may be talking about the same man, is a volunteer worker for you from time to time?
General WALKER. If it is the one I am referring to, he is in and out quite often, right. He and his wife have helped me quite a bit.
Mr. LIEBELER. But you aren't able to identify that car as being his?
General WALKER. No; I am not.
Mr. LIEBELER. Does that car appear to be a 1957 Chevrolet? Or aren't you able to tell by looking?
General WALKER. I am not able to tell. I am not very good on cars.
Then they move on to the bullet holes again!! Why do they NOT explore this matter more fully? This man, if he is the volunteer, is known by Walker quite well, but HE does NOT know him by the name the WC is using. Why did they NOT further investigate if Klihr was Clyr, and if NOT, find out who he was? Oh that's right, because the WC relied TOTALLY on the DPD, the FBI and the CIA for their “investigating."
What was it about the 1957 Chevrolet the WC wanted to stay clear of? On April 8, 1963 Walker's aide, Max Claunch, saw a "Cuban, or a dark-complected man, in a 1957 Chevrolet" cruise around EAW's home several times. Walter Coleman, the ONLY witness to the shooting, will see two men running to two cars and one (number one man) will get into the 1950 Ford. The number two man will head towards a 1958 black Chevrolet .He described the car as a 1958 black Chevrolet with white down the side. Keep in mind, Walker just admitted to NOT being good with cars, so it could have been a 1958 model he saw. The main point is Coleman was never called before the WC and he would tell EAW he was ordered NOT to discuss the details with anyone by the authorities. I wonder why if it was LHO he saw?
General WALKER. The word we got is, the boy has been told not to say anything.That may not be the direct information, but I think you will find it about what the situation is.
Mr. LIEBELER. The last question was, has your counsel attempted to talk to Mr. Coleman and Mr. Coleman refused to talk to him?
General WALKER. No; I have no knowledge of my counsel trying to speak to him, but I was told by others that tried to get to him that he has been advised and wasn't talking, and that he had been advised not to talk.
These quote applies to this matter too.
"...as far as I am concerned, our efforts are practically blocked. I would like to see at least a capability of my counsel being able to talk to these witnesses freely and that you or the FBI give a release on them with respect to being able to discuss it as it involves me." (11 H 416)
Who could own the 1957/1958 Chevrolet? Well according to researchers who found the name of Filipe Vidal Santiago they say he was known to drive around in a 1957 Chevrolet. Why would EAW and the WC want to hide this detail? Because Santiago was a member of the Cuban exile militant group "Alpha 66" and he was seen on many occasions in the company of EAW. Ironically, a dispatch will go out about an hour after JDT is shot to be on the look out for a, you guessed it, 1957 Chevrolet last seen at the intersection where JDT was killed. The charge noted on the dispatch is for carrying a concealed weapon.
According to a former employee of EAW, William McEwan Duff, Jack Ruby visited EAW's home on a MONTHLY basis from December 1962 to March 1963. What could these two have been discussing?
On April 6, 1963 EAW's aide, Robert Surrey (how many aides did this guy have?) sees two men prowling around the EAW home and peeking in windows. Surrey described the behavior as very suspicious.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I understand that Mr. Surrey saw two men in the vicinity of your house shortly before April 10, 1963, acting in a manner. that he regarded as suspicious. Did he report that to you at or about that time?
General WALKER. He has reported that to me, and I don't remember the date on which he did.
Mr. LIEBELER. Was it prior to the time that the shot was fired at you?
General WALKER. I can't recall.
Mr. LIEBELER. You have no recollection of the fact, if it is a fact, that Surrey had seen two men out there in an automobile that didn't have any license plate on it?
General WALKER. Yes; I do. I knew. He told me that he had come toward my house and noticed a car, as I remember, parked on Avondale, and he went on by or backed up or something and got out and came behind the car and saw two men moving around in the area somewhere in the alley in the back part of my house. Then he followed that car. They went down to the center of town, and he lost-them. I would suspect that he told me that the next morning, if not that night.
Who were these men? Did he report this to the police?
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall whether or not you reported that to the police?
General WALKER. Yes; that was called in to the police. As I recall, that was. I believe there is a report at the house that it was called in to the police. As I recall, it was, and I told them what we knew about it.
