Post by Rob Caprio on Apr 13, 2021 12:46:05 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
i.pinimg.com/originals/8b/65/32/8b6532b91a3a2d343fec44ff90e51899.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) planned and attempted an assassination of retired General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) on the evening of April 10, 1963.
Every piece of evidence tied to this claim has been shown to NOT support the allegation in other posts. We have seen that there is no tangible, supporting evidence for the claim that LHO fired a shot at EAW.
There was another matter that would have impacted anyone who planned on staking out EAW's house and firing a shot at him. This post will look at this issue.
*********************************************
The house next to EAW was owned by Dr. Ruth Jackson and she was the owner of a dog. This dog was outside a good bit and would bark at anyone or anything that it was not familiar with. We know about this issue because it came up during the testimony of EAW aide Robert Surrey.
Mr. JENNER. And who is the owner of that home?
Mr. SURREY. I do not know. A doctor.
Mr. JENNER. A lady doctor?
Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is a woman, runs the household.
Mr. JENNER. Dr. Ruth Jackson?
Mr. SURREY. It sounds familiar, but I do not know.
Mr. JENNER. Does she have a dog that is sometimes obstreperous, does a lot of barking?
Mr. SURREY. Yes; she does.
Mr. JENNER. You are quite familiar with that fact, are you?
Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; I am.
Mr. JENNER. How and why did you become familiar with that fact?
Mr. SURREY. Anyone approaching the house, generally her house or General Walker's house, would be barked at, in the middle of the night noises.
Mr. JENNER. And you have approached General Walker's house, I assume, at night, have you?
Mr. SURREY. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. If the dog is out in Dr. Jackson's yard, the dog is alerted and barks?
Mr. SURREY. Not so much any more. Evidently he knows who I am now.
Mr. JENNER. I see. But before the dog became familiar with you, he did bark?
Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER. What kind of a dog is it, by the way?
Mr. SURREY. A small Collie, I guess--shaggy,, brownish dog.
Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether or not at or about the time of the attempt on General Walker's life that dog became or was ill.
Mr. SURREY. Yes; it was. This was reported to me. I do not know of firsthand knowledge.
Mr. JENNER. I would prefer not to have your hearsay. You have no knowledge firsthand, however?
Mr. SURREY. No; I do not.
Mr. JENNER. Unless, Mr. Chairman, you desire to pursue the hearsay----
The CHAIRMAN. No, no.
Wow, let the church bells ring as finally the WC was not interested in taking hearsay testimony. When the hearsay testimony made LHO appear guilty they had no problem taking it. But here when the topic could lead to other things then they were concerned with the integrity of the proceeding.
What this testimony shows is that EAW's neighbor had a dog that barked at anyone that it did not know IF they approached either the Walker house or Dr. Jackson’s house. This throws a monkey wrench into the official narrative as they had LHO visiting the area to take photographs of EAW's house and of course to fire a shot at EAW, but based on Surrey's testimony this would have drawn the attention and ire of Dr. Jackson’s dog. Wouldn't this have drawn the attention of EAW's aides?
One way around this problem would have been to poison the dog and that is what the report that Robert Surrey was given could have shown. If the WC really wanted to find out the truth regarding this matter then all they had to do was call Dr. Ruth Jackson to testify, but they didn't. Why? To me the answer is obvious – the dog was poisoned or given something to quiet it so the shooter could get into position. Why was the WC afraid of this topic?
For those WC defenders who want to chime in here that there is no evidence that this actually happened then they need to become familiar with the June 10, 1964, FBI report where Dr. Jackson was interviewed.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pages/WH_Vol23_0400a.gif
She advised her dog "Toby" became very sick on April 11 and 12, 1963. She stated she was of the opinion someone had given him something to quiet him or drug him or poison him, because he did become sick and vomited extensively on April 11 and 12, 1963...She based her belief that the dog had been given something because of the shooting incident and the dog's habit of barking at anyone or anything in the alley area...This was only opinion on her part. (Commission Exhibit (CE) 1953, p. 22)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0400a.htm
Quote off
Perhaps this was just her opinion as they point out in the report, but keep in mind that she was a doctor and not a lay person. True, she wasn't a veterinarian, but the symptoms would be similar in a human and a dog that was drugged or poisoned.
Why was the WC so uninterested in this issue? Perhaps because of Robert Surrey's other comment about Toby not barking when he came by because the dog had become familiar with him. Maybe the WC was afraid of learning that LHO and EAW knew each other, and therefore, he would have visited EAW's house enough to allow Toby to get used to him.
Keep in mind that EAW's name and telephone number were in LHO’s notebook. Of course, the WC would claim that they didn't know each other.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0344a.gif
Speculation. – Oswald and General Walker were probably acquainted with each other since Oswald’s notebook contained Walker's name and telephone number.
