Post by Rob Caprio on May 3, 2021 14:26:34 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2025
3.bp.blogspot.com/_I4lZU0BrRsg/TQEwGdzPQbI/AAAAAAAAAH8/HqaTFVxOUL8/s1600/Walker+Home+by+LHO.jpg
gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/FBI-file-116-165494-Sec-3-pg.-110.png
gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/walker-to-blakey-9-12-78.png
The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself on November 22, 1963. To make LHO look more violent and cold-blooded they also said he killed a Dallas Police Officer, J.D. Tippit (JDT), miles away in Oak Cliff on November 22, 1963, while being stopped for questioning. As if that was NOT bad enough, they also would claim that LHO shot at, but missed, General Edwin Walker (EAW) on the night of April 10, 1963.
Of course the evidence put forth by them in their twenty-six volumes of Hearings & Exhibits does NOT point to LHO at all, but rather towards a vast conspiracy in the death of JFK and JDT.
We have looked at many aspects of the EAW shooting before, but this time we will take an overall look at this and how LHO came to be associated with it.
*********************************************
The first mention of LHO being tied to the EAW shooting came on the night of Saturday, November 23, 1963, during a press conference by Dallas Police Department (DPD) Chief Jesse Curry.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0392b.gif
Q. Is there any connection yet between this and the firing at General Edwin Walker?
Curry. I don’t know. (Commission Exhibit (CE) 2146, pp. 8-9)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0392b.htm
Quote off
It sure would have been nice to know which reporter asked this question so we could find out why they were making this connection so early on when LHO’s name had NEVER been associated with the EAW shooting by the DPD. The key word in this question too is “yet” as he did NOT ask IF there was any connection, but rather asked IF THERE WAS ANY CONNECTION YET. The person asking this question seemed to know there would be a connection made at some point, but how could they know this? Was this even asked by a reporter? These are questions unfortunately we will never know answers to.
We know from EAW’s WC testimony that he mentioned he received a call from a West German newspaper on the morning of November 23, 1963, and out of this conversation came the idea that LHO was involved in the shooting involving him on April 10, 1963.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Helmet Hubert Muench… He is a West German journalist who wrote an article that appeared in the Deutsche Nationalzeitung und Soldatenzeitung, a Munich, Germany, newspaper…. Did you ever talk to him?
General WALKER. Not that I know of.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you talk to him on a transatlantic telephone call in which you told him about the fact or the alleged fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person who made an attempt on your life?
General WALKER. I don't recall that name. Did he speak English? I don't speak German.
Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever seen a copy of that newspaper?
General WALKER. Yes; I have.
Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, I suggest that you have seen the November 29, 1963, copy of that newspaper which had on its front page a story entitled in German "The Strange Case of Oswald", that told about how Oswald had allegedly attacked you… Now, where did that newspaper get that information, do you know?
General WALKER. I do not. There was an article in the paper that he probably got from me.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, in fact, the issue of that newspaper has right on the front page what purports to be a transcript of a telephone conversation between you and some other person….Hasso Thorsten, is that the man?…When were you in Shreveport?
General WALKER. He called me the morning of November 23, 1963, about 7 a.m.
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.
Did you notice the subtle sleight of hand Liebeler used? He first said "fact" regarding LHO shooting at EAW, and then corrected it to an "alleged fact." How can something ONLY alleged and NOT proven be a FACT? Just wondering.
A copy of the article mentioned in this exchange was also published in the May 17, 1964, edition of the National Enquirer and included in the WC’s twenty-six volumes of evidence. It was designated CE 837.
CE 837: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0432a.jpg
After looking at this you will see what the WC did NOT allow into the testimony portion of this discussion—that LHO took a shot at EAW, but with the help of Jack Ruby! The article said LHO and Ruby were “pals” and shows a side-by-side picture of them. I wonder why the WC did NOT want this part mentioned?
Or the part where it said the U.S. Department of Justice “blocked their arrest” for this attempt on EAW? I wonder why they had NO interest in these things as they seem pretty fascinating to me, but then again, I am NOT trying to make one person look guilty either. I am open to where the evidence leads, obviously the WC was NOT.
The WC relied on four things to try and make LHO look guilty in the EAW shooting. Firstly, they said he took a series of photographs of EAW’s house on Turtle Creek Road in an “surveillance mode” for the shooting. As we have seen in a post recently for the camera issue, the Imperial Reflex was allegedly used for these photographs too as LHO seemed to only use that camera for incriminating photographs. There is no evidence showing LHO ever took those photographs and of course we have the issue of the license plate being cut out of the one photograph while it was in police custody.
Secondly, they said there was an undated note that showed LHO was involved in the shooting despite the note NOT mentioning EAW at all. Moreover, the note was never verified to be written by LHO or shown to be found in the way they claimed it was found (see post I did on this note). The note was NOT found by the DPD despite them “opening books to see what fell out” during their search.
Mr. McCLOY - Yes; the door was locked, that is what I gather. Do you know what they took on this occasion, or did they tell you what they were coming for?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I do not. Before I left they were leafing through books to see if anything fell out but that is all I saw.
This left the “discovery” of the note to one Secret Service (SS) agent who has remained nameless. All we received was this small note in CE 1403 on page 18.
CE 1403: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0400b.gif
Why the WC did not try to find out this agent’s name (along with so many other unknown officers) is beyond me, but they did not attempt to find this out or why the DPD would have been leafing through books in the first place. What were they looking for exactly? Finally, since they did do this - how did the note escape their view to be given to this unnamed SS agent?
