April 10, 1963: Oswald tries to shoot Gen. Walker

Life Magazine, February 21, 1964

Ron Capshaw, a writer in Midlothian, Virginia, noted a year ago that 51 years ago this month, Lee Oswald fired a rifle shot at Gen. Edwin Walker, who had been cashiered from the Army for proselytizing to his troops with his right-wing, white supremacist politics.

Capshaw, a contributor to National Review, The Washington Times, and The New York Post, argues this incident on April 10, 1963, points toward Oswald’s sole guilt as the assassin of President Kennedy seven months later. I disagree with Capshaw’s interpretation but agree the Walker incident is important.

Capshaw writes:

“Fifty years ago this month, Lee Harvey Oswald the sniper debuted. His target was General Edwin Walker, a right wing extremist fired by JFK for distributing John Birch-style literature (accusing Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower of being spies for the Soviets) to his troops. Walker had settled in Dallas, and embarked on a speaking tour, chillingly entitled (knowing Walker’s hatred of integration)  ’Operation Midnight Ride.’

“This triggered Lee Harvey Oswald into ordering the infamous Manlicher Carcano from a post office box under the alias Alex Hiddell. He then posed bearing a rifle in one hand and communist pamphlets in the other for photos taken by his wife. On April 10, he left Marina detailed instructions of what to do if he was captured by the police, and then on a flat low trajectory from less than one hundred feet fired a shot into Walker’s window where the general was seated. Only a window frame across the middle of the double window deflected the bullet and saved Walker’s life.

“Surprisingly the conspiracy community, with a few exceptions, has not challenged the charge that Oswald tried to kill Walker. Oliver Stone, doesn’t even include this episode in the film JFK. Don Delillo, offering perhaps the most sober conspiracy theory (Oswald shot at Kennedy but the head shot was from an anti-Castro Cuban) accepted that Oswald did shoot at Walker.

“To omit this attempt is bizarre for the conspiracy group. For Oswald missing on a flat low trajectory — he shot from behind a fence with his arms braced on Walker’s station wagon — would bolster their theory that Oswald was a poor shot (Delillo accepts this, and thus Oswald is only to be trusted by the assassination team with shooting from the Book Depository). Accepting that Oswald would shoot a right-wing extremist like Walker would seem to make it unlikely he would try to assassinate the liberal JFK.

“But this group must have thought this out. For Oswald, that supposed ‘patsy,’ showed himself capable of planning an assassination. He scoped out Walker’s house, taking photographs and planning the hit on a church night when there would be no witnesses. According to Marina and George De Mohrenschildt, Oswald went after Walker because of his views on Cuba.

“But JFK was also certainly an enemy of Oswald’s beloved Castro — Kennedy and his brother Robert were the driving forces behind the CIA-Mafia attempts on Castro’s life — and in his mind killing Kennedy would save El Commandante. Cuban embassy officials asserted that during Oswald’s failed attempts to get a passport to Cuba, he informed them that he was going to shoot Kennedy (this information was left out of the Warren Commission report).

“The assassination community has always argued that Oswald could not have killed Kennedy because of reports that he personally liked him. But would-be assassins do not always dislike their targets, but view their deaths as part of a larger political scheme. George Orwell, reviewing ‘Mein Kampf’ while Luftwaffe bombs were exploding around him, stated that he would kill Hitler if given the chance but that he was never able to dislike him; indeed, he found him personally appealing. Thus Oswald could have shared similar sentiments against Kennedy; he found JFK charming while at the same time a threat to Castro.

“The Walker shooting and Oswald’s more than probable murder of Kennedy (I have come very reluctantly to the conclusion that Oswald acted alone) has relevance for our debates about gun control and government surveillance today. What may have stopped Oswald was not denying him weapons, but better surveillance. Like the administration today, the focus of the Kennedys was on the Right, not the Left, who they regarded as no longer a threat. They were considering not only auditing the Birchers, but the more reasonable group clustered around National Review. They ordered the FBI to raid and confiscate weapons from the anti-Castro Cuban camp.

“All the while Oswald was preparing for the Kennedy hit.”



  1. jeffmorley says:

    If you have any evidence for you assertion, please present it.

    • photon says:

      Why start now?

    • g shaw says:

      How about the same demand from Capshaw!!!!

    • Jason L. says:

      I agree with Jeff that the statement that the whole case was faked goes too far based on the evidence.

      But, as I understand it, pretty much the only evidence that Oswald fired at Walker are the statements by Marina Oswald. Both sides (conspiracy/anti-conspiracy) try to have things both ways and find her credible on some things and not credible on others. But the fact is, her inconsistent statements over the years make her a not very credible witness (if you are talking evidence for court at least). There is also evidence from Walker himself that the bullet he found at his home the night of the shooting did not actually match the one later trotted out as the bullet that was found(by the HSCA if I recall correctly).

      Marina Oswald’s statements also are the main thing that back up the supposed authenticity of the back yard photo that is posted. There is actually some evidence that the pictures were faked.

      • John McAdams says:

        But, as I understand it, pretty much the only evidence that Oswald fired at Walker are the statements by Marina Oswald.

        Uh . . . no.

        Oswald left a note to Marina that clearly implied he was doing something that would get him killed or locked up.


        As for Marina’s testimony: it’s important to note that she has never backed off her testimony about how Oswald told her he shot at Walker.

        • jeffc says:

          Be serious. The note was undated, unsigned, and never mentioned Walker. It appeared in a book provided by Ruth Paine after the assassination. Paine said Marina used the book “every day”, but somehow the note never came to light until she stopped using it. Neither Oswald or Marina’s fingerprints were on the note. Other fingerprints are on the note but not officially identified.

          Nothing Marina Oswald has ever said can be taken at face value. The HSCA staff created a long memo examining the extraordinary litany of ever-changing and self-contradictory testimony from her.

          No witnesses ever saw Oswald near Walker’s home. Oswald did not drive, and no witnesses saw anyone on a bus with a rifle shaped package near Walker’s home.

          The notion that Oswald shot at Walker was first presented in a right-wing German newspaper days after the Kennedy assassination, based in part on statements attributed to Walker which he denied ever making.

          The bullet recovered from Walker’s home was steel-jacketed. It became “copper-jacketed” only as it came to the possession of the FBI months later. Walker himself expressed the firm opinion that the bullet later in evidence was not the one taken from his wall.

          • Jean Davison says:

            The idea that Oswald shot at Walker apparently originated not with a German newspaper but with reporters in Dallas. Curry was asked about the possibility at a news conference on Saturday, and a short article in the Dallas Morning News the same day was headlined “Officials Recall Sniper Shooting At Walker Home” and began: “Police Friday were not overlooking a possibility that President Kennedy’s assassin may have been the mystery sniper who shot at Maj. A. Walker last April…” (DMN, 11/23, p. 15)

            One of the photos showing Walker’s house and linked to Oswald’s camera could be dated to a few days before the Walker shooting through construction work going on in the background.

          • jeffc says:

            Chief Curry was in a press scrum Saturday morning before Oswald’s first interrogation of that day, which began at 10:30 AM.

            Q – Is there any connection yet between this and the firing at Major General Walker?
            C – I do not know.

            The notion that there might be a connection seems to have been broached by a source close to the DPD, but not part of the official investigation team. Curry has nothing to say about it (WFAA coverage from Saturday features this moment).

            The subsequent appearance of the story mirrors in a way the stories publicized by the DRE,

        • Jonathan says:

          Re the note:

          – There were fingerprints on it. None of the fingerprints were Lee’s or Marina’s.

          – The note shows up in a Russian language book Ruth Paine delivers to Marina while she is being held at a motel by the Secret Service. Funny that no search of the Paine house turned up the note.

          – The note is written in Russian, is un-dated, and does not mention Walker. Only one of three HSCA handwriting experts identify the handwriting on the note as Oswald’s.

          – In her Warren Commission testimony, Marina is vague about the note and cannot recall its contents.

          – Norman Redlich told the HSCA Marina very well may have lied in her W.C. testimony about finding the note. Redlich in 1964 had sent a lengthy memo to Rankin pointing out the unreliability and many lies of Marina.

          The note looks like a plant to me.

          • John McAdams says:

            – There were fingerprints on it. None of the fingerprints were Lee’s or Marina’s.

            So what? Are you actually of the opinion that anybody who touches anything leaves fingerprints?

            – The note is written in Russian, is un-dated, and does not mention Walker. Only one of three HSCA handwriting experts identify the handwriting on the note as Oswald’s.

            That’s a misleading statement. One of them didn’t examine the note, and another said he was unfamiliar with Cyrillic and did not want to render an opinion.

            None said it wasn’t Oswald’s writing.

            Cadigan of the FBI said it was Oswald’s writing.

            If it isn’t about Walker, just what was Lee doing that was likely to get him arrested or killed?

            Redlich in 1964 had sent a lengthy memo to Rankin pointing out the unreliability and many lies of Marina.

            You are taking this out of context.

            Early on, she refused to give information that would implicate her husband. Over time, she opened up.

            Virtually everything she opened up about has hard evidence to support it, including the Backyard photos, the Mexico City trip, and the Walker shooting.

            In the 1990s, she was still insisting that Lee show at Walker (to Oprah).


            Then there are the photos of Walker’s house, matched to Oswald’s camera to the exclusion of all other cameras.

        • Jason L. says:

          So Oswald’s note that implied that “he was doing something” is now strong evidence? I guess you’ll now have to revisit a lot of pro-conspiracy evidence you dismiss on your site that is just as strong or stronger if this is the new standard.

          • John McAdams says:

            So Oswald’s note that implied that “he was doing something” is now strong evidence?

            Nice example of omitting context.

            It was “doing something that would get him killed or locked up.”

            Why did you omit that part?

      • Shane McBryde says:

        George de Mohrenschildt wrote extensively about the incident in his manuscript “I Am Patsy.” DeM also ties the Walker incident into one of the “backyard photographs.” He recounts Marina sharing the picture with him and on the back Marina wrote, in Russian, ‘Killer of Fascists.”

        It reads credible to me, although DeM is steeped in a life time of clandestine activity. But, really you have to believe someone is telling the truth at some point.

    • Eric Hollingsworth says:

      Perhaps “faked” is the wrong concept. Walker himself suspected a different culprit. The Dallas police originally identified the slug as a 30.06. If I remember correctly, the slug wasn’t copper jacketed. There was a witness to two people leaving the scene of the crime. McAdams assails the witness testimony, but he’s as selective as any conspiracy theorist.

  2. Dan says:

    The CIA-Mafia plots to assassinate Castro were organized during the Eisenhower administration by Allen Dulles’ CIA. The CIA’s working relationship with the Mafia predated the Kennedy administration.

    • photon says:

      So Allen Dulles shot at Walker?