Mr. LIEBELER. As you reflect on that event, do you recall it was called in to the police prior to the time the shot was fired?
General WALKER. As I reflect, it must have been called in either that night or the next morning. I don't recall the exact time, but the police record will show it.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you make the call yourself, or did someone else do that, if you remember?
General WALKER. As I recall, I made it.
So there is this suspicious stuff going on just days before the shooting and the WC finds this NOT suspicious in the least? How come? Oh that is right, because there were TWO men and we can't have LHO have any help.
What about the police investigation?
Mr. LIEBELER. Did they discuss with you any possible suspects that they might have come up with, any leads they had on it as to who might have been involved?
General WALKER. I don't recall that they did. They may have, and I may have told them who had been in and about around the house, or who had worked for me. I don't recall this definitely, but the records will probably show.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any records like that here?
General WALKER. No; I don't.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did the name Lee Harvey Oswald come up in connection with this investigation in any way at that time?
General WALKER. No; it didn't.[/u][/color]
I wonder why NOT if he did fire the shot. So the WC wants us to believe in 7 1/2 months they could NOT find LHO to be guilty of this shooting yet they found him within an hour for the JDT slaying. Yeah right!
Walker suspected a man named Duff, NOT LHO!
Mr. LIEBELER. Now the fact is that you suspected, possibly, that Duff might have been involved in this attack on your life, didn't you?
General WALKER. I Suspected that he might be involved.
General WATTS. I got a call--I don't remember the exact date but I do have a record of it. I got a call from Mrs. Kenecht in General Walker's office to the effect that an anonymous telephone call came in from some lady who advised Mrs. Kenecht that this boy Duff had been going with the lady's daughter and had bragged to the daughter that he had been in on the shooting at General Walker.[/color]
So I sent these two investigators whose names were just mentioned, connected with our office. They are ex- detectives or policemen from the Oklahoma City Police Department and do freelance investigating. I sent them down here with a tape recorder to verify as much as they could from Duff, because we were very apprehensive that he might take another shot at Walker. We couldn't get Duff to admit that he actually fired the shot, but he professed to readiness to stage another attempt if someone would raise $5,000. It is my-recollection that the tape recording was turned over to the Dallas Police Department.
So Duff would be interested in "staging another attempt if someone would raise $5,000." Doesn't this scream the fact the first event was a STAGED attempt by Duff and someone else? You do NOT use the word staged if it is real, thus we have a confession from someone that the shooting on April 10, 1963 was a STAGED event that paid $5,000 to each of the participants, or divided among them. How much more do you need? Yet the WC never allowed facts to get in their way of accusing LHO.
Of course the WC had EAW cover this up as well.
General WALKER. I was familiar with the progress of the investigation and got a final copy of it. I thought it solved nothing, but Duff was telling his usual lies.
Why would Duff lie? What did he gain by saying he was involved in a STAGED attempt on EAW that paid out $5,000? Wasn't this the same guy who showed up at EAW's door broke, homeless and jobless? Wouldn't one think he would jump at a chance for $5,000 dollars, even a share of it?
The WC even gets EAW to seel his own lawyer out.
General WALKER. That is correct, except that I do not agree with General Watts' statement that Duff had implicated himself in the attack on me by statements to the daughter of this woman who called Mrs. Kenecht. My information is only to the effect that the girls mother was upset about her daughter's friendship with Duff. As far as I know, she never said that Duff admitted being involved in the attack on me that occurred on April 10, 1963.
So in one fell swoop EAW contradicts the whole investigation the Army conducted. Even if he lied they never proved he did.
General WATTS. My only basis is suspicion. First; his generally unreliable nature. Second; I have never fully satisfied myself as to the accuracy of the investigation these boys made where Duff undoubtedly had made some kind of an alarming statement to this unknown woman who called in. We have never been able to locate or identify her. I have never reconciled his tape recorder statement that he had not shot at Walker, but would do so for $5,000, with the apparent statement to this unidentified woman's daughter that he had actually fired at Walker. In other words, we could never verify that by our investigation.
Well, if you can't prove he lied, you have to go under the assumption he did not, isn't that how an investigation is supposed to go? Until you prove he lied, you have to treat his confession as truthful. But of course NO one did as they had their guy already.