Thirdly, they used FBI ballistic people to say that CE 573 (alleged 6.5 mm bullet to be found at EAW house) was the bullet that was fired at EAW from LHO’s alleged Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C). Of course this is NOT true and early press accounts said a 30.06 bullet was found at his home. ("Walker Escapes Assassin's Bullet," The New York Times, April 12, 1963, p. 12, cols. 2-3.) The FBI also agreed that they could NOT match CE 573 to CE 139 (alleged murder rifle) when they wrote this in a report they did for DPD Chief Curry.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0033a.gif
Because of the extreme mutilation and distortion of Q188 [573] and because the individual microscopic marks left on bullets by the barrel of K1 rifle [CE-139] could have CHANGED subsequent to the time Q188 was fired, it is NOT possible to determine whether or not Q188 was fired from K1. (CE 2001, p. 47) (Emphasis mine)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0033a.htm
Quote off
They could NOT even match CE 573 to CE 139 let alone show it was fired at EAW on the night of April 10, 1963. Thus, they had NO chance of ever linking LHO to this crime (especially since they could NOT link CE 139 to LHO).
Finally, the last evidence they used was Marina Oswald’s testimony and unsupported claims against her dead husband. NONE of them have ever been supported and they would have been barred in a court of law due to spousal privilege.
In her testimony she said the following about her understanding of what was going on in regards to the alleged EAW shooting.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you first learn that your husband had shot at General Walker?
Mrs. OSWALD. That evening he went out…It got to be about 10 or 10:30, he wasn't home yet, and I began to be worried. Perhaps even later. Then I went into his room. Somehow, I was drawn into it--you know--I was pacing around. Then I saw a note there.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you look for the gun at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, I didn't understand anything. On the note it said, "If I am arrested" and there are certain other questions, such as, for example, the key to the mailbox is in such and such a place, and that he left me some money to last me for some time, and I couldn't understand at all what can he be arrested for. When he came back I asked him what had happened. He was very pale. I don't remember the exact time, but it was very late. And he told me not to ask him any questions. He only told me that he had shot at General Walker.
Firstly, this is called spousal privilege and is NOT allowed in a court of law. Secondly, she keeps saying she did NOT understand anything that was going on and wasn’t sure what he meant by comments in the alleged note, but how do we explain point #2 then? It said:
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0013a.jpg
2. Send the information as to what has happened to me to the Embassy and include newspaper clippings (should there be anything about me in the newspapers). I believe that the Embassy will come quickly to your assistance on learning everything. (CE 1)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0013a.htm
Quote off
Why would LHO think she would know what to look for in the newspapers IF she had no knowledge of what he was planning to do? Also, why would LHO think shooting at EAW would NOT produce any news in the local media even if he was NOT successful? He allegedly wrote, “should there be anything about me in the newspapers” as if EAW was NOT a local and national figure. Of course there would be stories, and there were stories across the country, even if he missed so why would he write this IF he wrote it? Anyway you look at it this point makes NO sense if the note is legitimate.
IF she knew nothing like she claimed UNTIL he allegedly told her (in private which means it is protected by spousal privilege) AFTER the event, why would stories about someone shooting at EAW mean anything to her if LHO did not come home and allegedly tell her what he allegedly did?
LHO would have known also that the Embassy (Soviet in all likelihood) would NOT have come to Marina Oswald’s aid after news broke that he had fired at EAW either as they would have distanced themselves from this kind of thing. That is what all politicians and diplomats do.
LHO had no hideout, no passport and little money so where would he be escaping to if he got away with his alleged attempt on EAW? We see the first mention of LHO shooting at EAW by Marina Oswald on December 3, 1963, in an FBI interview. This was after the story in the German newspaper had broken and the WC said this about the German story in their Report (WCR).
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0343b.gif
Speculation.—The Dallas police suspected Oswald and Ruby of being involved in the attack on General Walker and planned to arrest the two when the FBI intervened, at the request of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and asked the police not to do so for reasons of state.
Commission finding.—This allegation appeared in the November 29, 1963, issue (actually printed on November 25 or 26) of a German weekly newspaper, Deutsche National Zeitung und Soldaten Zeitung, published in Munich. This allegation later appeared in the National Enquirer of May 17, 1964. The Commission has been reliably informed that the statement was fabricated by an editor of an newspaper. No evidence in support of this statement has ever been advanced or uncovered. In their investigation of the attack of General Walker, the Dallas police uncovered NO SUSPECTS and planned no arrests. The FBI had NO knowledge that Oswald was responsible for the attack UNTIL Marina Oswald revealed the information on December 3, 1963. (WCR, p. 662) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0343b.htm
Quote off
It was kind of the WC to admit that the DPD had NO suspects and planned NO arrests in the EAW shooting, so why did they allege that it was LHO when the DPD never said that in the seven and half months before the JFK assassination? Furthermore, we see the FBI, and thereby the WC, only knew of LHO’s alleged involvement courtesy of Marina Oswald. What is funny is that the WC called the claim in the German newspaper to be a “fabrication of an editor”, but the then posited the SAME theory courtesy of Marina Oswald in regards to LHO being involved (Ruby was left out of course)! I guess they meant only LHO and Ruby together was a fabrication when there is NO evidence showing LHO ever fired a shot at Walker.