      • Dan says:

        Allen Dulles served on the Warren Commission without informing his fellow commissioners of the CIA plots to assassinate Castro, which was highly relevant information to investigation of the assassination.

    • M. Ellis says:

      @J. McAdams: “So what? Are you actually of the opinion that anybody who touches anything leaves fingerprints?”


      If the prints did not belong to Marina, Lee or Ms. Paine, who did they belong to?

      And how did LHO flee the scene Mr. McAdams? Was he on foot with a rifle? Public trans? Or did someone drive him away?

  3. Jonathan says:

    The facts upon which the Warren Commission principally based its conclusion the Oswald shot at Walker are: (a) testimony of Marina, (b) an undated note for Marina written in Russian allegedly by LHO that does not mention shooting Walker and that was found in some Russian language books by Ruth Paine, and (c) a back yard photo of Walker’s house found among Oswald’s effects.

    The only eyewitness to the Walker shooting, a teenaged boy, testified under oath that he saw two men flee the scene of the shooting.

    Marina’s W.C. testimony here is highly unpersuasive. She says Oswald told her he buried the rifle in the ground at a remote location and subsequently dug it up. That strains credulity. Oswald owned no cleaning kit for the rifle. It would have been filled with dirt and other debris after being dug up and inoperable.

    Capshaw deals in assertions and unsupported conclusions. The name of this site is JFK Facts. Capshaw deserves nothing but ridicule here.

    • William says:

      Oswald was the capable and willing killer of Officer Tippet. The text from the note to Marina is in Lee’s hand and extremely incriminating. Walker had come to Oswald’s attention in the and shortly thereafter he obtained the firearms. Mrs. Paine stated Oswald said he had attended a speech by Walker. Perhaps the rifle may have been covered or protected when buried. He is known to have used a brown bag as well as a blanket in other instances when transporting the rifle and he knew how to handle and care for the weapon. Marina has stated Lee spent time cleaning the rifle with a homemade system using pipe cleaners. The photos have been proven to have been taken with Oswald’s camera. Your assumption that the rifle would be unusable is speculation.

    • John McAdams says:

      The only eyewitness to the Walker shooting, a teenaged boy, testified under oath that he saw two men flee the scene of the shooting.

      A very bad distortion of the testimony of Walter Coleman.


      The two men were in a church parking lot. They got into a car and drove off “at a normal rate of speed.”

      Where in the world did you get “flee?”

      There is no evidence at all that they had anything to do with the shooting.

    • david thurman says:

      Walker (in his deposition to Warren Commission) admits to transatlantic phone call @7:00 a.m. on Sat., 23 November ’63 with a reporter for a German newspaper, while Walker is staying in a motel in Shreveport, La., (how likely is it the reporter located him? my guess is Walker placed the call); from this conversation the reporter deduces the two shootings, walker/kennedy are the work of LHO. Walker also admits he initiated contact with Warren Reynolds, while he was still hospitalized after being shot in the head within two days of testifying he couldn’t be sure it was Oswald he’d seen fleeing the Tippet murder scene; subsequently testified he was certain it was Oswald.

  4. EconWatcher says:

    There’s a flaw in Capshaw’s reasoning: He implies that Oswald would have had a motive to kill Kennedy because of CIA/mafia efforts to kill Castro. But of course, the public did not learn of these efforts until many years after the assassination. So Oswald could not have known of them–at least not if he was a lone wolf, unconnected to the CIA and the mafia.

    The Orwell comparison is also not apt. Orwell was saying that Hitler was personally charming, even though he stood for an evil ideology (indeed, a similar ideology to the one Orwell almost died fighting in Spain).

    But here, Oswald seemed to have no personal or (especially intense) ideological beef with Kennedy. Oswald certainly understood the difference between the likes of Kennedy and the likes of Walker, even though he was (at least as portrayed) far to the left of Kennedy.

    Oswald’s motive is a problem for the lone-wolf side. If he was just a glory-seeker, why did he call himself a patsy? That’s not very glorious.

    • Jonathan says:

      And this: Marina, a professed admirer of JFK, testified to the W.C. she had Lee translate articles about JFK for her (she did not read English).

      She’s questioned whether Oswald in translating the articles has anything bad to say about Kennedy. She answers, no, he just translated the articles.

      IOW, no disparaging remarks.

    • William says:

      Econ, you accept the “patsy” comment yet ignore his claim that he “…didn’t kill anyone”? There is no doubt that he killed officer Tippit in cold blood in front of several witnesses! He also claimed he was not resisting arrest though he pulled a gun on the police and provoked a scuffle. It is typical for criminals to claim innocence and attempt to shift blame. Oswald was a drifting ideological loser who found himself in a position to kill a president whom he considered an enemy of Castro due to the well known Bay of Pigs fiasco. Perhaps he viewed Kennedy as the leader of a system he believed was imperialist and unjust. He may have naively hoped his actions might help secure his passage to Cuba or the Soviet Union. His three attempts the evening before the assassination to reconcile with Marina were rebuffed which may have further inspired him to act.

      I believe there is circumstantial evidence to strongly suggest that the FBI and the maybe some in the CIA could have become aware of his dangerous potential and failed to inform the Secret Service. Hoover was in possession of Oswald’s files which would have suggested Oswald as a potential suspect in the Walker shooting and was in a powerful position to quietly influence events (like a presidential visit to Dallas). He also directly benefited from Kennedy’s death and remained as director of the FBI after LBJ provided him a waiver from mandatory retirement which Kennedy had been unwilling to do.

  5. Jonathan says:

    The “Life” magazine featured in this diary has a number of pictures of the person we’re told is Lee Harvey Oswald. I’ve got the magazine and have studied the pictures. One of the pictures is a school room photo of 9th grade LHO seated and turning around to smile at the camera.

    Lee has just been in a fight outside (he gets in a lot of fight), and a front upper tooth has been knocked out. He gives a big gap-toothed smile, obviously quite pleased.

    That’s a permanent tooth missing.

    The LHO buried in Dallas, shot by Jack Ruby, had all of his permanent teeth. You can even see photos of his teeth taken following his exhumation in 1981.

    As common sense would write, quod erat demonstratum (Q.E.D.) What’s demonstrated? That the guy Jack Ruby shot is not the 9th grader presented as LHO in “Life” but is instead the “Harvey Oswald” John Armstrong writes about in “Harvey and Lee.” An extraordinarily well-documneted book.

  6. What garbage!!!! Oswald shooting at Edwin Walker? Prove it!!

    And use someone besides Marina Oswald, who know thinks Oswald was innocent today and who in 1963 was a terrified 22 year old with a baby, a toddler, no money and who was a marionette doll for US intelligence in the wake of the JFK assassination. Marina spouted a tremendous amount of lies in the wake of JFK & Oswald’s murders – and note they were murdered – and anything that came out of her mouth simply cannot be trusted in that time period.

    As I often say, the murderers of JFK were running the non-investigation into his death and framing Oswald for both the Tippit shooting and the Edwin Walker shooting were a big part of that.

    Some lone nutter fantasists have said that either a) the Tippit killing is the Rosetta stone of the JFK assassination or b) the Walker shooting in April, 1963 is the Rosetta Stone of the JFK assassination.

    Here are some more likely “Rosetta stones” of the JFK assassination – the prison murder of Sam Smithwick in 1952 after he had written a letter to Coke Stevenson saying he was willing to talk about the voter fraud that got LBJ the 1948 Demo Senate nomination in Texas … and the 1961 murder of Henry Marshall, ordered by Lyndon Johnson and executed by his personal hit man Malcolm Wallace so that Marshall would not bust open the LBJ/Billie Sol Estes kickback racket.

    Those are your “Rosetta stones” of the JFK assassination, with RFK’s war on LBJ as the trigger mechanism.

    • Paul may says:

      Talk about garbage. The circumstantial evidence proves to reasonable people Oswald shot at Walker. Deal with that rather than your typical speculation and conjecture.

      • The “pin the Walker murder attempt on Oswald” was completely drummed up *after* the JFK assassination to make Oswald the fall guy for the JFK murder.

        It is about as credible as saying Oswald was going to shoot Richard Nixon (who was not in town) but petit Marina somehow kept Oswald trapped in the bathroom, thus preventing another assassination attempt.

        And, no, I don’t consider lone nutters reasonable people. Sorry.

      • Jason L. says:

        What circumstantial evidence? The testimony of Marina? That would never be enough to prove he made the attempt in court. The physical evidence is exculpatory of Oswald if anything.

        He may well have made this attempt, but it’s basically speculation because the evidence is exremely weak.

    • William says:

      Marina has offered no evidence to support her current “belief” that Oswald is innocent of killing Kennedy other that a “feeling”. She does however still maintain her statements with regards to Lee’s attempt on Walker and his coming home late saying he had shot Walker.

  7. Jonathan says:

    In defense of Jeff: Jeff says he does not agree with Capshaw and says further the Walker incident is important.

    The Walker incident, imo, did not involve LHO and is important only as way for Capshaw and his fellow travelers to frame Oswald for the murder of JFK.

  8. Patrick McCarthy says:

    In September 1978 General Walker wrote to the HSCA denying that the bullet being reviewed by the committee was the same bullet that had been fired into his home, saying that the bullet “is not the bullet that was fired at me.” Walker’s attorney later noted that Walker had an opportunity to personally examine the bullet and, as a person experienced with firearms, would have been capable of observing the difference between the HSCA bullet and the bullet he examined. Walker considered the bullet used by the HSCA a substitute, based upon his attorney’s reference to “the possibility of substituted evidence.”

    As for whether Oswald was “all the while … preparing for the Kennedy hit,” Oswald showed an odd way of preparing, inasmuch as the FBI later (reluctantly) admitted that Oswald delivered a threatening note to the Dallas FBI office, which was destroyed by the FBI after Oswald was murdered. Although the exact content of the destroyed note is unknown, such conduct by Oswald would appear to be be inconsistent with a stealthy plan to ambush JFK. At the very least, the FBI’s failure to investigate the note before 11/22/63 would certainly have been an “embarrassment” to the bureau, but the circumstances involving the note and its destruction raise other questions as well.

    • Jonathan says:

      Oswald showed many odd ways of preparing for the assassination.

      – He didn’t practice with his rifle.

      – He didn’t clean his rifle.

      – He didn’t align the rifle’s scope.

      – He didn’t have a pistol (revolver) in working condition.

      – He didn’t know about the motorcade route until about Nov. 19.

      – He didn’t give anyone a hint as to his plans.

      – His shot at Walker (cough) was really poor and showed bad execution.

      – He forgot to say good bye to his kids, whom he really loved.

      • William says:


        Independent witnesses testified about Oswald practicing with the rifle at a target range and Marina also stated he had been practicing

        Marina has stated that he did clean the guns and used a system of pipe cleaners. He certainly new how to clean guns.