Now, did EAW think LHO was the one that shot at him?
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, did you tell anybody from this newspaper that Oswald had shot at you and that this had been known prior to the time of the assassination of the President?
General WALKER. No; I did not. I wouldn't have known it.[/b] It was much later that they began to tie Oswald into me, and I don't even know it yet.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you certainly didn't know it before November 22?
General WALKER. Or the morning of the 23d, certainly not. I was very surprised to see the article.
Mr. LIEBELER. So the best of your recollection is that you never provided them with the information?
General WALKER. I did not.[/u] I didn't know it at the time of this conversation at all.[/b][/color] I didn't know it until I started reading the newspaper, which would have been later than then.
How weird is this? For 7 and 1/2 months they never told Walker LHO shot at him, but on the morning of November 23 they announce it was LHO! Boy the DPD was wiping CLEAR ALL OF THEIR UNSOLVED CRIMES WITH LHO, huh?
What about the great work of the DPD? What does this say about them?
Mr. LIEBELER. What was the separate article about? Did that have any reference to the fact that Oswald had allegedly fired at you?
General WALKER. Yes. As I remember the article, it alleged that Oswald was the one that had fired at me, and that this had been known earlier, and that this had been known and that nothing was done about it And if something had been done about it at that time, he wouldn't have been the man that--it wouldn't have been possible for him to have killed the President.
Boy, what great work by the DPD, huh? They could have prevented JFK and JDT from dying, but they refused to arrest LHO for shooting at Walker. How come? Will any LNer explain this for us?
Did EAW think LHO attacked him?
Mr. LIEBELER. That is when you gave him this information about Oswald having attacked you?
General WALKER. I didn't give him all the information--I think the portion you are referring to, I didn't give him, because I had no way of knowing that Oswald attacked me. I still don't. And I am not very prone to say in fact he did. In fact, I have always claimed he did not, until we can get into the case or somebody tells us differently that he did.
There is so much more including some conversation about Ruby and LHO knowing each other based on what EAW had been told I encourage everyone to read his testimony. I'll finish with this odd comment by him when they were discussing how he had come to know Warren Reynolds, one of the two men who chased the shooter after he shot JDT, and Reynold's own attack that left him shot.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any evidence to indicate that there is?
General WALKER. I think there is a definite I don't know that you could call it evidence but you can anticipate that people would like to shut up anybody that knows anything about this case. People right here in Dallas. And I don't think anybody knows or would have known at the time after November 22 how much or how little Warren Reynolds knew.
Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, he doesn't know very much, does he?
General WALKER. He would become a very good example, regardless of what he knew, to let everybody know that they better keep their mouths shut.
]b]Wow, so a man well connected in Dallas knew there was a probably an attempt to shut up folks who did not see or say what was required of them. I find this conformation from a man with inside knowledge very fascinating.
Finally we come to very sound advice for the WC, but as usual they chose to ignore it!
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, wouldn't it be fair to say that that is pure speculation on your part?
General WALKER. YES, BUT EVERYTHING IS SPECULATION UNTIL YOU PROVE IT OR DISPROVE IT!
Too bad for all of us Americans the WC NEVER saw fit to prove any of their speculations!
cdn.britannica.com/37/237837-050-1F0CE5D6/General-Edwin-Walker.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) needed to show Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was a violent man in order to get the American public to believe he could shoot and kill President John F. Kennedy (JFK). They would use two events to try and accomplish this.
Firstly, they would say he shot and killed J.D. Tippit (JDT) while trying to “escape.” Of course they NEVER explained who escaped by going to a MOVIE THEATER! All the bus stations, rail stations and airports were NOT sealed off and he could have easily gone to Mexico, but instead went to see a movie. Why would he do this? The ONY explanation that makes any sense is he went there either to find his handler or because this was his “safe house” in case anything went bad.
The WC failed miserably to link LHO to this crime as none of the ballistics could be tied to CE-143. The shell types also did NOT match the bullets inside JDT in terms of the manufacturer. Finally, while a few witnesses claimed it could have been LHO they then described clothing DIFFERENT from what he was wearing (or did NOT ID CE-150 (shirt) or CE-162 (jacket) he was wearing as what they saw). Despite this total lack of any evidence showing he shot JDT the WC went and ASSUMED he did.