Commission finding. – Although Oswald’s notebook contained Walker's name and telephone number there was no evidence that the two knew each other. It is probable that this information was inserted at the time Oswald was planning his attack on Walker. General Walker stated that he did not know of Oswald before the assassination. (WCR, p. 663)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0344a.htm
Quote off
The WC claimed that there was no evidence showing that LHO and EAW knew each other, but when did they investigate this possibility? It isn't hard to not find evidence of something when you never really look for it.
Then we see the infamous WC double standard being applied. They said since there was no evidence (their claim that was not supported) showing that LHO and EAW knew each other than they did NOT know each other. Period.
But then they say it is PROBABLE that LHO entered EAW's name and telephone number in his notebook at the time he was planning his attack on him, but where is the evidence for this claim? There is none.
When something could point to a conspiracy then they applied the true legal standard (while doing no real investigation), but when they were trying to make LHO look guilty they used no legal standard. Numerous times things were PROBABLE when they pointed to LHO without an iota of evidence, but impossible when they could point to a conspiracy because they claimed that there was no evidence. Double standard.
EAW's denial of knowing LHO prior to the assassination really means nothing as one would expect him to do this. So with no evidence whatsoever the WC claims that it is probable that LHO entered EAW's name and telephone number in his notebook at the time he was planning his attack on Walker.
Why would he do that? Was LHO going to call EAW before he shot at him? What good was EAW's telephone number in planning an attack? None that I can think of.
The person who seemed to have some knowledge about EAW and LHO was Michael Paine. This is from his testimony.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember any other conversation you and Oswald had during this first evening that you met?
The CHAIRMAN - From the first day, are you going back to?
Mr. LIEBELER - Yes.
Mr. PAINE - I think we probably spoke, I was trying still to find common ground with him, and I think we probably spoke critically of the far right. It even seems to me we may have mentioned Walker.
I had been bothered at the time that Walker had--I guess it doesn't do any good to enter into the matter because I don't remember his response.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you mention Walker's name during the first meeting?
Mr. PAINE - My memory is very foggy. But I would take it as—this was an impression.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember anything that he said about Walker at all?
Mr. PAINE - I think that is the only time, probably the only time we mentioned Walker.
Senator COOPER – Did he indicate in any way that he knew about General Walker's activities and beliefs and position on public affairs?
Mr. PAINE - When I went to the ACLU meeting, he then got up, stood up and reported what had happened at the meeting of the far right which had occurred at convention hall the day before, U.N. Day, they called it U.S. Day, and I think Walker had spoken then.
From this I gathered that he was doing more or less the same thing-- I thought he was, I didn't inquire how he spent his free time but I supposed he was going around to right wing groups being familiarizing himself for whatever his purposes were as I was.
Senator COOPER - Is that prior to the conversation you have talked about?
Mr. PAINE - No; this is after this conversation.
Senator COOPER - What?
Mr. Paine This is after this conversation and I only had this, this was the only concrete evidence I had of how he spent, might have spent some of his time. It happened in the ACLU meeting in late October. I suppose he was familiar with the right-wing groups and activities, and movements. And certainly familiar with Walker; yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - Confining the Senator's question to the meeting in April, he didn't indicate in any way that he was familiar with Walker's attitude or activities?
Mr. PAINE – He was familiar with Walker. He knew who Walker was, there was no doubt about that. We were talking about Walker.
This testimony shows that LHO was very familiar with EAW and right-wing groups. Why would LHO learn all about the right-wing groups including their activities and movements when he was supposedly a Communist? What possible reason would he do this? Perhaps he was working both sides like he did with the Cuban issue. If so, this would point to LHO being involved in intelligence work as no true loner would have a need to do this.
The fact that LHO's notebook had EAW's name and telephone number in it would support Michael Paine’s statement that LHO was familiar with EAW. The fact that the WC ignored this issue would also seem to support this contention.
The drugging or poisoning of the dog could show that either LHO was capable of further violence or that someone other than him was involved in the shooting. The problem with blaming LHO is that there is no evidence for showing that he had access to or knowledge of drugs or poison.
It is simply too much of a coincidence that something happened to the neighbor’s dog at the same time that someone took a shot at EAW. Clearly these events were linked and the WC's total lack of interest in looking into it confirms this as they only showed interest in making LHO appear guilty. The drugging or poisoning of the neighbor’s dog shows planning as the person or persons involved knew about the dog and the problems that it posed.
How could LHO have taken the alleged surveillance photographs of EAW's house without causing the neighbor’s dog to raise the alarm? This was never explained for us by the WC.