        The rifle was capable of the shots. A drop could knock a scope out of alignment. Scopes are typically zeroed for certain distances and cross hairs used to adjust while shooting.If you are aware of the scopes setting you can still adjust your aim to compensate.

        The revolver was capable of shooting and tests have shown nothing to show it was not the gun Oswald had in his possession.

        Motorcade:Oswald did not require much planning since he worked at the TSBD and owned a rifle.

        It would make little sense to consciously reveal any plan to assassinate a president. (or any other crime).

        The bullet struck a window muton holding the glass pane and was deflected. The muton was not clearly visible in the scope.

        I don’t know if he said goodbye to his children or not but it seems irrelevant. He had attempted to reconcile with Marina and was rejected. No one can claim to know his state of mind.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Just visiting this thread now.

          About Oswald being seen at the rifle range, doesn’t the story go that he fired at someone else’s target? How’s that for world class shooting?

          The scope was damaged. It wasn’t a matter of adjusting the cross hairs. Even the experts found that in test shots, after shims were added (because it couldn’t be sighted as found), that it hit targets 2.5 to 5 inches high and to the right.

  9. Ron Capshaw: “But JFK was also certainly an enemy of Oswald’s beloved Castro — Kennedy and his brother Robert were the driving forces behind the CIA-Mafia attempts on Castro’s life — and in his mind killing Kennedy would save El Commandante”

    Again, any presentation of Oswald as a pro-Castro Marxist is just rubbish. I have a bibliography to read on that, and I am tempted to post it every single time I see that Big Lie perpetrated.

    Here is the web link: http://lyndonjohnsonmurderedjfk.blogspot.com/2013/04/bibliography-of-books-and-articles-that.html

    As Guy Bannister told his secretary/girlfried Delphine Roberts about Oswald: “He’s with us. He’s associated with the office.”

    Then there is Oswald being spotted with David Atlee Phillips who was undermining Fair Play for Cuba.

    And the story of Richard Nagell about Oswald being involved with the JFK assassination on behalf of US intelligence.

    And Oswald’s “right wing” reading list in New Orleans summer, 1963.

    And Judy Baker’s relationship with Oswald (I generally believe her).

    And the Minox spy camera of Oswald’s which was found and which the FBI magically turned into a less incriminating Minox light meter.

    And the mention by Oswald of “microdots” (a spy term)…

    And the fact that the Marines tested him on Russian proficiency.

    And the fact Oswald was obsessed with the TV show/book ” I Led Three Lives” – basically about counter intelligence

    And the fact Oswald was a Marine who was once in the patriotic Civil Air Patrol; and he knew David Ferrie, an ultrarightist.

    And the fact the CIA had a sharp interest in Oswald … and later lied about that … becaue they were probably running him.

    And on and on and on and on ….

    Left out his awesome friend George DeMohrenshildt who had relationships with CIA GHW Bush & presumably LBJ.

    And the fact Ruth Paine is likely US intelligence.

    • Jonathan says:

      “Oswald’s beloved Castro”

      Problem here is, Oswald said although he was a Marxist, he wasn’t a communist. The record made available to us establishes that Oswald felt Russian communism fell far short of its promises.

      Castro was a Russian communist. At least for purposes of Russian support.

      Oswald’s anti-communism posture served well the Cold Warriors. His Marxist stance COULD be written off easily as mere intellectualism. Instead, some rogue intelligence officers used his statements of alleged Marxism to paint him as a pro-Castro nut. And he fell into their set-up hook, line, and sinker in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.

      What a set up. The FBI (or CIA) wants him to infiltrate pro-Castro groups; maybe even go to Cuba. So the FBI (or CIA) sets him up as the Secretary of the N.O. FPCC. His membership card is signed by Alek Hidell. Perfect low-level cover. Except the cover story becomes the TRUE story post-assassination.

      Yeah, Oswald adored Castro. So did Guy Bannister. And Kerry Thornley. And David Ferrie, Alan Ochsner, Claw Shaw, and Dutch Murrett.

      • “Yeah, Oswald adored Castro. So did Guy Bannister. And Kerry Thornley. And David Ferrie, Alan Ochsner, Claw Shaw, and Dutch Murrett.”

        Major sarcasm noted. You forgot to add David Atlee Phillips (“Maurice Bishop” seen with Oswald), George DeMohrenschildt, the guy that met Oswald when he came back from Russian Spas Raikin: http://www.hoover.org/library-and-archives/acquisitions/105816

        Raikin who had escaped from a communist military labor camp…

      • Max says:

        Not only did some rogue intelligence officers label Lee a pro Castro nut but so did Marina Oswald. I know there are those who like to discredit any testimony she gave or continues to give, but this pro Castro topic was a sore subject in the household. Lee wanted to hang a portrait of Castro in their home. Marina wouldn’t’ allow it.

    • John McAdams says:

      This is a huge parade of factoids.

      As Guy Bannister told his secretary/girlfried Delphine Roberts about Oswald: “He’s with us. He’s associated with the office.”

      Unfortunately, she never said this in the 60s or 70s. Only in the 1990s to Gus Russo.

      Then there is Oswald being spotted with David Atlee Phillips who was undermining Fair Play for Cuba.

      Supposedly in Dallas, when Oswald was not in Dallas, but in New Orleans. Further, Veciana has changed his story a few times.


      And the story of Richard Nagell about Oswald being involved with the JFK assassination on behalf of US intelligence.

      Nagell was a class A crackpot:


      And Oswald’s “right wing” reading list in New Orleans summer, 1963.

      It wasn’t right wing.

      And Judy Baker’s relationship with Oswald (I generally believe her).

      Oh, my!


      And the Minox spy camera of Oswald’s which was found and which the FBI magically turned into a less incriminating Minox light meter.


      And the mention by Oswald of “microdots” (a spy term)…

      Simply shows that Oswald, in his own mind, liked to play spy games.

      And the fact that the Marines tested him on Russian proficiency.

      They would test any Marine who asked.

      I’ll let lurkers figure out how reliable all your other talking points are.

      • Dave says:

        John McA – your link on Veciana is outdated and misleading. You know about Veciana’s Nov. 22, 2013 written confirmation to Marie Fonzi that Bishop was in fact Phillips, and that he saw Bishop/Phillips with Oswald in Dallas?
        Waiting for you to say “why didn’t Veciana say that to the HSCA?” … well that had something to do with the fact that Veciana was nearly killed in a botched driveby shooting and his life was in danger if he had spilled the beans back then.

        • John McAdams says:

          Aren’t you aware of the fact that when somebody changes their testimony after decades, that’s not a good reason to embrace the version you find convenient?

          It’s a reason to doubt the reliability of the witness.

          Of course, Veciana served time in prison for drug dealing in the early 70s. But that couldn’t have anything to do with any attacks on him, could it?

          • Jonathan says:


            You make my point about “evidence” and the Rules of Evidence.

            If there is to be an argument about some aspect of the JFK case, there ought to be ground rules for presenting asserted facts.

            One ground rule should be, don’t call anything evidence unless it has been admitted into evidence by a trial court. Evidence is a highly loaded word.

            If we don’t have this ground rule, everyone just gets to throw mud balls.

            FWIW, I have doubts about the veracity of what Veciana has said. Not because he was convicted on drug charges. That’s all too common among CIA soldiers of fortune and doesn’t go to veracity. But because he says he saw Oswald meet in public with David Atlee Phillips in Dallas. IMO, that never would have happened.

          • mball says:

            Actually, there were others over the years who said that Phillips used Maurice Bishop as an alias. Ross (or Ron) Crozier, aka Cross, was a CIA officer who said so. He was an early case officer for the DRE, I believe it was. I Think that Joannides replaced him as DRE’s case officer. FRank Terpil is another who made the connection. If you follow Vecian’s demeanor when he was talking to Fonzi over the years, it becomes fairly obvious that Veciana is knows who Phillips is but won’t say. To simply write off Veciana as unreliable because he changed his story is to distort the whole episode.

          • Dave says:

            Fonzi’s and Veciana’s accounts have the ring of truth, the latter’s late confirmation of Bishop = Phillips is merely the icing on the cake.

          • Shane McBryde says:

            If anybody in the “research community” is credible, Gaeton Fonzi is. Maybe one can disagree on what all the facts he gathered suggests, but you can’t argue with the man’s research. GRHS!

          • Fingred says:

            Aren’t you aware that he may have been in fear of his life!

          • John McAdams says:

            If anybody in the “research community” is credible, Gaeton Fonzi is.

            Actually, no.

            Check this out:


            And then there is the fact that he claimed that the Garrison investigation was infiltrated by eight (IIRC) CIA agents. But not only is there no evidence of that, we know from internal CIA documents that the CIA had no such assets.


          • david thurman says:

            Was your hometown really Kennedy, Alabama?

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Dave, mball, and Shane, excellent comments, IMHO.

      • Shane McBryde says:

        @John McAdams

        I’ll check out the link you provided later. At the moment I’m listening to some old Mae Brussell’s recordings. But, for the moment lets just concede your point. All I’m saying is I have read these people, followed their works and their exploits. Fonzi, Salandria and even DeMorenschildt wrote and spoke extensively about their experiences and I believe them. I’m more than willing to concede that you possess information which contradicts or otherwise impugns something one or more of these men may said or written, however for my part I believe them.

        Most of the aforementioned did not know what they were onto, but they knew they were onto something; and they knew when they were getting the runaround and/or the brush off.

  10. Alan Dale says:

    How would any of us respond to the challenge that there may be a deeper level of evidence and implication that exists apart from the perpetual accusations and innuendos connecting LHO to his supposed criminally violent acts?

    I’m certain that there’s room for disagreement among intelligent people about the interpretation of “the evidence.” How would we respond to the suggestion that the evidence being debated is an inherited construct which has served as the frame upon which all the discussion and argumentation has rested? In other words, what if the basic elements introduced to us concerning our cognition of what we think we know about LHO — the building blocks of our conjectures and opinions — aren’t true?

    Most of us rely upon the work of others to accumulate information and gain insight. We tend to accept what we’re told. The most basic process is that the more we’re told, the more we know. It’s also rather basic, and understandable, that we are most accepting of ideas that complement our predispositions. What if the information to which we’ve been exposed was deliberately introduced to us for a sinister purpose? And that accumulating greater and greater amounts of information can never lead to certainty unless we know the information upon which our knowledge is based can be trusted?

    This is a religion. We accept or reject what we’re told. More often than not, we cherry-pick the parts we like, cafeteria style, and reject the rest. The division between the atheists, agnostics, faithful will not easily be bridged. Not easily.

    Here’s an example:

    There is reason to doubt that LHO attempted to murder General Edwin Walker. A former employee of General Walker’s named William McEwan Duff may be a much more deserving suspect in that shooting than LHO. I’m sure that an investigation into all of what is now available on the subject of the Walker shooting would produce materials worth considering if we want to confirm or reject the charge that Oswald, acting alone, was guilty.