Secondly, they claimed LHO shot at General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) on the night of April 10, 1963. They never tried to explain why he would shoot at a RIGHT-WING general and a LEFT-WING (that was the perception of JFK) president either. This makes NO sense UNLESS you consider he was a paid assassin (hardly given his shooting ability) or he was in the employ of intelligence agencies. Then the politics of the individual does not matter. Of course the WC did not entertain these ideas. Again, with NO evidence they just ASSUMED he shot at EAW.
Let’s look at portions of EAW’s testimony before the WC. He would single-handedly sink the WC’s conclusion as he said CE-573 (the alleged bullet fired at him) was NOT the bullet he saw and held on the night to the shooting. He would also say he had NO knowledge of LHO being the man that fired the bullet at him.
*******************************************
EAW was called before the WC on July 23, 1964 to discuss the attempt on him and the JFK case in general. Quite a few interesting things come up in this testimony including someone claiming they were involved in the staged shooting attempt, and that the Dallas Police Department (DPD) knew LHO was the one who did but REFUSED to arrest him! He was also represented by a lawyer, Gen. Watts, during this testimony.
Mr. LIEBELER. Please sit down. My name is Wesley J. Liebeler. I am an attorney on the President's Commission investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. I have been authorized to take your testimony by the Commission pursuant to authority granted to the Commission by President Johnson's Executive Order No. 11130, dated November 29, 1963, and the joint resolution of Congress No. 137.
Pursuant to the Commission's rules of procedure, you are entitled to be represented by counsel. As the record now indicates, you are represented by counsel, General Watts. I understand that you are appearing voluntarily before the Commission in response to its request to give testimony touching upon certain matters relating to Lee Harvey Oswald and to the assassination of President Kennedy.Is that correct?
General WALKER. That is correct
How would General Walker know anything regarding the shooting of JFK by LHO? Was Walker a friend or acquaintance of LHO? I don’t think so, so why was the WC calling him to testify on things he had NO idea about?
The first topic was the attempt on him on the night of April 10, 1963 that the WC attributed to LHO. I won't go into all the details as everyone should be familiar with them at this point in time. He was asked if he noticed anything outside after the shooting that could be related to it, and he said this interesting item.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you find anything outside that you could relate to this attack on you?
General WALKER. No, sir; I couldn't. As I crossed a window coming downstairs in front, I saw a car at the bottom of the church alley just making a turn onto Turtle Creek. The car was unidentifiable. I could see the two back lights, and you have to look through trees there, and I could see it moving out. This car would have been about at the right time for anybody that was making a getaway.
Well since we know the ONLY witness, Walter Coleman, mentioned two cars (white or beige 1950 Ford & a 1958 black Chevrolet with white sides) as the getaway method for two men, and we know LHO did NOT drive, this leaves us with the conclusion at this point that if LHO was the shooter (and he wasn’t based on the evidence we have) he had to have had HELP!
We know from the witness though that it was NOT LHO as he would be interviewed by FBI agents Robert Barrett and Ivan Lee and they would show him a photograph of LHO and he would say that was NOT one of the men he saw. IF you go to CE-2958 and read the descriptions of the two men you will see it could NOT be LHO he saw as one is only 19-20 years old and “real skinny” (remember, one of the Davis sisters-in-law said the shooter was a boy), and the second man was described as being about 6’1” and 200lbs.
But despite the total lack of any evidence showing it was LHO the WC just claimed it was him. They also said he got on a bus after burying the rifle. Of course they NEVER explained how he took a rifle on the bus and had NO one remember him. Or when he went back to get the rifle. Or how he then got back on a bus and again had NO remember him. Or how he cleaned the rifle when he had NO cleaning supplies. We know the rifle had to be cleaned based on the DeMohrenschildts’ comments about seeing it in the closet. They never said it was covered with dirt.
As I said, despite there being NO evidence the WC just assumed he did shoot at him and continued the questioning.
What would be the best way to shoot at EAW while he sat at his desk? Obviously head on would offer the best target, but after much discussion pertaining to CE-1007 they finally got down to the
angle used by the shooter.
