Post by Rob Caprio on Nov 4, 2018 22:44:08 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/warren-commission.jpg
It is time for more questions. Can any Warren Commission (WC) defender answer these questions in a non-conspiratorial way? My guess is no.
**************************************************
1) IF Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot at General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) as the WC, and its defenders, claim, why is there NO mention of him in the Dallas Police Department’s (DPD) case file?
The whole investigative file they prepared on the matter was turned in to the WC and it was labeled with CE-2001. In this file you will NOT see LHO mentioned but once, and then it is HEARSAY by Marina that makes it sound like he shot at EAW. The only mention of LHO is on page 39 of CE-2001 and it reads as follows:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0029a.jpg
Forrest Sorrells…forwarded to this Department [DPD] of December 26, 1963 an excerpt of an interview with Mrs. Marina Oswald in which SHE STATED her husband, Lee Harvey Oswald, returned home on the night of April 10, 1963 very late and was extremely nervous. He finally told her that he had shot General Walker with his rifle. (CE 2001, p. 39; p. 3 in original) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0029a.htm
Quote off
There is so much wrong with this that is NOT funny. First of all, they are relying ON HEARSAY given by Marina who was under “protection” from the Secret Service (SS) at that point in time. Secondly, this HEARSAY would have been protected under the spousal privilege laws as it was shared between a husband and wife with NO one else present. Here is the outline of the spousal privilege law.
Quote on
§ 39.01 Introduction [573]
There are two spousal privileges. The spousal testimonial privilege provides that a spouse may not be compelled to testify against a defendant-spouse in a criminal prosecution. A second privilege involves confidential communications between spouses and applies in both civil and criminal cases. Some jurisdictions have both privileges, while others have one or the other.
§ 39.02 Spousal Testimonial Privilege [573-77]
The spousal testimonial privilege is sometimes known as the anti-marital fact privilege. “The modern justification for this privilege against adverse spousal testimony is its perceived role in fostering the harmony and sanctity of the marriage relationship.” Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 44 (1980).
Type of Case
Unlike the confidential communication privilege, the testimonial privilege applies only in criminal cases.
Scope & Duration of Privilege
The testimonial privilege is determined as of the time of trial. If there is a valid marriage, the privilege applies and all testimony, including testimony concerning events that predated the marriage, is excluded.
§ 39.03 Spousal Communication Privilege [577-81]
The second spousal privilege concerns confidential communications. The purpose of this rule is to promote marital discourse, an instrumental rationale.
Type of Case
Unlike the testimonial privilege which applies only in criminal prosecutions, the confidential communication privilege applies in both civil and criminal cases.
(B) Scope & Duration of Privilege
The privilege applies only to communications made during coverture.
[C] Holder
It could be argued that only the communicating spouse should be able to assert the privilege. Nevertheless, the privilege often is held to extend to both spouses
[D] Communications
The privilege applies to confidential communications and includes acts intended as communications. Whether the privilege extends to conduct in addition to communications depends on the jurisdiction
[E] Confidentiality
The spousal privilege applies only to communications that are intended to be confidential.
www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/evid/evid39.htm
Quote off
We clearly see that the comment Marina claims LHO allegedly said to her would have been barred from a court of law, thus, we cannot hold that against him since it is worthless and one-sided. LHO was DEAD by the time of this comment and could NOT defend himself. Also, if LHO really did say this, and they certainly wanted to believe he did, why was Marina not charged with aiding and abetting a criminal? Can any WC defender explain this? Ditto the DeMohrenschildts.
Finally, we see this statement on the same page regarding LHO and the shooting.
Quote on
Although definitive and absolute proof has NOT been obtained, there is a strong probability that the shot fired at General Walker at 9:00 p.m. on April 10, 1963 was fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. (Emphasis mine)
Quote off
This is ridiculous to the extreme! All they had was Marina’s CLAIM he told her something and a note that was allegedly written by LHO and does NOT mention Walker at all! The vast majority of CE 2001 does NOT even mention LHO as the suspect! So once again, the DPD and the WC reached a conclusion their OWN EVIDENCE did NOT support!