    Maybe we can’t be sure of what we know because we’ve been the victims of deception and misdirection.

    Ulterior motives are a drag.

    • Jonathan says:

      “Maybe we can’t be sure of what we know because we’ve been the victims of deception and misdirection.”

      Yep. But some of us can reveal the specious quality of LN-er arguments. Case in point: EconWatcher’s excellent comment in this thread, in which EconWatcher, with no more than logic and indisputable facts, utterly demolishes the core of Capshaw’s tripe.

    • leslie sharp says:

      Allen, I signed off of this site a week or so ago; however, I simply cannot resist responding to you in light of this comment. I hope there can be found a vehicle for wide distribution of your insight.

      I would like to add an example of being blinded by alleged facts which, when taken out of context, appear as proof while in fact they may well feed into the maize of misconception you have described.

      On a previous thread, someone opines that Oswald indeed had legal representation from the outset (I am paraphrasing here but I believe I capture the essence) in the form of the head of the Dallas Bar Association at the time, a Mr. Nichols. What she fails to identify is that his immediate predecessor in the position with the bar association was Morris Harrell. Mr. Harrell was a named partner in the firm Locke Purnell Rain & Harrell (later Neely). Partner Eugene Locke was involved with defining the parade route selection for November 22. The Locke Purnell firm also had legal connections with Jack Crichton of Dorchester Gas on whose board sat DH Byrd among others. Whether or not Mr. Nichols was in any way influenced by Mr. Harrell cannot be proven. However, to overlook that possibility would be absurd given the nature of Dallas civic, political, corporate and professional affairs. This was the “good ol’ boy” network writ large. Ms. Davison’s facts are correct but they lack context. Anyone living in Dallas at the time will understand my characterization.

      I believe that “sleight of hand” must be kept in mind when studying the immediate aftermath of the assassination in order to recognize that a combination of truths and untruths was the foundation for all theories. It’s as if a magician was involved from the outset.

      • Jonathan says:

        Welcome back, leslie! I missed you.

        Your detailed facts are invaluable, IMO.

        I would love to support your comments with law, science, logic, and history.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Thank you Jonathan. I’m doing a rethink as I trust many of us are about the gift of this site vs. certain reservations. Perhaps it is the nature of such efforts, and I felt privileged to be involved relatively early.

      • The head of the Dallas Bar at that time would be a man under the HEAVY influence of the Texas oil executives behind the JFK assassination. And that person would also under severe influence by a man named Lyndon Baines Johnson & also Ed Clark, LBJ’s legal consigliere & political boss.

        It would be like John Gotti picking a mob lawyer to “represent” your interests while the lawyer is really representing Gotti’s.

        Reminds me of the time Lyndon Johnson got his lawyer John Cofer to represent Billie Sol Estes so he would make sure Estes shut up and took the full rap. Estes serves times, goes broke, LBJ skates.

        Or the time in the fall of 1963, as the Kennedys were hoping to use the Bobby Baker scandal as a noose around LBJ’s neck – LBJ got his ace lawyer Abe Fortas to represent Baker. That would be Fortas representing Johnson’s interest as he controlled Bobby Baker.

        They did the same thing with Jack Ruby as per his legal representation Joe Tonahill.

      • Jonathan says:


        For a long time, all I read about the case were secondary (e.g., “Crossfire”) and tertiary (e.g., someone’s review or interpretation of “Crossfire) sources. I became deeply dissatisfied; the truth was always behind some sort of curtain; I had to rely on others to tell me, to interpret for me, what there was behind the curtain.

        Then I started digging into primary sources. The 26 Warren Commission volumes; the various investigations (mainly focusing on the ARRB releases); the Warren Commission executive sessions transcripts. That work is ongoing.

        There ARE breakthroughs to be had. Nothing the media will trumpet. Just pieces of the puzzle comprising the truth of events in Dallas, New Orleans, and elsewhere.

        Be well and let us know of any new information or insights or thoughts.

      • leslie sharp says:

        “. . . they’ll wear you down?” my email is lesliemsharp47@gmail if you want to stay in touch.

        Maybe if Jeff Morley would outline his goals and objectives for this site, there would be less frustration on the part of the well-meaning.

        I understand the mission statement, but in any business plan, one identifies the goals and objectives which are designed to ensure that the endeavor achieves its mission. Currently, I don’t see that in place and the vacuum that is created leads to anxiety and ultimately distrust. Where is the information posted here headed, who will benefit, what is the true purpose of this site? Are copyright laws in place, are legal protections in place ie. can anyone be sued? These are obvious concerns for any thinking person.

        Beyond that, specific guidelines should be established, in print, so that all who choose to contribute here understand what is expected and how best to proceed to achieve the goals and objectives of the site.

        And lastly, would continuity contribute to a stronger effort? The threads jump from one area of research to another, willy nilly with no cohesiveness. If we are discussing ballistics and forensics, why not exhaust that topic, spend as many days as necessary, or return to the specific thread so that those interested take the time to pull old files or pursue new facts to contribute at a later date. Structure and logic to the threads are critical to sorting through the chaff of this effort.


  11. leslie sharp says:

    Since you mentioned it, aside from a purely subjective level of frustration I was having here, I was making mistakes. Bill Kelley identified one in particular regarding William Casey. Another I believe that you might have recognized relating to Chapman killing Lennon and Hinckley shooting Reagan. The incident related to the common sense exchange, and my not having my supporting facts at my finger tips which was sloppy at best and because of the tone of that exchange, I decided to leave. (I have since located the source material supporting my statement, and posted it on the relative thread for the record.)

    As you know, you walk around with a lot of information stored in your brain, but when, as a lay person, you commit to disseminating the information in print, you have to be extremely cautious. Like everyone else, all of my work could be reduced to rubble if my credibility comes into question. I’ve been comfortable with an overriding understanding of the assassination for a few years based on all of my independent research, but now, presenting the supporting facts is time consuming and demands accountability. In my case, that requires digging around in some very dusty files.

  12. Photon says:

    Seems like there are a lot of mistakes- or lies

  13. ron capshaw says:

    I’ve had experience with those who treat a historical event religously–namely the Hiss case, which has more or less be proven that Hiss was a spy by de-classified Russian documents. Unless of course the Russians faked and then sold them for much-needed hard currency….

    I think that some—not all—of the conspiracy crowd have succumbed to such chanting. If a piece of evidence comes to light that challenges their theory they dismiss it as part of a CIA disinformation campaign. I have come very, very reluctantly to the not unshakeable conclusion that Oswald acted alone. I base this on computer analysis of the bullet trajectories and snipers re-creating the shooting. The riposte to this is that somehow these computer geeks and snipers are in the pay of the CIA and God knows who else. That being said, I think my side has its blemishes. When a witness or participant in the plot offers contradictory evidence then the m.o of the Pro-Warren group is to attack the mental stability of them.

    There are confusing, even haunting aspects of the case that I honestly cannot shelve into my theory. Delphine Roberts, whose right-wing views certainly would seem to make her want a grubby Marxist to have killed a President, is a problem in point. I don’t, as sometimes on my side of the fence, question her sanity or portray her in other contexts as unstable. George De Moreschendt (I hope I spelled that right) is another problem. Pro-Warren Commission writers portray his relationship with Oswald as merely one screwball to another. I agree with Norman Mailer and the reasonable pro-conspiracy crowd that De Morenschendt was involved with the CIA and was tasked with monitoring Oswald.

    I disagree also with my group when they unconvincingly try to demolish the fact that Oswald was working out of the building that housed the nerve center of anti-Castro Cuban activity in New Orleans—the infamous “544 Camp street.” I also think that Oswald knew Ferrie.

    As for Oswald knowing or not knowing about the Kennedy-backed assassination plots, there was a news item in October 1963 that quoted Castro as saying that if the American government continued to try to kill him they would not be safe—or words to that effect. Oswald could have potentially read that.

    There is also the matter of the undercover FBI agent in the Cuban embassy present when Oswald was trying to get a visa. He overheard Oswald state to the officials that he should try to kill Kennedy to stop the plots on Castro. This information was not included in the final Warren Commission.

    All of this can of course be dismissed by the unreasonable conspiracy group as part of an FBI/CIA disinformation campaign and I as an employee of it.

    But fifty years have passed and I would hope the passions have cooled and the event can be investigated objectively.

    I don’t see a lot of that though on this site.

    • “I base this on computer analysis of the bullet trajectories and snipers re-creating the shooting”

      I watch the Zapruder film, hear from the Parkland doctors about the neck wounds (from the front) to JFK, and the wounds on his body which indicate multiple shooters; not to mention a slew of other eye, ear and nose witnesses (smelled gunpowder) to indicate multiple shooters. About 7 people smelled gunpowder on Elm Street. How does that get there from 6th floor TSBD? Ralph Yarborough did, so did the wife of Mayor Cabell.

      “Delphine Roberts” Ultrarightist Guy Bannister told his girlfriend/secretary don’t worry about Oswald, he is with the office. There is much other evidence to indicate Oswald was US intelligence, which is a critical thing to understand.

      “George De Moreschendt (I hope I spelled that right)” I suggest familiarizing yourself with the work of the legendary JFK researcher Bruce Campbell Adamson. DeMohrenschildt had relationships with GHW Bush and the Texas political business class that murdered JFK.

      “As for Oswald knowing or not knowing about the Kennedy-backed assassination plots, there was a news item in October 1963 that quoted Castro ” Again, Oswald is US intelligence – read my book/article selections on that. Oswald was a fake, pro-Castro Marxist. Oswald probably wanted Casto dead; Machiavellian US intelligence operatives burned Oswald knowing that his public persona would be quite useful. (Learn what Operation Northwoods was.)

      There was a political assassination going on in the fall of 1963: the Kennedys were politically executing Lyndon Johnson and his friends in CIA/military intelligence/Texas oil/Hoover were acutely aware of that.

      I don’t see you as a CIA operative. There is a tremendous amount of very high quality JFK research that you might want to make yourself familiar with. Understanding Oswald was US intelligence is the first step. Then understanding the JFK/LBJ sub rosa war going on. Then understanding how warhawks in CIA/military viewed JFK is another key.

      Read the books “LBJ Mastermind” by Nelson and “JFK & the Unspeakable” by Douglass.

    • John McAdams says:

      I disagree also with my group when they unconvincingly try to demolish the fact that Oswald was working out of the building that housed the nerve center of anti-Castro Cuban activity in New Orleans—the infamous “544 Camp street.” I also think that Oswald knew Ferrie.

      Where do you get the “working out of” business?

      He put that address on his leaflets. Nobody at 544 Camp had seen him there, and the landlord said he never rented an office.

      Banister’s office was on Lafayette Street. Same building, but an entirely different entrance.