Mr. LIEBELER. Sideways to the window? I am trying to drive at what kind of shot the man had at you. Was he shooting at you from the side, from the back, or from the front? I think it would be from the side.
General WALKER. More from the side than the front. Definitely from
the side but a little at an angle, because I was facing the center of the room.
Now why would the shooter, especially LHO who was NOT a great shooter to begin with, choose this type of angle when he would have had more luck from a frontal angle? Funny, Liebeler spent NO time exploring this either. Of course the same thing has been debated for years regarding why NO shot was fired from the front when JFK’s limo was on Houston St. too. It seems LHO liked the HARDEST shots possible IF you buy the WC’s version of events.
Some would say he was just trying to scare him, but NOT kill him, but this was NOT the argument of the WC! They claimed this was a genuine attempt by LHO to kill EAW, thus, the positioning of the shooter is a very valid one.
Was the shooter in a hurry as he was afraid someone would see him? I don't know why as Walker Exhibit 1 shows what great cover he would have had.
www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/walk1.jpg
What is this picture of?
Mr. LIEBELER. Now are you able to tell from looking at that picture what it shows?
General WALKER. Yes; I can identify this picture. It is the backyard of my house at 4011 Turtle Creek. It is a view from a position taken near the west fence line, taken of the rear of my house, camera pointed east. It shows the fence running down on the left side between my rented property, and the church property.
Hmmm, he would have had a fence just like Dealey Plaza (DP), and he would have been up against a church that I am assuming was NOT in session or they/he would NOT have chosen that time to do the shooting. Why would they feel rushed or be afraid they would be seen? There really is NO reason.
Where did the shot come from according to EAW?
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes; Walker Exhibit No. 1. Were you able to determine to your satisfaction the place from which the shot was fired?
General WALKER. I was convinced there wasn't any doubt the shot was fired about where this cameraman was standing, or a little bit behind him and outside the lattice fence, probably firing through the fence which had spaces in it, squares of about 4 to 6 inches. Certainly the lineup of the holes in the two, in the window and in the wall, gives the direction. The distance would be questionable to this point, based on the information I have.
So does anyone believe a man who was not a great shot to start with would choose to shoot THROUGH a fence? Heck, I guess he was practicing for shooting THROUGH a tree in DP! Just kidding, the fence was not really that bad, here is a picture of it.
www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/walk2.jpg
The question would again be based on this picture, why choose a SIDE angle when he could easily have chosen a frontal angle? The distance was estimated to be between 100 and 120 feet from the fence to the place EAW was sitting. What did Walker think of the shooter?
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever say in words or substance after this shot was fired at you that the guy must have been a lousy shot? That sounds like something you might say, doesn't it?
General WALKER. Yes.
No if it was LHO as the WC would have us believe, how did he go from a lousy shot in April to one of the best in the world by 11/22/63? Where is all the practicing that would be required to make this transformation possible? Why couldn't the WC really show us where LHO practiced at all?
Of course the WC had him "amend" his early comment to the police of the man being a horrible shot because they couldn't claim he performed one of the greatest shooting feats in history and be this bad just 7 months before!
General WALKER. The police asked me to sit down when I got there and they went through the motions of lining up the shot from inside and outside. And one policeman said, "He couldn't have missed you." And one said, a lieutenant I believe it was, said, "It was an attempted assassination." And I said, "What makes you call it that?" And he said, "Because he definitely was out to get you."
How could the cop know this by the evidence? IF the shooter was really out to get him why did he fail? This was an easier shot than the DP alleged shooting sequence.
And I said, "Your remark sounds like a natural remark." But as I later was analyzing the thing, he couldn't see either with a scope or without a scope. He couldn't see from his position any of the lattice work either in the windows or in the screens because of the light. It would have looked like one big lighted area, and he could have been a very good shot and just by chance he hit the woodwork.
Does anyone else buy this? Did EAW have SEARCHLIGHTS set up at his house? How much light could have blinded the shooter? If any thing, I would think the fact the General was in light while the shooter was outside would have illuminated him perfectly for him/them.