Why did the WC not contain contemporaneous media reports and police reports of the EAW shooting in their twenty-six volumes of evidence? This is important because these reports describe a bullet very different from a 6.5 mm type the WC would claim was used. The Dallas Morning News reported on April 11, 1963, that Eddie Hughes had said that the bullet that had crashed through the rear window and into the wall of the EAW house was “identified as a 30.06”, and in the same issue on page one we see the same comment being said by Detective Ira Van Cleave (Dallas Morning News, April 11, 1963, p. 1.).
On April 12, 1964, we see the same statements being published and this now included the New York Times (Ibid., April 12, 1963, p. 5. & The New York Times, April 12, 1963, p. 12, cols. 2-3).Why would the WC ignore these published stories and DPD reports that described the bullet as being of a 30.06 caliber? Why also would the DPD be such bad investigators that they would confuse a 6.5 mm copper bullet for a steel 30.06 bullet? We see in Marina Oswald’s friend, Mrs. Katherine Ford, this claim being put forth from what Marina Oswald had told her.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did she tell you anything about the General Walker affair?
Mrs. FORD - Yes; she told me something about that.
Mr. LIEBELER - What was that?
Mrs. FORD - She said in the first place, people are saying that maybe she knew ahead of time and she said she did not. Lee told her after it had happened, after he had shot, and he told her, "Well, I just tried to shoot Walker." She said she was rather angry and she told him if he ever does that again, she said, "Don't ever do that again," she was rather disgusted--that he shouldn't do such a thing.
Representative FORD. - I wish you could clarify, if you can, the comment you made about Marina mentioning two guns.
Mrs. FORD - She did not mention two guns ever to me or anything like that. But I don't know how or why he advised her to say that at all, I don't know, it was not clear to me.
Representative FORD. - When you say he, was that Mr. McKenzie?
Mrs. FORD - That is right, because the only reason--the only thing I remember about Marina was saying that Lee had laughed about the attempt to kill General Walker, that he said that they were even too stupid to find out what gun was used to kill him because it was written up a different type of gun was used other than the one really used by Lee…. Lee had commented on that they were not even smart enough to identify the gun by a bullet… And the bullet was found in the room and I suppose by the bullet they had tried to identify the gun or whatever he used to shoot him and it was identified wrong….he said, he just made a comment, they weren't even smart enough to identify the gun by the bullet.
Representative FORD. - This meeting with Mr. McKenzie, when Marina and you were discussing matters—
Mrs. FORD - That was about General Walker. I think Mr. McKenzie didn't know what they would talk about but he advised her "They will ask you if there were two guns, you tell them there was one gun that was used," he told her.
This testimony shows us that the FACT the DPD did NOT identify the bullet correctly, presumably according to the WC and Marina Oswald, that LHO got a good laugh out of it. IF the DPD was this incompetent why would we think they could solve something as complex as the JFK assassination? It also shows us that Marina Oswald’s lawyer, Mr. William McKenzie, recognized this issue and advised her to say LHO only owned one gun. Why did the WC accept this claim that the DPD was too “dumb” to properly identify a bullet and what type of rifle would be used to fire it? The total ignorance of the DPD reports and media reports shows the WC was again NOT out to find the truth, but rather was going through the motions and moving towards the conclusion the FBI had already come up with. It also shows us how the WC relied and used HEARSAY evidence when a court of law would NOT.
The WC of course downplayed that EAW’s name and telephone number showed up in LHO’s notebook and only mentioned it in their “Rumors and Speculation” section of their Report.
Quote on
www.history-matters.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 that Oswald was planning his attack on Walker. General Walker stated that he did NOT know of Oswald before the assassination. (WCR, p. 663) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0344a.htm
Quote off
While it is true EAW denied any knowledge of LHO until November 22, 1963, it was NOT asked of him why LHO would have his name and telephone number in his notebook. Why NOT? Why was the WC afraid to broach this topic with EAW during his testimony? Did they want to avoid any new connection being learned of?
IF we return to Mrs. Katherine Fords’s testimony we see she said Marina Oswald never mentioned any sort of note with her, and given everything she did tell her this seems an odd thing to omit.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did she tell you about any note that he had written in connection with the attack on General Walker?
Mrs. FORD - No; she didn't.
Ruth Paine too was NOT told about or had any knowledge of any note in regards to EAW.
Mrs. PAINE. . . . you have not yet asked me if I had seen anything of a note purported to be written by Lee at the time of the attempt on Walker. And I might just recount for you that, if it is of any importance.
Mr. JENNER. Yes; I wish you would. . . . Tell me all you know about it. . .
.
Mrs. PAINE. I knew absolutely nothing about it up to and including November 22. . . . I was shown a portion of a note by two Secret Service men . . . perhaps a week later. I had sent Marina one of these small collections of letters . . . notes to her and donations, and left such with the Irving police. And on one occasion left also a couple of books which were hers. . . . I believe it was probably the next day I got a call from the Secret Service saying something important had come up in this case, could they come out and see me. . . . They arrived. . .. Mr. Gopadze showed me a piece of paper with writing on it, a small piece of paper such as might have come from a telephone notepad. He asked me not to read it through carefully, but simply to look at it enough to tell whether I could identify the handwriting and whether I had ever seen it before. I said I could not identify the handwriting. . . . Mr. Gopadze indicated that t it was his impression that I had sent this note to Marina. And this surprised me. . . . It astounded me. . . . We went on for some time with Mr. Gopadze—this in Russian—saying that "Mrs. Paine, it would be well for you to be absolutely frank and tell us exactly what happened" and my saying in turn . . . "I am. What more can I do than what I have said." And finally we went over to English .. . and he volunteered this note had been in a book. Then I realized what must have happened is that I did send Marina Oswald a book and described my having sent this to the Irving police and the Secret Service. And that seemed to clear up the mystery for all of us. And they left.