      • Dave says:

        What’s your explanation for “544 Camp Street” on Oswald’s FPCC leaflets then? And it being part of the same building as Banister’s office? Just another coincidental factoid? With all the other possible choices of fake addresses in New Orleans, Oswald just happens to come up with THAT address?

        • John McAdams says:

          The Newman Building was just a couple of blocks from where he worked. Check Google Maps.

          Reilly Coffee Company is still in business at the same location.


          If Oswald had chosen any other run-down building the address of which to put on his flyers, several generations of conspiracists would have found some hapless guys associated with that address, and those hapless guys would have had Ed Asner and Joe Pesci playing them in some movie 30 years later.

          • M. Ellis says:

            That is just lazy. Dave asked you a question. Why did Oswald stamp 544 Camp Street on those leaflets?

            You mocked him and the incident. But you did not answer the question — and you never have answered it.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Both entrances accessed the entire building. This is covered in Destiny Betrayed or Reclaiming Parkland. A researcher of investigator for Garrison actually went there, went in both entrances and proved this. No, Oswald did not rent an office, Banister let him use one.
        He also told secretary Delphine Roberts “he’s ok, he’s one of our guys”.
        P.S., that batch of leaflets came from a batch previously obtained by the CIA – Destiny Betrayed or Reclaiming Parkland again, I.E. documented.

        • John McAdams says:

          Both entrances accessed the entire building.

          No, they did not.

          Check Sam Newman’s testimony to the HSCA. He actually drew a map of all three floors of the property.

          Then you have this from Frontline:

          Mr. NEWBROUGH : Absolutely, you could not find yourself in Banister’s office if you went through the entrance at 544 Camp. It went strictly to the second floor of the building. There was no stairwell down. You had to exit the second floor to the sidewalk, walk around the corner and go into Banister’s office.


          The leaflets prove nothing besides the FPCC having has some old pamphlets lying around, and sending them to Oswald when he asked for them.

          Why would the CIA give him pamphlets, and then forge a paper trail with him asking for them, when it would be much simpler to merely have Lee ask for them?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Reclaiming Parkland, pg. 153: “Newman, owner of the building, had always been evasive about who he rented to…HSCA staffers did not believe him…drew a diagram of the building which said the two entryways did not actually lead to the same place. Gus Russo then got a guest on his 1993 PBS Frontline program, “Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?” to say the same.
            But then how did Bill Turner do just that back in 1967 while on assignment for Ramparts magazine? Years ago, Turner told me firsthand about his experience of entering both addresses and walking up the stairs to the same small coven of offices. … Jim Garrison made the same discovery, which he describes in his book “On the Trail of the Assassins”. He writes the following: “So both entrances-544 Camp and 531 Lafayette-led to the same place.”
            If you don’t believe Mr. DiEugenio take it up with him. It’s a little too late to do so with Mr. Garrison.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            It goes further on page 154. “Yet there are a number of witnesses who can attest to a relationship between Oswald and Banister. And many of them saw Oswald at 544 Camp Street. In the second edition of Destiny Betrayed I list these witnesses and also people who corroborate talking to them about seeing Oswald there. It comes to a total of thirteen. And it is topped off ny two INS angents named Wendell Roache and Ron Smith. They testified to the Church Committee that they tracked illegal Cuban exiles into the United States. They noticed Ferrie since he was with them so often. They tracked Ferrie to 544 Camp Street. But they also saw Oswald there in the summer of 1963. Corroborating Banister’s secretary Delphine Roberts, they said he had his own office there, which further undermines Newman.”
            So we have two INS agents connecting Oswald to Ferrie and former FBI Agent in charge of the Chicago office Banister and in turn Cuban exiles.

          • John McAdams says:

            Reclaiming Parkland, pg. 153: “Newman, owner of the building, had always been evasive about who he rented to…HSCA staffers did not believe him

            And you accept this from DiEugenio?

            Post the part where Newman was “evasive.”

            And Newbrough was lying?

            And what “staffers” didn’t believe him?

            Not Fonzi, perhaps?

          • John McAdams says:

            So we have two INS agents connecting Oswald to Ferrie and former FBI Agent in charge of the Chicago office Banister and in turn Cuban exiles.

            Post their testimony, or a link to it.

            I’ve never heard about this before, even from conspiracy authors like Anthony Summers.

            So it sounds like a factoid.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            A-N-D, Joannides had a house there in the summer of 63′ (paid for with CIA funds?). A residence? While he lived in/reportedly worked at JM/Wave in Florida? Or a safe house?
            As John Judge said, they are our files.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “So we have two INS agents connecting Oswald to Ferrie and former FBI Agent in charge of the Chicago office Banister and in turn Cuban exiles.”

            A number of facts to add to the ledger of coincidence:

            Before James Hosty joined the FBI, he worked security for the First National Bank of Chicago. (ref. that mysterious money order from Dallas that is alleged to have passed through Klein’s Sporting Goods, somehow gets lost/unendorsed in the exchange between FNB Chicago and the Fed? and ref. Banister’s history with the FBI in Chicago)

            INS; the Dallas office of the federal agency was located in the building owned by the Rio Grande National Life Insurance for whom the man who came forward a decade or so later to allege that he was the Umbrella Man had been employed in 1963. LS Witt alleges that he left his place of work, the Rio Grande National Life Insurance Company, walked North, then West only to end up at 411 Elm – a building owned by DH Byrd – precisely in a position to witness what for most should have been a highly unsettling view of the assassination … and yet he never came forward … until years later. Not only is this patently absurd behavior of an innocent bystander – umbrella and Chamberlain aside – on 11.22.63, but the fact that the authorities/the Warren Commission investigators did not track “Witt” or the man beside him in the months following is untenable. (I equate this failure to follow witnesses to the fact that the WC did not interview Sandra Styles, a TSBD employee). Could the Umbrella Man discrepancy have been the threat posed by the Zapruder film? The spotters had been caught on film? I assume that there are other films that show the umbrella man and the guy next to him?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Yes Jmc I accept this. His books are well documented. He’s been to New Orleans and interviewed people there, reviewed files etc. He posts on here from time to time, if You don’t believe him take it up with him Paul.

        • John McAdams says:

          You need to know that Delphine Roberts was found not to be credible by the HSCA:


          • Michael Hogan says:

            John McAdams wrote: “You need to know that Delphine Roberts was found not to be credible by the HSCA.”

            In his book McAdams claimed: “The (HSCA) committee thus decided that Roberts and Martin were unreliable.”

            Neither statement is accurate.

            What Gaeton Fonzi actually wrote(from the HSCA report submitted by Fonzi and Patricia Orr):

            (498) “During another interview, Roberts told the committee that Oswald came into the office seeking employment and sometime later brought Marina in with him. Contrary to her statements in the initial interview, that she had never seen Oswald, she stated that she saw Oswald come into Banister’s office on several occasions. Because of such contradictions in Roberts’ statements to the committee and lack of independent corroboration of many of her statements, the reliability of her statements could not be determined.”

            Interestingly, Fonzi wrote that Roberts
            “initially refused to speak with the committee staff.” He does not say what caused her to change her mind.

          • John McAdams says:

            So she told them a lot of things, and they didn’t accept her testimony as reliable.

            How would you characterize that assessment?

        • Jean Davison says:


          The pamphlets Oswald supposedly got from the CIA were actually ordered by him in a letter to the FPCC. The last paragraph here says “I now ask for 40 or 50 more of the fine, basic pamplets–14.” The 50 is circled and a handwritten note says “sent 4/19/63″:


          The “Basic pamphlet-14″ was Corliss Lamont’s “Crimes against Cuba.” The copy on record was stamped with the Camp St. address:


          It isn’t known why Oswald used that address (other handouts had other addresses or were unstamped), but Oswald wrote the FPCC that offices in N.O. rented for $30 a month, that he’d actually rented one but was thrown out after three days with a flimsy excuse. The owner denied ever renting to Oswald and I think that’s probably true. However, the rent at the Camp St. building did happen to be $30 and it was near his workplace.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Ronnie, Corliss Lamont, the socialist philosopher, was the brother of T. Stilwell LaMont, an executive with Morgan bank and board of Lehman Brothers under former General Lucius Clay as well as the Phelps Dodge mining concern – the family through marriage of Nicholas Katzenbach author of:

          “The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.”

          According to Dick Russell, Richard Case Nagell – in whose possession was found a Corliss Lamont pamphlet – named his son “Lamont.” (caveat, Russell does not propose the connection I am proposing. If he or anyone has further knowledge of Nagell’s name choice, I would be interested in hearing.) The reason this may be important is that Nagell argued that all of his ‘pay outs’ came through American Express Traveler’s Cheques, but that the judge in El Paso inexplicably refused to allow that information into the record of his trial. Among the directors of American Express (A Chase bank/Rockefeller concern) were Lucius Clay and TS Lamont.

          Anyone that refuses to consider a pattern in this is either being obstinate or is complicit in obfuscation of the truth at the very least.

    • Dave says:

      Oswald and Ferrie definitely did know one another – there are at least two photos taken of them together at different times/places, plus the Clinton, La. trip they took with Clay Shaw in August 1963.

      • M. Ellis says:

        Mr. McAdams needs to answer the question. Why did LHO put the address 544 Camp Street on those leaflets?

        LHO had no office there.

        It had at one time been the address of the CRC, an anti-Castro group.

        Guy Banister had an office in the same building.

        Why on earth would a pro-Castro agitator stamp that address on leaflets he handed out to potential recruits? What would they find when they arrived at that address?

        Mr.McAdams can wiggle, spin and mock as much as he wants. But he can’t give us an answer that makes sense to that question. And he never has been able to.

        • John McAdams says:

          I answered the question, but you chose to blow it off.

          Oswald apparently walked down to Lafayette Square at some point, and noticed 544 Camp. Which, by the way, was not the address of Banister.

          There was, at one point, a sign in the window that said “office for rent” (or some such).

          He apparently just appropriated that address for his fictional “Fair Play For Cuba” chapter.

          An anti-Castro group had been at that address, but have moved out before Oswald moved to New Orleans.

          • M. Ellis says:

            Your answer – if you characterize it as that – makes no sense. I blew it off because it deserves it. What was Oswald’s PURPOSE for stamping that address on those leaflets and then passing them out in public? He did have a purpose didn’t he? What was it?

            Are you saying 544 Camp Street stamp was just a practical joke? (We all know what a great sense of humor that crazy kid Oswald had. He was a laugh-a-minute.)

            If it was a practical joke, why would he stamp an address, where nobody would be there to answer when potential recruits showed up at the door? Who was the object of the joke? The recruits? Why would LHO play a practical joke on recruits if he were seriously proselytizing for the FPCC?

            Was it a political dirty trick? On whom? Banister? The CRC? Why would Oswald do that to the FPCC organization?