What's with the photo of the car?
mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce5.jpg)
We all know the license plate was removed from it and the WC blamed LHO for this when it was allegedly found with his belongings, but many researchers have shown the actual hole appeared AFTER it was in DPD or FBI custody. Let's put that aside for a minute. Why would EAW NOT recognize the car if it belonged to someone he knew? And why would someone take a picture of this?
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize anything else? Specifically, I draw your attention to the automobile that is shown in there.
General WALKER. I do not recognize the car.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Charles Klihr?
General WALKER. Would you spell it again?
Mr. LIEBELER. I will spell it right in just a minute. K-l-i-h-r. 2046 Rosebud Street, Irving, Tex. Do you know that man?
General WALKER. Not that spelling. I know a Charles Clyr. As I know the spelling, it is C-l-y-r.
Shouldn't this have caused alarms to go off? I mean the WC has a man under a DIFFERENT name from what Walker knows?
In fact there is more confusion when Walker states the address they give him does NOT sound familiar, and he again states he does NOT recognize the car when asked yet again. They then go on to this.
Mr. LIEBELER. This gentleman that we may be talking about we may be talking about the same man, is a volunteer worker for you from time to time?
General WALKER. If it is the one I am referring to, he is in and out quite often, right. He and his wife have helped me quite a bit.
Mr. LIEBELER. But you aren't able to identify that car as being his?
General WALKER. No; I am not.
Mr. LIEBELER. Does that car appear to be a 1957 Chevrolet? Or aren't you able to tell by looking?
General WALKER. I am not able to tell. I am not very good on cars.
Then they move on to the bullet holes again!! Why do they NOT explore this matter more fully? This man, if he is the volunteer, is known by Walker quite well, but HE does NOT know him by the name the WC is using. Why did they NOT further investigate if Klihr was Clyr, and if NOT, find out who he was? Oh that's right, because the WC relied TOTALLY on the DPD, the FBI and the CIA for their “investigating."
What was it about the 1957 Chevrolet the WC wanted to stay clear of? On April 8, 1963 Walker's aide, Max Claunch, saw a "Cuban, or a dark-complected man, in a 1957 Chevrolet" cruise around EAW's home several times. Walter Coleman, the ONLY witness to the shooting, will see two men running to two cars and one (number one man) will get into the 1950 Ford. The number two man will head towards a 1958 black Chevrolet .He described the car as a 1958 black Chevrolet with white down the side. Keep in mind, Walker just admitted to NOT being good with cars, so it could have been a 1958 model he saw. The main point is Coleman was never called before the WC and he would tell EAW he was ordered NOT to discuss the details with anyone by the authorities. I wonder why if it was LHO he saw?
General WALKER. The word we got is, the boy has been told not to say anything.That may not be the direct information, but I think you will find it about what the situation is.
Mr. LIEBELER. The last question was, has your counsel attempted to talk to Mr. Coleman and Mr. Coleman refused to talk to him?
General WALKER. No; I have no knowledge of my counsel trying to speak to him, but I was told by others that tried to get to him that he has been advised and wasn't talking, and that he had been advised not to talk.
These quote applies to this matter too.
"...as far as I am concerned, our efforts are practically blocked. I would like to see at least a capability of my counsel being able to talk to these witnesses freely and that you or the FBI give a release on them with respect to being able to discuss it as it involves me." (11 H 416)
Who could own the 1957/1958 Chevrolet? Well according to researchers who found the name of Filipe Vidal Santiago they say he was known to drive around in a 1957 Chevrolet. Why would EAW and the WC want to hide this detail? Because Santiago was a member of the Cuban exile militant group "Alpha 66" and he was seen on many occasions in the company of EAW. Ironically, a dispatch will go out about an hour after JDT is shot to be on the look out for a, you guessed it, 1957 Chevrolet last seen at the intersection where JDT was killed. The charge noted on the dispatch is for carrying a concealed weapon.
According to a former employee of EAW, William McEwan Duff, Jack Ruby visited EAW's home on a MONTHLY basis from December 1962 to March 1963. What could these two have been discussing?
On April 6, 1963 EAW's aide, Robert Surrey (how many aides did this guy have?) sees two men prowling around the EAW home and peeking in windows. Surrey described the behavior as very suspicious.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I understand that Mr. Surrey saw two men in the vicinity of your house shortly before April 10, 1963, acting in a manner. that he regarded as suspicious. Did he report that to you at or about that time?