This shows she had NO knowledge of a note before the assassination of JFK either. How could Marina Oswald, with no real friends and a husband living away from her a good bit of the time resist telling her friend Ruth Paine about this note? Why did the SS think Ruth Paine actually wrote the note? Why did the DPD NOT find the note when they were going through the books in her house looking for things “to fall out?” The explanation of Ruth Paine sending it Marina Oswald in a book AFTER the book had been searched is preposterous to me. Finally, how could Ruth Paine send the note via a book when the DPD had searched them and found NO note AND Marina Oswald said SHE FOUND THE NOTE IN HIS ROOM ON THE NIGHT OF THE SHOOTING?
Mrs. OSWALD. That evening he went out…It got to be about 10 or 10:30, he wasn't home yet, and I began to be worried. Perhaps even later. Then I went into his room. Somehow, I was drawn into it--you know--I was pacing around. Then I saw a note there.
This shows the way in which the WC claimed she received the note is a complete fabrication by them. Also, it makes us wonder if the note found in September 1964 is real or not since Marina saw and had the note in her possession on the night of April 10, 1963, but NEVER produced it for the authorities. Why not? Was it destroyed and then a fake note was made in its place from her supposed memory? Just wondering again.
So many questions and very few answers are the problem. Why did Marina Oswald NOT share the note with Mrs. Katherine Ford when she took her to her lawyer’s office with her is not known. Again, she said William McKenzie told Marina Oswald to say they only had one gun.
Representative FORD. - This meeting with Mr. McKenzie, when Marina and you were discussing matters—
Mrs. FORD - That was about General Walker.
I think Mr. McKenzie didn't know what they would talk about but he advised her "They will ask you if there were two guns, you tell them there was one gun that was used," he told her.
Representative FORD. - One gun used where?
Mrs. FORD - For Walker, I mean the same one they had at the house…
Mrs. Ford would be corroborated by her husband, Declan Ford, about this comment.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember anything else about the Walker incident that you and your wife may have talked about?
Mr. FORD. Yes; we have discussed it some after, I believe, Marina came to stay with us, and I expressed the doubt that Lee Oswald was the one who took a shot at Walker.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any basis for expressing that doubt?
Mr. FORD. The only basis for it was that there was a story in one of the newspapers that they could not identify the bullet taken out of the wood in Walker's home as having come from a gun that Lee Oswald owned. . . .
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Ford, were you at any time present in Mr. McKenzie's office, William McKenzie, when there was a discussion with Marina Oswald concerning guns and the gun that was used to or presumably used to attack Walker and the gun that was subsequently presumably used to attack the President? . . . Did you hear McKenzie at any time advise Marina if she were asked about these guns she should say there was only one gun?
Mr. FORD. I think I did hear him say that once or something to that effect. . . . But I don't think it was any discussion about the gun used in shooting General Walker . . . . As nearly as I can remember it, the whole discussion was, he was telling her, he had asked her if there was anything else but this one rifle and she said no, and he said, "Be sure you always say that there was just this one gun," but I thought he was referring to the gun used only in the case of the assassination. . . . I just had the impression they were talking about the possibility that more than one gun was used in the assassination. . . .
Both Fords presented HEARSAY evidence, but the WC allowed it and did NOT feel the need to question Marina Oswald about it. Why NOT? Especially where Mr. Ford said Marina Oswald came to them to express DOUBT that LHO had shot at EAW.
The evidence in this case shows that two men were involved as that is what the ONLY witness said he saw. It also shows that the only bullet recovered was of a 30.06 type and NOT a 6.5 mm as the WC claimed. The WC never said LHO owned a 30.06 type rifle, so this shows LHO did NOT fire a shot a EAW as claimed. The note, if written by LHO, was NOT for the EAW event, but for something else. Marina Oswald was asked to invent some hard to believe testimony to make it look like LHO was guilty of this, but all of it would have been covered by spousal privilege had LHO NOT been killed while in the custody of the DPD.
The issue of the removal of the license plate number while in possession of the authorities also raises some serious questions that were never explained. Why was it removed and by whom? Why would Marina Oswald hide the note in a book at Ruth Paine's house, but never mention it to her? If the note was in a book Ruth Paine returned to Marina Oswald why did the DPD not find it when they went looking through Ruth Paine’s books to see if anything was in them? If the note was sent back to Marina Oswald in a book by Ruth Paine as claimed, why did it take until almost until the end of the WC's time (September 1964) for it to be allegedly found? Why was the note found by a ANONYMOUS SS agent? Why was this agent’s name never found out for us? Why was there NO chain of custody for CE 573 (claimed bullet found at EAW’s house)? Why was the officer who supposedly found it never called before the WC? Why did the DPD never think LHO was involved in shooting at EAW until AFTER JFK’s assassination? Who was the unknown reporter who made the connection that would not be made for days, and used the word “yet” as if they knew the connection would be made? Why did the WC claim the story in the West German newspaper was a “fabrication of an editor” and the make the SAME claim themselves (without Ruby of course)?
Whatever happened with the LHO-Ruby connection and the Department of Justice issue? Why was this never investigated?