            Or are you saying it a goof-up, just a big mistake? I’ve read your non-explanation on your web page. So don’t bother poster your link. It’s intellectually lazy and non-responsive to the question.

            If LHO made a mistake, how and why did that mistake happen? What address should he have been stamping on those leaflets?

            This is what we know.

            1. LHO stamped 544 Camp Street on leaflets or FPCC. He handed them out in public. Everyody agrees about that – even you.

            2. The NOPD confiscated at least one. Everybody agrees about that – even you. Now give us your plausible explanation of why that happened. You haven’t done that yet.

            I don’t discount everything you write Mr. McAdams. But you have not yet come up with an answer that makes sense to the 544 Camp Street question. And derision or mockery doesn’t work on me. It’s just a signal of weakness in your argument.

            On this issue, you’re faking it. You don’t know why he stamped that address on those leaflets. And your conjectures make no sense.

          • Fingred says:

            “Oswald apparently walked down….” Factoid!
            “There was, at one point,….” Factoid!
            “He apparently just appropriated that address….” Factoid!
            “An anti-Castro group had been at that address…” Factoid!

            Show some documentation or cite witnesses for proof these things are what happened.

      • John McAdams says:

        I’m aware of only one photo of them “together,” and they are not actually “together,” merely in the same group at a CAP bivouac.

        The Clinton stuff is nonsense:


        When researchers finally got their hands on the first interviews, it became obvious that the Clinton testimony had changed radically between the early interviews and the Shaw trial.

        Here is one example:


  14. William says:

    I also view the attempt on Walker as the possible key to Kennedy’s assassination but come at it from a slightly different angle, mainly that Hoover became aware of Oswald’s involvement (and potential) and made a conscious decision to allow Oswald to remain on the loose instead of providing his name to the Dallas police investigating the Walker incident. Hoover was facing mandatory retirement during a second Kennedy term but an LBJ presidency would ensure his position as director for life. Walker was a nationally known right wing and anti-communist figure. The shooting would certainly have come to Hoover’s attention and he would likely have wanted to know who might have been involved. The FBI’s own file on Oswald would have made him an obvious suspect but this information was never passed on to the Dallas police investigating the case. This was either a colossal and tragic oversight or an intentional withholding of information which might have prevented Kennedy’s killing (consider police Lt. Jack Revill’s memo written hours after the assassination).

    Though the Warren Commission chose to accept the agency’s failure to share information as a contributing factor they portrayed it simply as a bureaucratic matter. Note that LBJ and Hoover essentially hand picked the Warren Commission and the FBI was largely responsible for the investigation. Not only did the FBI have a file on Oswald but four days after the Walker shooting, George De Morhemschildt (and his wife) while visiting the Oswald’s apartment, learned of Lee’s scoped rifle and jokingly asked Lee if he had been the person taking a shot at Walker. De Morhenschildt had previously discussed Walker with Lee and was aware of Lee’s negative views of Walker and the thought definitely crossed Georges mind (since he immediately joked about it) that Lee might have been involved. George was very intelligent and a staunch anti-communist whose wealthy family was forced to flee Russia to escape the revolution. He had applied for the OSS but was rejected due to a British report that he had been a spy for the Germans during WWII. He had some CIA connections and would have been a likely candidate to be an informer within the Dallas Russian community of which he was a member. He sought out and befriended Lee when the Oswald’s moved to Dallas after returning from Russia, and could have passed on any suspicion that Oswald was possibly involved in the Walker shooting. If this information came to the attention of the FBI it is almost a certainty that Hoover would have had knowledge of Oswald’s potential as an assassin. Hoover was in a position to quietly influence events and was a long time friend of LBJ. Within two weeks after the Walker shooting, LBJ publicly announced an upcoming Kennedy visit to Dallas although time and details had not been finalized. Hoover was arguably the most powerful person in the government. He routinely used the FBI to gather information on powerful officials and was not afraid to use it to his advantage. I expect he would have been only too willing to withhold releasing information about Oswald to the Dallas police and help arrange a presidential visit to Dallas then let events transpire.

    It is also possible to imagine Oswald, while in Mexico, making some oddball offer to the Cubans and maybe the Russians to kill Kennedy. Oswald saw Cuba as a truer expression of the Marxist ideal and may have imagined himself welcomed there. He had discussed with Marina the possibility of hijacking a plane to Cuba but had gone to Mexico hoping to find another way. If the CIA learned through secret surveillance, of Oswald suggesting an assassination to the communists, the CIA may have believed Oswald was incapable of such an act and sought to contain the information for fear of compromising their surveillance operation. I would expect this type of information would have gone to Washington and perhaps Hoover had a role in seeing that such information was not passed on to the Dallas police and Secret Service. When Oswald was later successful they would have certainly sought to cover up their failure to warn of a potential threat to the President. If the FBI and CIA did have some information which could have protected Kennedy but failed to act on it, coming at the height of the cold war, public revelation could have a potentially crippling effect on our entire intelligence community and national security. If the public learned that the Cubans and Russians had some prior knowledge of Oswald’s danger, the American public might have demanded retribution leading to a confrontation with the Soviets. Our leaders would have had a strong national security interest in suppressing some of these explosive details. If it were believed that Hoover had intentionally withheld information (impossible to prove) it could also have severe consequences to public confidence in our government.

  15. TLR says:

    Let’s not forget that when the HSCA showed the bullet allegedly dug out of Walker’s wall, the General himself wrote a letter to the HSCA insisting that it was not the bullet he held in his hand that night.

    Speaking of Don DeLillo’s Libra, he does imagine a scenario where LHO and another man with a car conspired together. Personally, I don’t think Oswald had anything to do with the Walker shooting.

    The note to Marina can be better explained by Oswald’s fake pro-Castro activities, which apparently included a leaflet incident in Dallas in the spring of 1963.

    • Tim Brennan says:

      If Oswald had nothing to do with the Walker shooting, why did he have photos of Walker’s house in his possession taken prior to the shooting? Why did he tell his wife he shot at Walker?

  16. Dan says:

    Bill Kelly has done very interesting work related to the Walker shooting. Bill interviewed Volkmar Schmidt who met and talked with Oswald at a party organized by the DeMohrenschildts in early 1963. Schmidt expressed remorse to Bill that he had engaged Oswald in a discussion about Walker perhaps being as bad as the Nazis. Schmidt apparently believed that he may have triggered Oswald’s alleged attack on Walker. Bill writes that Schmidt had connections to people in Germany involved in the July 20 plot to assassinate Hitler.

    Link to article: http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01/volkmar-schmidt-interview.html

  17. Jonathan says:

    There were two linchpins to the Warren Commission’s case against Oswald: the backyard photos and the Walker shooting. (The Commission basically ignored the medical record.)

    The backyard photos were powerful images. They’ve lost their power of persuasion, however, as they’ve been critically examined over the years.

    The Walker shooting always has been important as showing, if it could be tied to Oswald, a pre-disposition to kill. Apart from all the other problems I have tying the Walker shooting to Oswald (bullet, rifle burying, witness account of two perps), there’s this big problem for me: If Oswald was such a great shot at a moving target, a really difficult target to hit, how could he miss Walker?

    The stories I’ve read are that Walker moved at the last moment. Or the pane of glass the bullet struck deflected the bullet. These strike me as excuses, not explanations. They too lack the power of persuasion.

    The idea Oswald bought his rifle so he could shoot Walker is the composition of two unproven assertions: (a) he bought the rifle in question, and (b) he wanted to shoot Walker.

    The Warren Commission did a lousy but good job of convincing the American people Oswald did it alone. Lousy because the Warren Report and its conclusions have never stood up to skeptical, unbiased scrutiny. Good because the Report is a rallying point for all who have ever wanted to avoid the full facts surrounding and pertaining to the JFK assassination.

  18. Alex S says:

    JFK Fact: The first public accusation of LHO involvement in the Walker shooting attempt was a newspaper story 11/23/63 quoting Michael R. Paine.

    • jeffc says:

      Interesting. More detail? What paper and what was the name of the story?

      • Alex S says:

        I don’t have the name of the story off-hand, but it was in the Houston Post, according to DiEugenio in Destiny Betrayed (2nd ed.) – Chapter 10.

  19. Thomas says:

    All references to Oswald as a shooter, whether it’s Walker, Tippit, or JFK should be prefaced by “alleged” as in “allegedly took a shot at Walker.” He was never tried for any of these acts and there is a reasonable doubt in each case. I am not arguing that Oswald is an innocent man who has never done wrong, but history should not be recorded with certainty when these events are far from clear.

  20. Jonathan says:

    Just read on JFKCountercoup that on November 23, 1963, General Walker called a newspaper in Munich, Germany and informed the paper’s editor that it was Oswald who had shot at him the preceding April.

    This was before the DPD and FBI had any idea of linking Oswald to the Walker shooting.

    Walker, who had commanded troops in Germany and knew the country well, apparently wanted to establish that he was a victim not a perp. Makes sense given his right-wing connections.

    Assuming this story is true, there’s every reason to believe the Warren Commission, with help from the U.S. government (FBI, CIA, whoever) framed Oswald for the Walker shooting. Certainly it was an unsolved crime up until the time of the assassination.

    • Dan says:

      There are several Munich connections in the story in addition to Walker calling the newspaper. The signer of the newspaper ad in Dallas on 11/22/63 attacking Kennedy was part of a group of conservative activists trying to consolidate control of conservative politics nationally. This group had met each other and launched their campaign while stationed in Munich with US forces. The German intelligence organization BND that arose out of the Gehlen Organization was headquartered near Munich in Pullach, and the CIA established an office in Munich to serve as liason with Gehlen/BND.

      • Photon says:

        Of course the BND was hopelessly penetrated by Markus Wolf’s agents. So the East Germans were obviously behind this.

        • Dan says:

          BND was penetrated at high levels by East bloc agents, but that does not mean it did not conduct operations. CIA relied on BND to conduct intelligence operations against the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. CIA and BND were very closely linked. BND lives on today as the intelligence service of the reunited Germany.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Dan, I think the newspaper phoned Walker and not vice versa unless they made follow up calls back and forth. I’ve written about this previously on this site.

        The liaison between Allen Dulles, the CIA, Reinhard Gehlen and the Gehlen Org in Munich was James Hardesty Critchfield who claims to have played a role during the Cuban Missile Crisis, then took up the post as station chief for the Near East and became CIA liaison to the oil industry. He ‘ended’ his career with the CIA when he became consultant to the Sultan of Oman.

        A fascinating aspect of Critchfield’s career relating to his expertise in the oil industry is that he led a unit of the army in WWII made up of Texas National Guardsmen, many from Houston and Dallas. Critchfield’s lifelong friend from those years was General Lucian Truscott who was related through marriage to E.O. Thompson, former mayor of Amarillo, TX who served as the expert for the oil industry on the highly influential Texas Railroad Commission which regulated the oil and gas industry for decades.