General WALKER. He has reported that to me, and I don't remember the date on which he did.
Mr. LIEBELER. Was it prior to the time that the shot was fired at you?
General WALKER. I can't recall.
Mr. LIEBELER. You have no recollection of the fact, if it is a fact, that Surrey had seen two men out there in an automobile that didn't have any license plate on it?
General WALKER. Yes; I do. I knew. He told me that he had come toward my house and noticed a car, as I remember, parked on Avondale, and he went on by or backed up or something and got out and came behind the car and saw two men moving around in the area somewhere in the alley in the back part of my house. Then he followed that car. They went down to the center of town, and he lost-them. I would suspect that he told me that the next morning, if not that night.
Who were these men? Did he report this to the police?
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recall whether or not you reported that to the police?
General WALKER. Yes; that was called in to the police. As I recall, that was. I believe there is a report at the house that it was called in to the police. As I recall, it was, and I told them what we knew about it.
Mr. LIEBELER. As you reflect on that event, do you recall it was called in to the police prior to the time the shot was fired?
General WALKER. As I reflect, it must have been called in either that night or the next morning. I don't recall the exact time, but the police record will show it.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you make the call yourself, or did someone else do that, if you remember?
General WALKER. As I recall, I made it.
So there is this suspicious stuff going on just days before the shooting and the WC finds this NOT suspicious in the least? How come? Oh that is right, because there were TWO men and we can't have LHO have any help.
What about the police investigation?
Mr. LIEBELER. Did they discuss with you any possible suspects that they might have come up with, any leads they had on it as to who might have been involved?
General WALKER. I don't recall that they did. They may have, and I may have told them who had been in and about around the house, or who had worked for me. I don't recall this definitely, but the records will probably show.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any records like that here?
General WALKER. No; I don't.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did the name Lee Harvey Oswald come up in connection with this investigation in any way at that time?
General WALKER. No; it didn't.[/u][/color]
I wonder why NOT if he did fire the shot. So the WC wants us to believe in 7 1/2 months they could NOT find LHO to be guilty of this shooting yet they found him within an hour for the JDT slaying. Yeah right!
Walker suspected a man named Duff, NOT LHO!
Mr. LIEBELER. Now the fact is that you suspected, possibly, that Duff might have been involved in this attack on your life, didn't you?
General WALKER. I Suspected that he might be involved.
General WATTS. I got a call--I don't remember the exact date but I do have a record of it. I got a call from Mrs. Kenecht in General Walker's office to the effect that an anonymous telephone call came in from some lady who advised Mrs. Kenecht that this boy Duff had been going with the lady's daughter and had bragged to the daughter that he had been in on the shooting at General Walker.[/color]
So I sent these two investigators whose names were just mentioned, connected with our office. They are ex- detectives or policemen from the Oklahoma City Police Department and do freelance investigating. I sent them down here with a tape recorder to verify as much as they could from Duff, because we were very apprehensive that he might take another shot at Walker. We couldn't get Duff to admit that he actually fired the shot, but he professed to readiness to stage another attempt if someone would raise $5,000. It is my-recollection that the tape recording was turned over to the Dallas Police Department.
So Duff would be interested in "staging another attempt if someone would raise $5,000." Doesn't this scream the fact the first event was a STAGED attempt by Duff and someone else? You do NOT use the word staged if it is real, thus we have a confession from someone that the shooting on April 10, 1963 was a STAGED event that paid $5,000 to each of the participants, or divided among them. How much more do you need? Yet the WC never allowed facts to get in their way of accusing LHO.
Of course the WC had EAW cover this up as well.
General WALKER. I was familiar with the progress of the investigation and got a final copy of it. I thought it solved nothing, but Duff was telling his usual lies.
Why would Duff lie? What did he gain by saying he was involved in a STAGED attempt on EAW that paid out $5,000? Wasn't this the same guy who showed up at EAW's door broke, homeless and jobless? Wouldn't one think he would jump at a chance for $5,000 dollars, even a share of it?
The WC even gets EAW to seel his own lawyer out.