3.bp.blogspot.com/_I4lZU0BrRsg/TQEwGdzPQbI/AAAAAAAAAH8/HqaTFVxOUL8/s1600/Walker+Home+by+LHO.jpg
gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/FBI-file-116-165494-Sec-3-pg.-110.png
gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/walker-to-blakey-9-12-78.png
The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself on November 22, 1963. To make LHO look more violent and cold-blooded they also said he killed a Dallas Police Officer, J.D. Tippit (JDT), miles away in Oak Cliff on November 22, 1963, while being stopped for questioning. As if that was NOT bad enough, they also would claim that LHO shot at, but missed, General Edwin Walker (EAW) on the night of April 10, 1963.
Of course the evidence put forth by them in their twenty-six volumes of Hearings & Exhibits does NOT point to LHO at all, but rather towards a vast conspiracy in the death of JFK and JDT.
We have looked at many aspects of the EAW shooting before, but this time we will take an overall look at this and how LHO came to be associated with it.
*********************************************
The first mention of LHO being tied to the EAW shooting came on the night of Saturday, November 23, 1963, during a press conference by Dallas Police Department (DPD) Chief Jesse Curry.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0392b.gif
Q. Is there any connection yet between this and the firing at General Edwin Walker?
Curry. I don’t know. (Commission Exhibit (CE) 2146, pp. 8-9)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0392b.htm
Quote off
It sure would have been nice to know which reporter asked this question so we could find out why they were making this connection so early on when LHO’s name had NEVER been associated with the EAW shooting by the DPD. The key word in this question too is “yet” as he did NOT ask IF there was any connection, but rather asked IF THERE WAS ANY CONNECTION YET. The person asking this question seemed to know there would be a connection made at some point, but how could they know this? Was this even asked by a reporter? These are questions unfortunately we will never know answers to.
We know from EAW’s WC testimony that he mentioned he received a call from a West German newspaper on the morning of November 23, 1963, and out of this conversation came the idea that LHO was involved in the shooting involving him on April 10, 1963.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know Helmet Hubert Muench… He is a West German journalist who wrote an article that appeared in the Deutsche Nationalzeitung und Soldatenzeitung, a Munich, Germany, newspaper…. Did you ever talk to him?
General WALKER. Not that I know of.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you talk to him on a transatlantic telephone call in which you told him about the fact or the alleged fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person who made an attempt on your life?
General WALKER. I don't recall that name. Did he speak English? I don't speak German.
Mr. LIEBELER. Have you ever seen a copy of that newspaper?
General WALKER. Yes; I have.
Mr. LIEBELER. In fact, I suggest that you have seen the November 29, 1963, copy of that newspaper which had on its front page a story entitled in German "The Strange Case of Oswald", that told about how Oswald had allegedly attacked you… Now, where did that newspaper get that information, do you know?
General WALKER. I do not. There was an article in the paper that he probably got from me.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, in fact, the issue of that newspaper has right on the front page what purports to be a transcript of a telephone conversation between you and some other person….Hasso Thorsten, is that the man?…When were you in Shreveport?
General WALKER. He called me the morning of November 23, 1963, about 7 a.m.
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.
Did you notice the subtle sleight of hand Liebeler used? He first said "fact" regarding LHO shooting at EAW, and then corrected it to an "alleged fact." How can something ONLY alleged and NOT proven be a FACT? Just wondering.
A copy of the article mentioned in this exchange was also published in the May 17, 1964, edition of the National Enquirer and included in the WC’s twenty-six volumes of evidence. It was designated CE 837.
CE 837: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0432a.jpg
After looking at this you will see what the WC did NOT allow into the testimony portion of this discussion—that LHO took a shot at EAW, but with the help of Jack Ruby! The article said LHO and Ruby were “pals” and shows a side-by-side picture of them. I wonder why the WC did NOT want this part mentioned?
Or the part where it said the U.S. Department of Justice “blocked their arrest” for this attempt on EAW? I wonder why they had NO interest in these things as they seem pretty fascinating to me, but then again, I am NOT trying to make one person look guilty either. I am open to where the evidence leads, obviously the WC was NOT.
The WC relied on four things to try and make LHO look guilty in the EAW shooting. Firstly, they said he took a series of photographs of EAW’s house on Turtle Creek Road in an “surveillance mode” for the shooting. As we have seen in a post recently for the camera issue, the Imperial Reflex was allegedly used for these photographs too as LHO seemed to only use that camera for incriminating photographs. There is no evidence showing LHO ever took those photographs and of course we have the issue of the license plate being cut out of the one photograph while it was in police custody.
Secondly, they said there was an undated note that showed LHO was involved in the shooting despite the note NOT mentioning EAW at all. Moreover, the note was never verified to be written by LHO or shown to be found in the way they claimed it was found (see post I did on this note). The note was NOT found by the DPD despite them “opening books to see what fell out” during their search.
Mr. McCLOY - Yes; the door was locked, that is what I gather. Do you know what they took on this occasion, or did they tell you what they were coming for?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I do not. Before I left they were leafing through books to see if anything fell out but that is all I saw.
This left the “discovery” of the note to one Secret Service (SS) agent who has remained nameless. All we received was this small note in CE 1403 on page 18.
CE 1403: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0400b.gif
Why the WC did not try to find out this agent’s name (along with so many other unknown officers) is beyond me, but they did not attempt to find this out or why the DPD would have been leafing through books in the first place. What were they looking for exactly? Finally, since they did do this - how did the note escape their view to be given to this unnamed SS agent?