What we do see throughout CE-2001 is the fact a man by the name of William Duff (he is named as the likely culprit by Walker himself in his WC testimony) was arrested, interrogated and given a polygraph test in connection with this crime. According to the polygraph operator, R.D. Lewis, he did not commit the shooting. EAW hired his own investigators and they too named William Duff as a likely person to be involved.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0031b.gif
Duff told the investigators that “he would kill Walker if the price was right.” What else is interesting and shows EAW had many people who did not like him, and a few he would go to the extreme is also found in CE-2001. On December 20, 1963, (after LHO was DEAD) EAW received a threatening phone call before 8:55 p.m. It was traced back to Lafayette, LA, and to a person by the name of Gerald Crawford Vincent. Vincent said he “was going to kill him [Walker]” and called him vile names.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0032a.gif
What is really interesting is this comment found on page 46 (left-hand document):
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0032b.gif
The Federal District Attorney at New Orleans REFUSED to take a complaint on this person [Vincent]. (CE 2001, p. 46)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0032b.htm
Quote off
Why would he refuse to do this? What kind of pull or connections did Vincent have? What we see in CE-2001 is certainly cause to doubt the claim that LHO fired at EAW, and it also contains information that shows the authorities knew they COULD NEVER PROVE he did, but they continued to blame him anyway. This leads to the next question.
2) IF LHO fired the shot at Gen. Walker with his alleged rifle as claimed why could the authorities NOT match up the bullet allegedly used with other bullet and fragment in this case?
The right-hand document on page 46 kicks this topic off. It is a report done by the FBI for the WC and the DPD regarding the ballistic qualities of CE 573.
(I say alleged because Walker himself says CE 573 is NOT the bullet he held and saw on the night of 4/10/63 and the WC never called the officer who found the bullet to verify that CE-573 was the bullet he found at Walker’s residence. Furthermore, the media reports of the time said a .30.06 caliber bullet was used and ALL the DPD reports mention a STEEL-JACKETED bullet whereas CE 573 is COPPER-JACKETED)
CE 573 [designated Q-188 by the FBI] was found to have the same characteristics as the other bullet [CE 399) and the two fragments found in the limousine, but due to the “mutilation of Q-188” it is NOT possible to say it is of Western manufacture to the exclusion of all other sources. It goes on to say on the next page that the “mutilated bullet” showed four lands and grooves with a right twist which is similar to the same pattern the alleged murder weapon produces (CE 139). Shocker! What is NOT stated is how they could get this detail when they just said the bullet was very “mutilated.”
The very next paragraph again states this!
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 and because the individual microscopic 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; p. 2 in original) (Emphasis mine)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0033a.htm
Quote off
Again, IF the bullet had EXTREME MUTILATION how could they tell it had four lands and grooves with a right twist to even slightly suggest it could have come from CE 139? It finally says two paragraphs below the above quote the coup de grace.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0033a.gif
The copper jacket and lead core of the Q188 bullet were determined to be SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT in COMPOSITION from the copper jackets and lead cores of the Q1 and Q2 bullets. (CE 2001, p. 47; p. 2 in original) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0033a.htm
Quote off
This is of course devastating to the claims of the WC, so the FBI did what they and the WC did well—they tap danced all around the issue. In NAA science ANY DIFFERING means it is NOT a match, but of course the FBI would break their own standards in this case when they wrote this below the above. It has to be an EXACT MATCH or it does NOT help the prosecution at all.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0033a.gif
Although the differences in composition between the Q188 and the Q1 and Q2 bullets were SMALL and do not indicate that these bullets represent two different types of bullets, it was NOT possible to determine if these bullets came from the SAME BOX. [Insert another excuse here] It is to be noted that there is no assurance in the fabrication of ammunition that all the ammunition ending up in one box possesses bullets from the same batch of metal, that is, with the same composition. CE 2001, p. 47; p. 2 in original) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0033a.htm
Quote off
Isn’t this a bunch of baloney? The very reason NAA was used was because it was supposed to be able to detect the composition of each bullet and see if it MATCHED! This was supposed to be groundbreaking stuff (we have since see it was a bunch of baloney), and yet, when their OWN new science shows the alleged bullet used in the Walker shooting does NOT match the composition of the other two (I don’t even know what Q1 and Q2 were as the report does not say) bullets they have to invent excuses for it! The bottom line is this—the alleged bullet used in the Walker shooting could NOT be traced to LHO at all!