        Gen. Truscott was sent into deep cover in the service of the CIA in the immediate aftermath of the war by DCI Beedle Smith who stationed Truscott in Germany. This might be the genesis of his friendship with Critchfield. He is also alleged to have been directly involved with Allen Dulles, Operation PBSuccess and the overthrow of Arbenz. (There is some disagreement over this history.)

        Might the Kennedy administration challenges to the oil and gas industry as it was intertwined with the CIA have angered and concerned military/oil men, adding fuel to the fire? Miscellaneous dots, but part of a tapestry of the military industrial complex in the Lone Star State.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Relating to James Critchfield (Texas National Guard, CIA, Gehlen, Oil industry, Middle East) and General Truscott (CIA, PBSuccess, Texas RR Commission link):

          The Boston Globe reports on April 5, 2014 the death of Thomas Polgar:

          “After serving as an aide to Lucian K. Truscott Jr., an Army general who became a top CIA official, Polgar spent much of the 1950s and early 1960s in Berlin, where he cultivated a far-flung ring of spies . . .

          Mr. Polgar was working in the Latin American division at CIA headquarters when Argentine-born revolutionary Ernesto ‘‘Che’’ Guevara, who helped foment the Cuban Revolution with Fidel Castro, was captured and killed in Bolivia in 1967. . .

          Mr. Polgar wanted the CIA’s station chief in La Paz to verify that Guevara was dead.”

          So Polgar served under Truscott who was a close friend of Critchfield who was liaising with Gehlen; he ran his own spy ring during the Cold War; he followed Ted Shackley (former JMWave chief) in Saigon, and before that was with the Latin American department of the CIA when Guevara was murdered in Bolivia. Might he have been interacting with John Tilton, Morales, Rodriguez et al all along the way? Might he have known them all prior to Guevarra’s assassination? Did he stay in contact with Truscott who had his ear to the ground in the oil industry through Critchfield who went on to affect matters in Iraq for years. A long-term, ongoing global operation functioning in the shadows served by these and similar alliances with assassination as its lifeblood. Cuba, Latin America, Vietnam, the Middle East.

          Next: Birch Dilworth O’Neal.

        • Dan says:

          Another interesting event in Munich in this period was the assassination of Stefan Bandera in 1959. Bandera was the Ukrainian nationalist leader, who is a hero of today’s Ukrainian revolution in Kiev. Bandera worked out of Munich after World War II and was assassinated in 1959 in Munich by some sort of poisoning. The East Germans accused Gehlen’s group and CIA/BND accused the KGB and its allies. Bandera had been imprisoned by the Poles for assassination the Polish Interior Minister in 1934, then freed by the Nazis when they invaded Poland in 1939. After working with the Germans for a period of time Bandera was put in a concentration camp by them, then freed near the end of the war to once again collaborate.

      • Dan says:

        Another Munich reference related to the assassination is described in the 2012 Errol Morris short film for the New York Times titled “Umbrella Man”. In this documentary Tink Thompson relates that Umbrella Man in Dealey Plaza was protesting Joe Kennedy’s support of the 1938 Munich agreement between Hitler and Chamberlain. Umbrella Man raised his black umbrella at the spot in Dealey Plaza where the shooting began. In this context “Munich” is a term meaning appeasement.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Dan, perhaps you are testing the waters, or perhaps you are sincere. The assertion that Umbrella Man was protesting Kennedy in relation to Chamberlain’s appeasement have been dissected. In fact, most recent research suggests that Witt who is associated with the Chamberlain claim was not UM but chose to testify that he was for reasons not yet revealed. Gordon Novel was a more recent “person of interest” in the quest for identifying the man with the umbrella … the spotter.

          Witt was employed by RW Baxter’s Rio Grande National Life Insurance. A fact: Rio Grande was quickly brought under the umbrella of Kentucky Central Life (after the assassination) on whose board sat the father of Cape Girardeau, MO born, Dallas-trained radio broadcaster, Rush Limbaugh. Check it out.

          Baxter shared a bank board with Clint Murchison, PB Garrett of Bell Helicopter and WW Overton with direct ties to Joe Zeppa, Lone Star Steel, Tyler, George HW Bush, and Al Ulmer. We can find Munich and Pullach connections in the personal history of most of these men.

          • Dan says:

            My purpose is to recite the Munich references related to the assassination to see if they have meaning. Another Munich appeasement reference is attributed to Gen. Curtis LeMay during the Cuban Missile Crisis when he reportedly told JFK that the resolution of the crisis was as bad as Munich.

          • John McAdams says:

            most recent research suggests that Witt who is associated with the Chamberlain claim was not UM but chose to testify that he was for reasons not yet revealed.

            And your evidence for this is?

        • leslie sharp says:

          Dan, I’m with you 100% on this topic, with the addition that the characters involved with Gehlen should be studied more closely as some rose to the highest levels of finance and industry in our country. My point was that appeasement may have ‘riled’ many on an ideological plane, particularly in the military, but how that played out in terms of industry is another matter.

          • Dan says:

            George DeMohrenschildt’s White Russian and Eastern European background certainly overlaps with the operational area of the Gehlen Organization. What I am wondering is whether DeMohrenschildt might have had a relationship with the Gehlen Org?

    • jeffc says:

      Walker was interviewed by reporter from Deutsche National Zeitung on November 24. Walker denied to the Warren Commission that he linked Oswald to the April shooting during this conversation. It appears that the story – *The Strange Case Of Oswald* published Nov 29 – falsely attributed this information to Walker. As Walker pointed out to the Commission, to his best knowledge it was not until early December that anyone in an official capacity began to suggest a link between Oswald and the Walker shooting. What led the German paper to make this claim, and to falsely attribute it to Walker, so far ahead of any investigators in Dallas remains unknown.

      • Jonathan says:

        Great information.

      • Dan says:

        The scenario you suggest calls for further investigation. It would appear that the Munich newspaper had more information earlier about the Walker shooting than did US law enforcement. Given that the Munich area was the center for West German intelligence activities, this is a possible explanation. West German intelligence (BND/Gehlen) focused on Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and maintained some of the German spy networks as far back as World War II. Anyone who studies the JFK case notices the presence of White Russian and Eastern European connections of some key figures. Both groups were the prime target of BND/Gehlen (on behalf of CIA).

    • leslie sharp says:

      Jonathan, some of this territory has been covered previously, but I note that there is a narrow timeline being introduced into this argument relating to the far-right German newspaper “Deutsche Nationale Zeitung” and Chief Jesse Curry’s statement in Dallas on the 23rd.

      According to Dick Russell’s account in “The Man Who Knew Too Much,” Walker received a phone call from Germany “sometime in the morning” {of the 23rd}. That would be any time between 6+am and 9+am on Saturday morning, Dallas time on the 23rd; according to Russell, Walker states “they woke me up. I didn’t know anything about Oswald shooting at me.” …”

      And yet we now have Jean Davison’s allegations that:

      “The idea that Oswald shot at Walker apparently originated not with a German newspaper but with reporters in Dallas. Curry was asked about the possibility at a news conference on Saturday, and a short article in the Dallas Morning News the same day was headlined “Officials Recall Sniper Shooting At Walker Home” and began: “Police Friday were not overlooking a possibility that President Kennedy’s assassin may have been the mystery sniper who shot at Maj. A. Walker last April…” (DMN, 11/23, p. 15)

      How could “Nationale Zeitung” have known about the possibility of Walker being the alleged target of Oswald based solely on a statement by Chief Curry when they had phoned Walker early morning of the 23rd? unless Jean is alleging that Curry appeared prior to 9am in Dallas, Nationale Zeitung read the newswire, and NZ immediately located General Walker, waking him up. Otherwise, there was a degree of communication between Dallas and Munich that we are not addressing.

      • Jonathan says:


        I find the big picture clear, the micro picture foggy.

        The big picture consists of four parts: (1) JFK had some powerful adversaries. (2) LBJ had big criminal legal problems. (3) RFK had pissed off the Mob. (4) The person we’re told is Lee Harvey Oswald was the perfect patsy.

        The micro picture is foggy. Who the hell was Lee Harvey Oswald. Who was Jack Ruby, and what were his connections?
        And so on.

        When one sees fog at the micro level, the conclusion is clear: the fog was created by the players and by the investigative bodies (FBI). Truth is, there wasn’t any fog.

        Oswald did X, Y, and Z. Clearly and Cleanly.

        JFK’s wounds were A, B, C, and whatever. Clearly and cleanly.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Jonathan … couldn’t agree more.

        • Apoc says:

          Very well said!

          Even the aspects of the micro picture that are clear are the ones that point to Oswald being the patsy. It is only the fuzzy and disputable or convoluted aspects of the micro picture that ever point to a single gunman perpetrator.

          Examples of the micro picture that are very clear, include (a) JFK’s refusal to sign off on the Northwood Operations project (he was the only person not to “play ball”), and (b) his attempts to get America on its own currency system, and remove us from dependency on the Federal Reserve’s “debt-based” currency… These two events are well documented, leading right up to his assassination.

          Also tying in interestingly to this, is the fact that the last President to strongly oppose the Central Banks (Andrew Jackson) was also on the receiving end of an assassination attempt… albeit unsuccessful in Jackson’s case.

          Point being, in both instances, the group of people who stood the most to gain by their deaths (and the most to lose by their continued Presidency), were one and the same.

          Bottom line: the theory that JFK was killed by LHO alone is full of holes, and incongruent with evidence, history, and forensics… the other theory has none of these problems!

  21. Tom Scully says:

    Mr. McAdams particularly, as well as others who practice such vigorous political partisanship cannot have it both ways. They cannot assert as if it was proven fact Oswald shot at Edwin Walker and the DeMohrenschildts soon met with Oswald and left him and Dallas with awareness of his crime and not demand a frank public accounting today from living persons of their knowledge of what happened just days later. DeMohrenschiltd arrived in New York City and on April 25 met along with Clemard Charles, a CIA associate, Thomas J. Devine. CIA documents inform that after the firts meeting DeMohrenschildt was clearly the priority of interest of Devine and his CIA superior, C. Frank Stone III. Three subsequent meetings or encounters between DeMohrenschildt and Devine were described in CIA documents by May 19,1963. Last fall I discovered Devine had attended Rochester, NY area Allendale-Columbia school from grades K-12 and that his father Adrian was that school board’s chairman. There were 20 in Devine’s class and newspapers of the time reported that Peter Dryer was one of them. When I questioned Joan Mellen about this, she shared that Dryer’s brother Joseph told her that Devine had been his best friend in Rochester. I documented it here.:
    This same individual, Joseph F. Dryer, Jr. also met with DeMohrenschildt and Charles on April 25, the same days as the pair’s first meeting with the Thomas J.Devine. It would seem consistent for Mr. McAams to use his pulpit and any other influence he could exert to call for Mr. Bush to ask Devine and Joseph Dryer what the two friends discussed with DeMohrenschildt on April 25, 1963, so soon after DeMohrenschildt allegedly learned of Oswald’s alleged crime against Walker. Especially if I held McAdams’s convictions of Oswald’s guilt and DeMohrenschildt’s knowledge, I would thirst for an accounting from Devine and Dryer in order to be able to judge whether the timing of these two Rochester friends was simply an amazing coincidence or co-ordinated and for what reasons, and whether DeMohrenschildt spoke to either of Oswald or of Walker. Devine and Dryer need to explain what they communicated about those meetings, following the JFK assassination, and to whom they communicated it to.