Thirdly, they used FBI ballistic people to say that CE 573 (alleged 6.5 mm bullet to be found at EAW house) was the bullet that was fired at EAW from LHO’s alleged Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C). Of course this is NOT true and early press accounts said a 30.06 bullet was found at his home. ("Walker Escapes Assassin's Bullet," The New York Times, April 12, 1963, p. 12, cols. 2-3.) The FBI also agreed that they could NOT match CE 573 to CE 139 (alleged murder rifle) when they wrote this in a report they did for DPD Chief Curry.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0033a.gif
Because of the extreme mutilation and distortion of Q188 [573] and because the individual microscopic marks left on bullets by the barrel of K1 rifle [CE-139] could have CHANGED subsequent to the time Q188 was fired, it is NOT possible to determine whether or not Q188 was fired from K1. (CE 2001, p. 47) (Emphasis mine)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0033a.htm
Quote off
They could NOT even match CE 573 to CE 139 let alone show it was fired at EAW on the night of April 10, 1963. Thus, they had NO chance of ever linking LHO to this crime (especially since they could NOT link CE 139 to LHO).
Finally, the last evidence they used was Marina Oswald’s testimony and unsupported claims against her dead husband. NONE of them have ever been supported and they would have been barred in a court of law due to spousal privilege.
In her testimony she said the following about her understanding of what was going on in regards to the alleged EAW shooting.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you first learn that your husband had shot at General Walker?
Mrs. OSWALD. That evening he went out…It got to be about 10 or 10:30, he wasn't home yet, and I began to be worried. Perhaps even later. Then I went into his room. Somehow, I was drawn into it--you know--I was pacing around. Then I saw a note there.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you look for the gun at that time?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, I didn't understand anything. On the note it said, "If I am arrested" and there are certain other questions, such as, for example, the key to the mailbox is in such and such a place, and that he left me some money to last me for some time, and I couldn't understand at all what can he be arrested for. When he came back I asked him what had happened. He was very pale. I don't remember the exact time, but it was very late. And he told me not to ask him any questions. He only told me that he had shot at General Walker.
Firstly, this is called spousal privilege and is NOT allowed in a court of law. Secondly, she keeps saying she did NOT understand anything that was going on and wasn’t sure what he meant by comments in the alleged note, but how do we explain point #2 then? It said:
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0013a.jpg
2. Send the information as to what has happened to me to the Embassy and include newspaper clippings (should there be anything about me in the newspapers). I believe that the Embassy will come quickly to your assistance on learning everything. (CE 1)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0013a.htm
Quote off
Why would LHO think she would know what to look for in the newspapers IF she had no knowledge of what he was planning to do? Also, why would LHO think shooting at EAW would NOT produce any news in the local media even if he was NOT successful? He allegedly wrote, “should there be anything about me in the newspapers” as if EAW was NOT a local and national figure. Of course there would be stories, and there were stories across the country, even if he missed so why would he write this IF he wrote it? Anyway you look at it this point makes NO sense if the note is legitimate.
IF she knew nothing like she claimed UNTIL he allegedly told her (in private which means it is protected by spousal privilege) AFTER the event, why would stories about someone shooting at EAW mean anything to her if LHO did not come home and allegedly tell her what he allegedly did?
LHO would have known also that the Embassy (Soviet in all likelihood) would NOT have come to Marina Oswald’s aid after news broke that he had fired at EAW either as they would have distanced themselves from this kind of thing. That is what all politicians and diplomats do.
LHO had no hideout, no passport and little money so where would he be escaping to if he got away with his alleged attempt on EAW? We see the first mention of LHO shooting at EAW by Marina Oswald on December 3, 1963, in an FBI interview. This was after the story in the German newspaper had broken and the WC said this about the German story in their Report (WCR).
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0343b.gif
Speculation.—The Dallas police suspected Oswald and Ruby of being involved in the attack on General Walker and planned to arrest the two when the FBI intervened, at the request of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and asked the police not to do so for reasons of state.
Commission finding.—This allegation appeared in the November 29, 1963, issue (actually printed on November 25 or 26) of a German weekly newspaper, Deutsche National Zeitung und Soldaten Zeitung, published in Munich. This allegation later appeared in the National Enquirer of May 17, 1964. The Commission has been reliably informed that the statement was fabricated by an editor of an newspaper. No evidence in support of this statement has ever been advanced or uncovered. In their investigation of the attack of General Walker, the Dallas police uncovered NO SUSPECTS and planned no arrests. The FBI had NO knowledge that Oswald was responsible for the attack UNTIL Marina Oswald revealed the information on December 3, 1963. (WCR, p. 662) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0343b.htm
Quote off
It was kind of the WC to admit that the DPD had NO suspects and planned NO arrests in the EAW shooting, so why did they allege that it was LHO when the DPD never said that in the seven and half months before the JFK assassination? Furthermore, we see the FBI, and thereby the WC, only knew of LHO’s alleged involvement courtesy of Marina Oswald. What is funny is that the WC called the claim in the German newspaper to be a “fabrication of an editor”, but the then posited the SAME theory courtesy of Marina Oswald in regards to LHO being involved (Ruby was left out of course)! I guess they meant only LHO and Ruby together was a fabrication when there is NO evidence showing LHO ever fired a shot at Walker.