The truth is the two investigators hired by Walker himself set Duff up as they told him they wanted Walker killed and they had the money to pay him for doing it. They even taped it and gave a copy to DPD. On page 44 of CE-2001 we see the following.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0031b.gif
Killing was set up for the night of June 10, 1963. On this date, June 6, 1963,Bill Duff called FBI Agent Hostie (sic) and told him of the arrangement with the two men to kill Gen. Walker. (CE 2001, p. 44; p. 9 in original)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0031b.htm
Quote off
It goes on to state that Duff had NO intention of killing Walker, but that he would have taken any money offered in advance. The key to this quote is that Hosty was made aware of this and yet he never brought it up, from what we can tell, during the interrogation of LHO. Of course, it was contrived by the Walker investigators, but how did Hosty know this? This is key to showing they were out to bury LHO no matter what the truth was. What else did Hosty know about and NOT mention to the DPD and WC? IF LHO was so apparently guilty of this crime as the WC would claim, why was he never considered for it?
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.
In fact, Walker would sound quite angry at the fact the FBI and the WC had named LHO as the guilty person and kept all the evidence away from him and the local police as he wanted to pursue the matter more himself.
Mr. LIEBELER. So aside from Duff and aside from what has been made public as regards Oswald's involvement, you have no other leads or conclusions or ideas as to who might have taken the shot at you on April 10, 1963?
General WALKER. No; I am pretty well blocked by you all and the fact that--not particularly you, as the FBI having taken the information on the case from the city police, and it is difficult to find who is now responsible for an open case, and also the lack of contact with my counsel at any time regarding Oswald's position in this from the time the shot was fired or even after the events of November 22, 1963.
Mr. LIEBELER. I want the record to indicate that the Commission, to my knowledge at least, and I think I would know about it, has never told anybody not to talk to you about the attack on you in any way, shape or form whatsoever, and has no intention of doing so. That is point 1. Point 2 is that the Commission is conducting its own investigation into this matter, and has requested the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct an investigation into the matter. which it has done at the request of the Commission, and the report will include a finding one way or the other as to whether Oswald was the man who was involved in this attack on you.
General WALKER. It will have such a finding?
Mr. LIEBELER. It certainly will, and will be a complete disclosure.
General WALKER. Then it must be handling the case, because we have information that the city police turned all the information over to the FBI and there was nothing for us to deal with them about.
My counsel went to the city police on this. Then the FBI definitely said that they had turned it over to the Commission, and then they were under whatever wraps there were, but wraps that kept them from carrying on any development of the cases.
Mr. LIEBELER. No activity of this Commission has ever foreclosed any other law enforcement agency from doing anything that they saw fit to do. The FBI conducts its investigation in any way it sees fit, and the Dallas Police Department does the same thing.
General WALKER. I think we should have a round robin discussion with the city police, FBI, and yourself, if you all have what you have stated, so that we will understand this too, and place this case and the Warren Reynolds case back where they should be. I would think that we should get together to establish who is responsible for the open cases in the city of Dallas.
And then Liebeler said this funny statement.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, the President's Commission on the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy is certainly not responsible for open cases in the city of Dallas. That your counsel will tell you. That is perfectly obvious.
It is? Then why did they blame LHO for a crime they couldn’t hope to show he was involved in [Walker shooting] then? I love the way Gen. Walker did NOT give up either.
General WALKER. Then I want to go on the record that the city police has misused the Commission and also the FBI.
Mr. LIEBELER. I have no knowledge of that.
General WALKER. I think it is--I can't straighten it out and neither can my counsel. I think it is perfectly obvious that somebody is misusing somebody, the fact that we have no starting point and this is an open case, and this is true with Warren Reynolds as well as myself.
This testimony makes it perfectly clear; they had ALREADY DECIDED LHO WAS GUILT OF SHOOTING AT WALKER, and thus, they were keeping the evidence from Walker and the local police to make sure they did NOT show he was NOT the one who fired at Walker. They had their patsy in place and did NOT want anyone ruining it.