EAW was not asked about LHO having his name and telephone number in his notebook either. Why not? Is this how an honest investigation would be conducted? It would have been nice to hear EAW's take on this.
i.pinimg.com/originals/8b/65/32/8b6532b91a3a2d343fec44ff90e51899.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) planned and attempted an assassination of retired General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) on the evening of April 10, 1963.
Every piece of evidence tied to this claim has been shown to NOT support the allegation in other posts. We have seen that there is no tangible, supporting evidence for the claim that LHO fired a shot at EAW.
There was another matter that would have impacted anyone who planned on staking out EAW's house and firing a shot at him. This post will look at this issue.
*********************************************
The house next to EAW was owned by Dr. Ruth Jackson and she was the owner of a dog. This dog was outside a good bit and would bark at anyone or anything that it was not familiar with. We know about this issue because it came up during the testimony of EAW aide Robert Surrey.
Mr. JENNER. And who is the owner of that home?
Mr. SURREY. I do not know. A doctor.
Mr. JENNER. A lady doctor?
Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is a woman, runs the household.
Mr. JENNER. Dr. Ruth Jackson?
Mr. SURREY. It sounds familiar, but I do not know.
Mr. JENNER. Does she have a dog that is sometimes obstreperous, does a lot of barking?
Mr. SURREY. Yes; she does.
Mr. JENNER. You are quite familiar with that fact, are you?
Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; I am.
Mr. JENNER. How and why did you become familiar with that fact?
Mr. SURREY. Anyone approaching the house, generally her house or General Walker's house, would be barked at, in the middle of the night noises.
Mr. JENNER. And you have approached General Walker's house, I assume, at night, have you?
Mr. SURREY. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. If the dog is out in Dr. Jackson's yard, the dog is alerted and barks?
Mr. SURREY. Not so much any more. Evidently he knows who I am now.
Mr. JENNER. I see. But before the dog became familiar with you, he did bark?
Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER. What kind of a dog is it, by the way?
Mr. SURREY. A small Collie, I guess--shaggy,, brownish dog.
Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether or not at or about the time of the attempt on General Walker's life that dog became or was ill.
Mr. SURREY. Yes; it was. This was reported to me. I do not know of firsthand knowledge.
Mr. JENNER. I would prefer not to have your hearsay. You have no knowledge firsthand, however?
Mr. SURREY. No; I do not.
Mr. JENNER. Unless, Mr. Chairman, you desire to pursue the hearsay----
The CHAIRMAN. No, no.
Wow, let the church bells ring as finally the WC was not interested in taking hearsay testimony. When the hearsay testimony made LHO appear guilty they had no problem taking it. But here when the topic could lead to other things then they were concerned with the integrity of the proceeding.
What this testimony shows is that EAW's neighbor had a dog that barked at anyone that it did not know IF they approached either the Walker house or Dr. Jackson’s house. This throws a monkey wrench into the official narrative as they had LHO visiting the area to take photographs of EAW's house and of course to fire a shot at EAW, but based on Surrey's testimony this would have drawn the attention and ire of Dr. Jackson’s dog. Wouldn't this have drawn the attention of EAW's aides?
One way around this problem would have been to poison the dog and that is what the report that Robert Surrey was given could have shown. If the WC really wanted to find out the truth regarding this matter then all they had to do was call Dr. Ruth Jackson to testify, but they didn't. Why? To me the answer is obvious – the dog was poisoned or given something to quiet it so the shooter could get into position. Why was the WC afraid of this topic?
For those WC defenders who want to chime in here that there is no evidence that this actually happened then they need to become familiar with the June 10, 1964, FBI report where Dr. Jackson was interviewed.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pages/WH_Vol23_0400a.gif
She advised her dog "Toby" became very sick on April 11 and 12, 1963. She stated she was of the opinion someone had given him something to quiet him or drug him or poison him, because he did become sick and vomited extensively on April 11 and 12, 1963...She based her belief that the dog had been given something because of the shooting incident and the dog's habit of barking at anyone or anything in the alley area...This was only opinion on her part. (Commission Exhibit (CE) 1953, p. 22)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0400a.htm
Quote off
Perhaps this was just her opinion as they point out in the report, but keep in mind that she was a doctor and not a lay person. True, she wasn't a veterinarian, but the symptoms would be similar in a human and a dog that was drugged or poisoned.
Why was the WC so uninterested in this issue? Perhaps because of Robert Surrey's other comment about Toby not barking when he came by because the dog had become familiar with him. Maybe the WC was afraid of learning that LHO and EAW knew each other, and therefore, he would have visited EAW's house enough to allow Toby to get used to him.
Keep in mind that EAW's name and telephone number were in LHO’s notebook. Of course, the WC would claim that they didn't know each other.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0344a.gif
Speculation. – Oswald and General Walker were probably acquainted with each other since Oswald’s notebook contained Walker's name and telephone number.