Why did the WC not contain contemporaneous media reports and police reports of the EAW shooting in their twenty-six volumes of evidence? This is important because these reports describe a bullet very different from a 6.5 mm type the WC would claim was used. The Dallas Morning News reported on April 11, 1963, that Eddie Hughes had said that the bullet that had crashed through the rear window and into the wall of the EAW house was “identified as a 30.06”, and in the same issue on page one we see the same comment being said by Detective Ira Van Cleave (Dallas Morning News, April 11, 1963, p. 1.).
On April 12, 1964, we see the same statements being published and this now included the New York Times (Ibid., April 12, 1963, p. 5. & The New York Times, April 12, 1963, p. 12, cols. 2-3).Why would the WC ignore these published stories and DPD reports that described the bullet as being of a 30.06 caliber? Why also would the DPD be such bad investigators that they would confuse a 6.5 mm copper bullet for a steel 30.06 bullet? We see in Marina Oswald’s friend, Mrs. Katherine Ford, this claim being put forth from what Marina Oswald had told her.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did she tell you anything about the General Walker affair?
Mrs. FORD - Yes; she told me something about that.
Mr. LIEBELER - What was that?
Mrs. FORD - She said in the first place, people are saying that maybe she knew ahead of time and she said she did not. Lee told her after it had happened, after he had shot, and he told her, "Well, I just tried to shoot Walker." She said she was rather angry and she told him if he ever does that again, she said, "Don't ever do that again," she was rather disgusted--that he shouldn't do such a thing.
Representative FORD. - I wish you could clarify, if you can, the comment you made about Marina mentioning two guns.
Mrs. FORD - She did not mention two guns ever to me or anything like that. But I don't know how or why he advised her to say that at all, I don't know, it was not clear to me.
Representative FORD. - When you say he, was that Mr. McKenzie?
Mrs. FORD - That is right, because the only reason--the only thing I remember about Marina was saying that Lee had laughed about the attempt to kill General Walker, that he said that they were even too stupid to find out what gun was used to kill him because it was written up a different type of gun was used other than the one really used by Lee…. Lee had commented on that they were not even smart enough to identify the gun by a bullet… And the bullet was found in the room and I suppose by the bullet they had tried to identify the gun or whatever he used to shoot him and it was identified wrong….he said, he just made a comment, they weren't even smart enough to identify the gun by the bullet.
Representative FORD. - This meeting with Mr. McKenzie, when Marina and you were discussing matters—
Mrs. FORD - That was about General Walker. I think Mr. McKenzie didn't know what they would talk about but he advised her "They will ask you if there were two guns, you tell them there was one gun that was used," he told her.
This testimony shows us that the FACT the DPD did NOT identify the bullet correctly, presumably according to the WC and Marina Oswald, that LHO got a good laugh out of it. IF the DPD was this incompetent why would we think they could solve something as complex as the JFK assassination? It also shows us that Marina Oswald’s lawyer, Mr. William McKenzie, recognized this issue and advised her to say LHO only owned one gun. Why did the WC accept this claim that the DPD was too “dumb” to properly identify a bullet and what type of rifle would be used to fire it? The total ignorance of the DPD reports and media reports shows the WC was again NOT out to find the truth, but rather was going through the motions and moving towards the conclusion the FBI had already come up with. It also shows us how the WC relied and used HEARSAY evidence when a court of law would NOT.
The WC of course downplayed that EAW’s name and telephone number showed up in LHO’s notebook and only mentioned it in their “Rumors and Speculation” section of their Report.
Quote on
www.history-matters.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 that Oswald was planning his attack on Walker. General Walker stated that he did NOT know of Oswald before the assassination. (WCR, p. 663) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0344a.htm
Quote off
While it is true EAW denied any knowledge of LHO until November 22, 1963, it was NOT asked of him why LHO would have his name and telephone number in his notebook. Why NOT? Why was the WC afraid to broach this topic with EAW during his testimony? Did they want to avoid any new connection being learned of?
IF we return to Mrs. Katherine Fords’s testimony we see she said Marina Oswald never mentioned any sort of note with her, and given everything she did tell her this seems an odd thing to omit.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did she tell you about any note that he had written in connection with the attack on General Walker?
Mrs. FORD - No; she didn't.
Ruth Paine too was NOT told about or had any knowledge of any note in regards to EAW.
Mrs. PAINE. . . . you have not yet asked me if I had seen anything of a note purported to be written by Lee at the time of the attempt on Walker. And I might just recount for you that, if it is of any importance.
Mr. JENNER. Yes; I wish you would. . . . Tell me all you know about it. . .
.
Mrs. PAINE. I knew absolutely nothing about it up to and including November 22. . . . I was shown a portion of a note by two Secret Service men . . . perhaps a week later. I had sent Marina one of these small collections of letters . . . notes to her and donations, and left such with the Irving police. And on one occasion left also a couple of books which were hers. . . . I believe it was probably the next day I got a call from the Secret Service saying something important had come up in this case, could they come out and see me. . . . They arrived. . .. Mr. Gopadze showed me a piece of paper with writing on it, a small piece of paper such as might have come from a telephone notepad. He asked me not to read it through carefully, but simply to look at it enough to tell whether I could identify the handwriting and whether I had ever seen it before. I said I could not identify the handwriting. . . . Mr. Gopadze indicated that t it was his impression that I had sent this note to Marina. And this surprised me. . . . It astounded me. . . . We went on for some time with Mr. Gopadze—this in Russian—saying that "Mrs. Paine, it would be well for you to be absolutely frank and tell us exactly what happened" and my saying in turn . . . "I am. What more can I do than what I have said." And finally we went over to English .. . and he volunteered this note had been in a book. Then I realized what must have happened is that I did send Marina Oswald a book and described my having sent this to the Irving police and the Secret Service. And that seemed to clear up the mystery for all of us. And they left.