Once again we see another claim of the WC, LHO shot at Walker, is incorrect so their conclusion is sunk again.
www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/warren-commission.jpg
It is time for more questions. Can any Warren Commission (WC) defender answer these questions in a non-conspiratorial way? My guess is no.
**************************************************
1) IF Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot at General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) as the WC, and its defenders, claim, why is there NO mention of him in the Dallas Police Department’s (DPD) case file?
The whole investigative file they prepared on the matter was turned in to the WC and it was labeled with CE-2001. In this file you will NOT see LHO mentioned but once, and then it is HEARSAY by Marina that makes it sound like he shot at EAW. The only mention of LHO is on page 39 of CE-2001 and it reads as follows:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0029a.jpg
Forrest Sorrells…forwarded to this Department [DPD] of December 26, 1963 an excerpt of an interview with Mrs. Marina Oswald in which SHE STATED her husband, Lee Harvey Oswald, returned home on the night of April 10, 1963 very late and was extremely nervous. He finally told her that he had shot General Walker with his rifle. (CE 2001, p. 39; p. 3 in original) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0029a.htm
Quote off
There is so much wrong with this that is NOT funny. First of all, they are relying ON HEARSAY given by Marina who was under “protection” from the Secret Service (SS) at that point in time. Secondly, this HEARSAY would have been protected under the spousal privilege laws as it was shared between a husband and wife with NO one else present. Here is the outline of the spousal privilege law.
Quote on
§ 39.01 Introduction [573]
There are two spousal privileges. The spousal testimonial privilege provides that a spouse may not be compelled to testify against a defendant-spouse in a criminal prosecution. A second privilege involves confidential communications between spouses and applies in both civil and criminal cases. Some jurisdictions have both privileges, while others have one or the other.
§ 39.02 Spousal Testimonial Privilege [573-77]
The spousal testimonial privilege is sometimes known as the anti-marital fact privilege. “The modern justification for this privilege against adverse spousal testimony is its perceived role in fostering the harmony and sanctity of the marriage relationship.” Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 44 (1980).
Type of Case
Unlike the confidential communication privilege, the testimonial privilege applies only in criminal cases.
Scope & Duration of Privilege
The testimonial privilege is determined as of the time of trial. If there is a valid marriage, the privilege applies and all testimony, including testimony concerning events that predated the marriage, is excluded.
§ 39.03 Spousal Communication Privilege [577-81]
The second spousal privilege concerns confidential communications. The purpose of this rule is to promote marital discourse, an instrumental rationale.
Type of Case
Unlike the testimonial privilege which applies only in criminal prosecutions, the confidential communication privilege applies in both civil and criminal cases.
(B) Scope & Duration of Privilege
The privilege applies only to communications made during coverture.
[C] Holder
It could be argued that only the communicating spouse should be able to assert the privilege. Nevertheless, the privilege often is held to extend to both spouses
[D] Communications
The privilege applies to confidential communications and includes acts intended as communications. Whether the privilege extends to conduct in addition to communications depends on the jurisdiction
[E] Confidentiality
The spousal privilege applies only to communications that are intended to be confidential.
www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/evid/evid39.htm
Quote off
We clearly see that the comment Marina claims LHO allegedly said to her would have been barred from a court of law, thus, we cannot hold that against him since it is worthless and one-sided. LHO was DEAD by the time of this comment and could NOT defend himself. Also, if LHO really did say this, and they certainly wanted to believe he did, why was Marina not charged with aiding and abetting a criminal? Can any WC defender explain this? Ditto the DeMohrenschildts.
Finally, we see this statement on the same page regarding LHO and the shooting.
Quote on
Although definitive and absolute proof has NOT been obtained, there is a strong probability that the shot fired at General Walker at 9:00 p.m. on April 10, 1963 was fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. (Emphasis mine)
Quote off
This is ridiculous to the extreme! All they had was Marina’s CLAIM he told her something and a note that was allegedly written by LHO and does NOT mention Walker at all! The vast majority of CE 2001 does NOT even mention LHO as the suspect! So once again, the DPD and the WC reached a conclusion their OWN EVIDENCE did NOT support!