General WALKER. That is correct, except that I do not agree with General Watts' statement that Duff had implicated himself in the attack on me by statements to the daughter of this woman who called Mrs. Kenecht. My information is only to the effect that the girls mother was upset about her daughter's friendship with Duff. As far as I know, she never said that Duff admitted being involved in the attack on me that occurred on April 10, 1963.
So in one fell swoop EAW contradicts the whole investigation the Army conducted. Even if he lied they never proved he did.
General WATTS. My only basis is suspicion. First; his generally unreliable nature. Second; I have never fully satisfied myself as to the accuracy of the investigation these boys made where Duff undoubtedly had made some kind of an alarming statement to this unknown woman who called in. We have never been able to locate or identify her. I have never reconciled his tape recorder statement that he had not shot at Walker, but would do so for $5,000, with the apparent statement to this unidentified woman's daughter that he had actually fired at Walker. In other words, we could never verify that by our investigation.
Well, if you can't prove he lied, you have to go under the assumption he did not, isn't that how an investigation is supposed to go? Until you prove he lied, you have to treat his confession as truthful. But of course NO one did as they had their guy already.
Now, did EAW think LHO was the one that shot at him?
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, did you tell anybody from this newspaper that Oswald had shot at you and that this had been known prior to the time of the assassination of the President?
General WALKER. No; I did not. I wouldn't have known it.[/b] It was much later that they began to tie Oswald into me, and I don't even know it yet.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you certainly didn't know it before November 22?
General WALKER. Or the morning of the 23d, certainly not. I was very surprised to see the article.
Mr. LIEBELER. So the best of your recollection is that you never provided them with the information?
General WALKER. I did not.[/u] I didn't know it at the time of this conversation at all.[/b][/color] I didn't know it until I started reading the newspaper, which would have been later than then.
How weird is this? For 7 and 1/2 months they never told Walker LHO shot at him, but on the morning of November 23 they announce it was LHO! Boy the DPD was wiping CLEAR ALL OF THEIR UNSOLVED CRIMES WITH LHO, huh?
What about the great work of the DPD? What does this say about them?
Mr. LIEBELER. What was the separate article about? Did that have any reference to the fact that Oswald had allegedly fired at you?
General WALKER. Yes. As I remember the article, it alleged that Oswald was the one that had fired at me, and that this had been known earlier, and that this had been known and that nothing was done about it And if something had been done about it at that time, he wouldn't have been the man that--it wouldn't have been possible for him to have killed the President.
Boy, what great work by the DPD, huh? They could have prevented JFK and JDT from dying, but they refused to arrest LHO for shooting at Walker. How come? Will any LNer explain this for us?
Did EAW think LHO attacked him?
Mr. LIEBELER. That is when you gave him this information about Oswald having attacked you?
General WALKER. I didn't give him all the information--I think the portion you are referring to, I didn't give him, because I had no way of knowing that Oswald attacked me. I still don't. And I am not very prone to say in fact he did. In fact, I have always claimed he did not, until we can get into the case or somebody tells us differently that he did.
There is so much more including some conversation about Ruby and LHO knowing each other based on what EAW had been told I encourage everyone to read his testimony. I'll finish with this odd comment by him when they were discussing how he had come to know Warren Reynolds, one of the two men who chased the shooter after he shot JDT, and Reynold's own attack that left him shot.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any evidence to indicate that there is?
General WALKER. I think there is a definite I don't know that you could call it evidence but you can anticipate that people would like to shut up anybody that knows anything about this case. People right here in Dallas. And I don't think anybody knows or would have known at the time after November 22 how much or how little Warren Reynolds knew.
Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, he doesn't know very much, does he?
General WALKER. He would become a very good example, regardless of what he knew, to let everybody know that they better keep their mouths shut.
]b]Wow, so a man well connected in Dallas knew there was a probably an attempt to shut up folks who did not see or say what was required of them. I find this conformation from a man with inside knowledge very fascinating.
Finally we come to very sound advice for the WC, but as usual they chose to ignore it!
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, now, wouldn't it be fair to say that that is pure speculation on your part?
General WALKER. YES, BUT EVERYTHING IS SPECULATION UNTIL YOU PROVE IT OR DISPROVE IT!
Too bad for all of us Americans the WC NEVER saw fit to prove any of their speculations!