This shows she had NO knowledge of a note before the assassination of JFK either. How could Marina Oswald, with no real friends and a husband living away from her a good bit of the time resist telling her friend Ruth Paine about this note? Why did the SS think Ruth Paine actually wrote the note? Why did the DPD NOT find the note when they were going through the books in her house looking for things “to fall out?” The explanation of Ruth Paine sending it Marina Oswald in a book AFTER the book had been searched is preposterous to me. Finally, how could Ruth Paine send the note via a book when the DPD had searched them and found NO note AND Marina Oswald said SHE FOUND THE NOTE IN HIS ROOM ON THE NIGHT OF THE SHOOTING?
Mrs. OSWALD. That evening he went out…It got to be about 10 or 10:30, he wasn't home yet, and I began to be worried. Perhaps even later. Then I went into his room. Somehow, I was drawn into it--you know--I was pacing around. Then I saw a note there.
This shows the way in which the WC claimed she received the note is a complete fabrication by them. Also, it makes us wonder if the note found in September 1964 is real or not since Marina saw and had the note in her possession on the night of April 10, 1963, but NEVER produced it for the authorities. Why not? Was it destroyed and then a fake note was made in its place from her supposed memory? Just wondering again.
So many questions and very few answers are the problem. Why did Marina Oswald NOT share the note with Mrs. Katherine Ford when she took her to her lawyer’s office with her is not known. Again, she said William McKenzie told Marina Oswald to say they only had one gun.
Representative FORD. - This meeting with Mr. McKenzie, when Marina and you were discussing matters—
Mrs. FORD - That was about General Walker.
I think Mr. McKenzie didn't know what they would talk about but he advised her "They will ask you if there were two guns, you tell them there was one gun that was used," he told her.
Representative FORD. - One gun used where?
Mrs. FORD - For Walker, I mean the same one they had at the house…
Mrs. Ford would be corroborated by her husband, Declan Ford, about this comment.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember anything else about the Walker incident that you and your wife may have talked about?
Mr. FORD. Yes; we have discussed it some after, I believe, Marina came to stay with us, and I expressed the doubt that Lee Oswald was the one who took a shot at Walker.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any basis for expressing that doubt?
Mr. FORD. The only basis for it was that there was a story in one of the newspapers that they could not identify the bullet taken out of the wood in Walker's home as having come from a gun that Lee Oswald owned. . . .
Mr. LIEBELER. Mr. Ford, were you at any time present in Mr. McKenzie's office, William McKenzie, when there was a discussion with Marina Oswald concerning guns and the gun that was used to or presumably used to attack Walker and the gun that was subsequently presumably used to attack the President? . . . Did you hear McKenzie at any time advise Marina if she were asked about these guns she should say there was only one gun?
Mr. FORD. I think I did hear him say that once or something to that effect. . . . But I don't think it was any discussion about the gun used in shooting General Walker . . . . As nearly as I can remember it, the whole discussion was, he was telling her, he had asked her if there was anything else but this one rifle and she said no, and he said, "Be sure you always say that there was just this one gun," but I thought he was referring to the gun used only in the case of the assassination. . . . I just had the impression they were talking about the possibility that more than one gun was used in the assassination. . . .
Both Fords presented HEARSAY evidence, but the WC allowed it and did NOT feel the need to question Marina Oswald about it. Why NOT? Especially where Mr. Ford said Marina Oswald came to them to express DOUBT that LHO had shot at EAW.
The evidence in this case shows that two men were involved as that is what the ONLY witness said he saw. It also shows that the only bullet recovered was of a 30.06 type and NOT a 6.5 mm as the WC claimed. The WC never said LHO owned a 30.06 type rifle, so this shows LHO did NOT fire a shot a EAW as claimed. The note, if written by LHO, was NOT for the EAW event, but for something else. Marina Oswald was asked to invent some hard to believe testimony to make it look like LHO was guilty of this, but all of it would have been covered by spousal privilege had LHO NOT been killed while in the custody of the DPD.
The issue of the removal of the license plate number while in possession of the authorities also raises some serious questions that were never explained. Why was it removed and by whom? Why would Marina Oswald hide the note in a book at Ruth Paine's house, but never mention it to her? If the note was in a book Ruth Paine returned to Marina Oswald why did the DPD not find it when they went looking through Ruth Paine’s books to see if anything was in them? If the note was sent back to Marina Oswald in a book by Ruth Paine as claimed, why did it take until almost until the end of the WC's time (September 1964) for it to be allegedly found? Why was the note found by a ANONYMOUS SS agent? Why was this agent’s name never found out for us? Why was there NO chain of custody for CE 573 (claimed bullet found at EAW’s house)? Why was the officer who supposedly found it never called before the WC? Why did the DPD never think LHO was involved in shooting at EAW until AFTER JFK’s assassination? Who was the unknown reporter who made the connection that would not be made for days, and used the word “yet” as if they knew the connection would be made? Why did the WC claim the story in the West German newspaper was a “fabrication of an editor” and the make the SAME claim themselves (without Ruby of course)?
Whatever happened with the LHO-Ruby connection and the Department of Justice issue? Why was this never investigated?