What we do see throughout CE-2001 is the fact a man by the name of William Duff (he is named as the likely culprit by Walker himself in his WC testimony) was arrested, interrogated and given a polygraph test in connection with this crime. According to the polygraph operator, R.D. Lewis, he did not commit the shooting. EAW hired his own investigators and they too named William Duff as a likely person to be involved.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0031b.gif
Duff told the investigators that “he would kill Walker if the price was right.” What else is interesting and shows EAW had many people who did not like him, and a few he would go to the extreme is also found in CE-2001. On December 20, 1963, (after LHO was DEAD) EAW received a threatening phone call before 8:55 p.m. It was traced back to Lafayette, LA, and to a person by the name of Gerald Crawford Vincent. Vincent said he “was going to kill him [Walker]” and called him vile names.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0032a.gif
What is really interesting is this comment found on page 46 (left-hand document):
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0032b.gif
The Federal District Attorney at New Orleans REFUSED to take a complaint on this person [Vincent]. (CE 2001, p. 46)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0032b.htm
Quote off
Why would he refuse to do this? What kind of pull or connections did Vincent have? What we see in CE-2001 is certainly cause to doubt the claim that LHO fired at EAW, and it also contains information that shows the authorities knew they COULD NEVER PROVE he did, but they continued to blame him anyway. This leads to the next question.
2) IF LHO fired the shot at Gen. Walker with his alleged rifle as claimed why could the authorities NOT match up the bullet allegedly used with other bullet and fragment in this case?
The right-hand document on page 46 kicks this topic off. It is a report done by the FBI for the WC and the DPD regarding the ballistic qualities of CE 573.
(I say alleged because Walker himself says CE 573 is NOT the bullet he held and saw on the night of 4/10/63 and the WC never called the officer who found the bullet to verify that CE-573 was the bullet he found at Walker’s residence. Furthermore, the media reports of the time said a .30.06 caliber bullet was used and ALL the DPD reports mention a STEEL-JACKETED bullet whereas CE 573 is COPPER-JACKETED)
CE 573 [designated Q-188 by the FBI] was found to have the same characteristics as the other bullet [CE 399) and the two fragments found in the limousine, but due to the “mutilation of Q-188” it is NOT possible to say it is of Western manufacture to the exclusion of all other sources. It goes on to say on the next page that the “mutilated bullet” showed four lands and grooves with a right twist which is similar to the same pattern the alleged murder weapon produces (CE 139). Shocker! What is NOT stated is how they could get this detail when they just said the bullet was very “mutilated.”
The very next paragraph again states this!
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 and because the individual microscopic 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; p. 2 in original) (Emphasis mine)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0033a.htm
Quote off
Again, IF the bullet had EXTREME MUTILATION how could they tell it had four lands and grooves with a right twist to even slightly suggest it could have come from CE 139? It finally says two paragraphs below the above quote the coup de grace.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0033a.gif
The copper jacket and lead core of the Q188 bullet were determined to be SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT in COMPOSITION from the copper jackets and lead cores of the Q1 and Q2 bullets. (CE 2001, p. 47; p. 2 in original) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0033a.htm
Quote off
This is of course devastating to the claims of the WC, so the FBI did what they and the WC did well—they tap danced all around the issue. In NAA science ANY DIFFERING means it is NOT a match, but of course the FBI would break their own standards in this case when they wrote this below the above. It has to be an EXACT MATCH or it does NOT help the prosecution at all.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0033a.gif
Although the differences in composition between the Q188 and the Q1 and Q2 bullets were SMALL and do not indicate that these bullets represent two different types of bullets, it was NOT possible to determine if these bullets came from the SAME BOX. [Insert another excuse here] It is to be noted that there is no assurance in the fabrication of ammunition that all the ammunition ending up in one box possesses bullets from the same batch of metal, that is, with the same composition. CE 2001, p. 47; p. 2 in original) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0033a.htm
Quote off
Isn’t this a bunch of baloney? The very reason NAA was used was because it was supposed to be able to detect the composition of each bullet and see if it MATCHED! This was supposed to be groundbreaking stuff (we have since see it was a bunch of baloney), and yet, when their OWN new science shows the alleged bullet used in the Walker shooting does NOT match the composition of the other two (I don’t even know what Q1 and Q2 were as the report does not say) bullets they have to invent excuses for it! The bottom line is this—the alleged bullet used in the Walker shooting could NOT be traced to LHO at all!