Commission finding. – Although Oswald’s notebook contained Walker's name and telephone number there was no evidence that the two knew each other. It is probable that this information was inserted at the time Oswald was planning his attack on Walker. General Walker stated that he did not know of Oswald before the assassination. (WCR, p. 663)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0344a.htm
Quote off
The WC claimed that there was no evidence showing that LHO and EAW knew each other, but when did they investigate this possibility? It isn't hard to not find evidence of something when you never really look for it.
Then we see the infamous WC double standard being applied. They said since there was no evidence (their claim that was not supported) showing that LHO and EAW knew each other than they did NOT know each other. Period.
But then they say it is PROBABLE that LHO entered EAW's name and telephone number in his notebook at the time he was planning his attack on him, but where is the evidence for this claim? There is none.
When something could point to a conspiracy then they applied the true legal standard (while doing no real investigation), but when they were trying to make LHO look guilty they used no legal standard. Numerous times things were PROBABLE when they pointed to LHO without an iota of evidence, but impossible when they could point to a conspiracy because they claimed that there was no evidence. Double standard.
EAW's denial of knowing LHO prior to the assassination really means nothing as one would expect him to do this. So with no evidence whatsoever the WC claims that it is probable that LHO entered EAW's name and telephone number in his notebook at the time he was planning his attack on Walker.
Why would he do that? Was LHO going to call EAW before he shot at him? What good was EAW's telephone number in planning an attack? None that I can think of.
The person who seemed to have some knowledge about EAW and LHO was Michael Paine. This is from his testimony.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember any other conversation you and Oswald had during this first evening that you met?
The CHAIRMAN - From the first day, are you going back to?
Mr. LIEBELER - Yes.
Mr. PAINE - I think we probably spoke, I was trying still to find common ground with him, and I think we probably spoke critically of the far right. It even seems to me we may have mentioned Walker.
I had been bothered at the time that Walker had--I guess it doesn't do any good to enter into the matter because I don't remember his response.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you mention Walker's name during the first meeting?
Mr. PAINE - My memory is very foggy. But I would take it as—this was an impression.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember anything that he said about Walker at all?
Mr. PAINE - I think that is the only time, probably the only time we mentioned Walker.
Senator COOPER – Did he indicate in any way that he knew about General Walker's activities and beliefs and position on public affairs?
Mr. PAINE - When I went to the ACLU meeting, he then got up, stood up and reported what had happened at the meeting of the far right which had occurred at convention hall the day before, U.N. Day, they called it U.S. Day, and I think Walker had spoken then.
From this I gathered that he was doing more or less the same thing-- I thought he was, I didn't inquire how he spent his free time but I supposed he was going around to right wing groups being familiarizing himself for whatever his purposes were as I was.
Senator COOPER - Is that prior to the conversation you have talked about?
Mr. PAINE - No; this is after this conversation.
Senator COOPER - What?
Mr. Paine This is after this conversation and I only had this, this was the only concrete evidence I had of how he spent, might have spent some of his time. It happened in the ACLU meeting in late October. I suppose he was familiar with the right-wing groups and activities, and movements. And certainly familiar with Walker; yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - Confining the Senator's question to the meeting in April, he didn't indicate in any way that he was familiar with Walker's attitude or activities?
Mr. PAINE – He was familiar with Walker. He knew who Walker was, there was no doubt about that. We were talking about Walker.
This testimony shows that LHO was very familiar with EAW and right-wing groups. Why would LHO learn all about the right-wing groups including their activities and movements when he was supposedly a Communist? What possible reason would he do this? Perhaps he was working both sides like he did with the Cuban issue. If so, this would point to LHO being involved in intelligence work as no true loner would have a need to do this.
The fact that LHO's notebook had EAW's name and telephone number in it would support Michael Paine’s statement that LHO was familiar with EAW. The fact that the WC ignored this issue would also seem to support this contention.
The drugging or poisoning of the dog could show that either LHO was capable of further violence or that someone other than him was involved in the shooting. The problem with blaming LHO is that there is no evidence for showing that he had access to or knowledge of drugs or poison.
It is simply too much of a coincidence that something happened to the neighbor’s dog at the same time that someone took a shot at EAW. Clearly these events were linked and the WC's total lack of interest in looking into it confirms this as they only showed interest in making LHO appear guilty. The drugging or poisoning of the neighbor’s dog shows planning as the person or persons involved knew about the dog and the problems that it posed.
How could LHO have taken the alleged surveillance photographs of EAW's house without causing the neighbor’s dog to raise the alarm? This was never explained for us by the WC.
EAW was not asked about LHO having his name and telephone number in his notebook either. Why not? Is this how an honest investigation would be conducted? It would have been nice to hear EAW's take on this.