The truth is the two investigators hired by Walker himself set Duff up as they told him they wanted Walker killed and they had the money to pay him for doing it. They even taped it and gave a copy to DPD. On page 44 of CE-2001 we see the following.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0031b.gif
Killing was set up for the night of June 10, 1963. On this date, June 6, 1963,Bill Duff called FBI Agent Hostie (sic) and told him of the arrangement with the two men to kill Gen. Walker. (CE 2001, p. 44; p. 9 in original)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0031b.htm
Quote off
It goes on to state that Duff had NO intention of killing Walker, but that he would have taken any money offered in advance. The key to this quote is that Hosty was made aware of this and yet he never brought it up, from what we can tell, during the interrogation of LHO. Of course, it was contrived by the Walker investigators, but how did Hosty know this? This is key to showing they were out to bury LHO no matter what the truth was. What else did Hosty know about and NOT mention to the DPD and WC? IF LHO was so apparently guilty of this crime as the WC would claim, why was he never considered for it?
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.
In fact, Walker would sound quite angry at the fact the FBI and the WC had named LHO as the guilty person and kept all the evidence away from him and the local police as he wanted to pursue the matter more himself.
Mr. LIEBELER. So aside from Duff and aside from what has been made public as regards Oswald's involvement, you have no other leads or conclusions or ideas as to who might have taken the shot at you on April 10, 1963?
General WALKER. No; I am pretty well blocked by you all and the fact that--not particularly you, as the FBI having taken the information on the case from the city police, and it is difficult to find who is now responsible for an open case, and also the lack of contact with my counsel at any time regarding Oswald's position in this from the time the shot was fired or even after the events of November 22, 1963.
Mr. LIEBELER. I want the record to indicate that the Commission, to my knowledge at least, and I think I would know about it, has never told anybody not to talk to you about the attack on you in any way, shape or form whatsoever, and has no intention of doing so. That is point 1. Point 2 is that the Commission is conducting its own investigation into this matter, and has requested the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct an investigation into the matter. which it has done at the request of the Commission, and the report will include a finding one way or the other as to whether Oswald was the man who was involved in this attack on you.
General WALKER. It will have such a finding?
Mr. LIEBELER. It certainly will, and will be a complete disclosure.
General WALKER. Then it must be handling the case, because we have information that the city police turned all the information over to the FBI and there was nothing for us to deal with them about.
My counsel went to the city police on this. Then the FBI definitely said that they had turned it over to the Commission, and then they were under whatever wraps there were, but wraps that kept them from carrying on any development of the cases.
Mr. LIEBELER. No activity of this Commission has ever foreclosed any other law enforcement agency from doing anything that they saw fit to do. The FBI conducts its investigation in any way it sees fit, and the Dallas Police Department does the same thing.
General WALKER. I think we should have a round robin discussion with the city police, FBI, and yourself, if you all have what you have stated, so that we will understand this too, and place this case and the Warren Reynolds case back where they should be. I would think that we should get together to establish who is responsible for the open cases in the city of Dallas.
And then Liebeler said this funny statement.
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, the President's Commission on the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy is certainly not responsible for open cases in the city of Dallas. That your counsel will tell you. That is perfectly obvious.
It is? Then why did they blame LHO for a crime they couldn’t hope to show he was involved in [Walker shooting] then? I love the way Gen. Walker did NOT give up either.
General WALKER. Then I want to go on the record that the city police has misused the Commission and also the FBI.
Mr. LIEBELER. I have no knowledge of that.
General WALKER. I think it is--I can't straighten it out and neither can my counsel. I think it is perfectly obvious that somebody is misusing somebody, the fact that we have no starting point and this is an open case, and this is true with Warren Reynolds as well as myself.
This testimony makes it perfectly clear; they had ALREADY DECIDED LHO WAS GUILT OF SHOOTING AT WALKER, and thus, they were keeping the evidence from Walker and the local police to make sure they did NOT show he was NOT the one who fired at Walker. They had their patsy in place and did NOT want anyone ruining it.
Once again we see another claim of the WC, LHO shot at Walker, is incorrect so their conclusion is sunk again.