    • Jonathan says:

      Tom, You write:

      “They cannot assert as if it was proven fact Oswald shot at Edwin Walker and the DeMohrenschildts soon met with Oswald and left him and Dallas with awareness of his crime and not demand a frank public accounting today from living persons of their knowledge of what happened just days later.

      Tom, please tell me what you mean, in plain English. Thanks.

    • leslie sharp says:

      Tom Scully: John McAdams references Max Holland’s site “Washington Decoded” … note that Holland’s board includes Priscilla McMillan and Patricia Lambert (“False Witness.”)

      Priscilla McMillan – Oswald’s shadow in Russia – brought Marina Oswald to Santa Fe NM in 1964 where they were hosted by McMillan’s relatives, the Davenports, who according to Sam Ballen were friends of he and his wife.

      A decade or so later, the Ballens anticipated the visit of George deMohrenschildt, another person deeply involved in Lee and Marina’s lives, but deM’s alleged suicide in the midst of being questioned by the HSCA interrupted that trip to Santa Fe. Prior to the assassination, deM had introduced Lee to Sam Ballen in Dallas under the auspices of possible employment.

      McMillan and deMohrenschildt must surely have crossed paths.

      During the winter of 2006, I scheduled a visit with Sam Ballen to take place after his return from a long trek, explaining that I had worked with the former wife of his dear friend Bruce Calder, and that I was curious about their associations. Sam said, “sure, let’s get together and tell each other lies but I’m off on a long trek and it will have to wait until I get back.” I never got to talk to him as he died in February, 2007.

  22. John McAdams says:

    They cannot assert as if it was proven fact Oswald shot at Edwin Walker and the DeMohrenschildts soon met with Oswald and left him and Dallas with awareness of his crime

    Huh? I’m not aware that de Mohrenschildt was aware of Oswald’s crime. In fact, I see no reason to think he was.

    After the JFK assassination, he doubtless figured out that talk about how Walker was the new Hitler and such played into the shooting.

    • Shane McBryde says:

      I had to go back and fact check myself just to make sure I hadn’t gone nuts. But, it’s there all over the internet. George de Mohrenschildt’s manuscript in which he writes definitively and extensively about his recollection of the Walker shooting visa vi Lee & Marina.

      P.S. Just because X knew Y, and Y went to school with C, doesn’t mean X and C were in on the conspiracy together. I ‘m just saying I ceased to be impressed with this form of illogic along time ago. I believe Lisa Simpson once called it specious reasoning.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Shane McBryde: for an argument to be rendered spurious, shouldn’t it first be subjected to rigorous examination?

        One may choose to toss out information that appears on the surface to be either superficial or meaningless for reasons assigned to coincidence, but that response that does not meet the standard for ‘rigorous’ inquiry. Detectives and investigators have long pursued leads with far less obvious potential than what has been described by Tom Scully in the Devine/Dreyer research.

        It’s worrisome that new leads are immediately dismissed in this manner, particularly on this site, and rather arrogantly I might add. Where does that leave us … going in circles starting from point A) maryferrell and ending at point Z) mcadams and all points in between comprised almost exclusively of records of a corrupt intelligence apparatus or publications originating from what is now considered the (MJRC) Mainstream JFJ Research Community. The irony in that is dumbfounding.

        This is not healthy for the investigation. Coincidence taken out of context means nothing, I admit, but when said connections are assigned a time, a space, an event, I think there is more than ample justification to pursue. Police, journalists and researchers follow that line of inquiry all the time, and the really good ones trust their intutition.

        • leslie sharp says:

          and the better researchers know how to spell ‘intuition’ and further, how to identify acronyms.

        • Shane McBryde says:


          The term I used was “specious” as in, ‘having deceptive attraction or allure.’ This is what I think reading too much into associations amount. It’s a small world. However, I did not mean to suggest the argument was “spurious” (your word) as in, ‘not genuine, sincere, or authentic.’

          It’s certainly plausible that because a given number of people used to work together, that one or more of them may have known each other on something other than a passing acquaintance. But, you simply can’t base a conclusion about that person or his/her activities because, ‘they worked together with so & so at Bell Helicopter back in the 50′s or some such.

          That’s like trying to make a silk purse out of sows ear.



          • leslie sharp says:

            Hi Shane, (and it’s Leslie)

            and I woke this morning realizing my error. My apologies. But the gist of my argument stands – there are leads that need to be pursued. I don’t know how long if at all you have worked in the corporate world, but networking and family loyalties seldom end, particularly when you share intense training and or experience significant events together. I’ve studied this phenomenon for years. To use your example, I have traced the Bell board of directors through decades of interconnections – family, business, fraternal – and I can state unequivocally, at the higher levels, these people do not “move on” they merely move around within the same tight circle of the military industrial finance complex, breathing the same rarefied air. That does not mean they were directly complicit, it means they benefited at the very least, although in some instances, they had to have had a degree of knowledge, and in rare instances they participated on some level. I would add that those in the high ranks of the military failed in their duty by not pursuing the conspiracy against their Commander in Chief. You of course know the phrase … All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. btw, Bell is now involved in the drone business. Respectfully, LS

  23. Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

    Gerald McKnight dealt thoroughly with General Walker´s case in Breach of Trust. He concluded it “was just a microcosm of what was to follow in the government’s investigation into the Kennedy assassination.” (page 58).
    Even though Marina said she placed the mysterious LHO´s note in a Russian book, the Dallas Police didn’t find it in its 2-day-long search in LHO’s room and the Paines’ house. On November 30, Ruth Paine sent the book to Marina through the Irving County Police. The latter turned it over to the Secret Service, and the note was discovered three days later. The FBI specialist Sebastian Latona found neither LHO nor Marina’s fingerprints on it.
    On May 20, 1964, Counsel Rankin wrote to Hoover that Marina’s testimony on the case “was riddled with contradictions”. FBI officer Gordon Shanklin assigned then agents Ivan Lee and Robert Barrett to the case because “her statements just don’t jibe.” They found two witnesses who stated that there were two suspects, who neither resembled LHO, and a Ford involved in the shooting.
    In 1979, Counsel Blakey held up for the TV cameras the alleged piece of bullet (CE 573) recovered from Walker´s home. The General simply said that it has nothing to do with the piece fired, which he had he had closely examined at the scene.

  24. Larry Schnapf says:

    The author is incorrect that comspiracy researchers have ignored this incident. It has been covered in numerous books.

    How did Oswald get to Walker’s house? Public transportation? No one has ever come forward or could be found saying they saw him on a bus much less carrying a gun.

    Bullet could not be matched to the rifle b/c it was too mangled.

    Walker said it wasnt the same bullet.

    I believe Oswald came home w/o the rifle. The official story suggests that he buried it. Again, no one has come forward saying they saw oswald carrying gun back from with him.

    Buried gun would tend to be dirty. No one mentions gun was dirty when it is next seen in his house.

    ALL of Marina’s testimony would have been inadmissible in court in Texas in 1963 due to spousal immunity doctrine. Even if someone admissible, her entire body of testimony would have been eviscerated by a good defense lawyer because of inconsistencies and contradictions.

    Bottom line- Oswald’s connection to the shooting is tenuous at best. Insufficient to indict much less convict.

  25. Kennedy63 says:

    “If we are discussing ballistics and forensics, why not exhaust that topic, spend as many days as necessary, or return to the specific thread so that those interested take the time to pull old files or pursue new facts to contribute at a later date. Structure and logic to the threads are critical to sorting through the chaff of this effort.” Leslie Sharp

    Could different headings be set up so that specific thread(s) info (wounds, bullets, suspects, post assassination players, DPD, Dallas Hospital, Bethesda, Washington, etc) can easily be found. If this site is to be a repository for serious discussion and moving the murders (Kennedy, Tippit, Oswald and Ruby) further, organization (such as JFK Lancer and MFF) are mandatory. Anything less is chaos and a travesty to the efforts of SERIOUS STUDENTS AND TEACHERS of the 11/22/63 American coup d’etat. Lone nutters and conspiracy theory “adversaries” need not participate because such groups have no legal basis or standing from either side. The Warren Omission does not constitute legal evidence, not does “solicited testimony” for commercial and profitable purposes.

  26. Tom Scully says:

    April 10, 2014 at 11:33
    “…..she has never backed off her testimony about how Oswald told her he shot at Walker.””

    April 10, 2014 at 11:19
    ….Over time, she opened up.

    Virtually everything she opened up about has hard evidence to support it, including … the Walker shooting.””

    Maybe I’m dense, or are you toying with me, John McAdams? CIA document states Wubriny was the designation for the CIA “program” Thomas J Devine was participating in related to his four encounters with DeMohrenschildt between 25 April and 19 May, 1963. Another CIA document states George HW Bush was a former business associate of Devine and Devine was advising Rep. Bush on Foreign Affairs in late 1967. The same document also states per CIA’s Gale Allen, that Bush had “prior knowledge” of Wubriny/LPDICTUM project.:

    HSCA testimony:
    “…Mrs. PORTER. Well, I heard George DeMohrenschildt making joking remark about how did you miss that, Lee? And so I look at Lee and I thought, gosh, did he tell him that, and he look at me because he thought that I told on him. So as I recall right now, I don’t know how George find out or he guess or he just make joke about it.
    Mr. McDONALD.
    There must have been some reason for DeMohrenschildt to guess at it, unless he was told…”

    February 3, 1964,
    “…Mrs. OSWALD. …several days after that, the De Mohrenschildts came to us, and as soon as he opened the door he said, “Lee, how is it possible that you missed?”
    I looked at Lee. I thought that he had told De Mohrenschildt about it. And Lee looked at me, and he apparently thought that I had told De Mohrenschildt about it. It was kind of dark. But I noticed—it was in the evening, but I noticed that his face changed, that he almost became speechless.
    You see, other people knew my husband better than I did.…”


    “So you knew Oswald had tried to assassinate Walker, what did you do about it?”

    He said he immediately rushed over to Oswald’s house to find out what had happened and if Oswald had disposed of the rifle. He recalled being very frightened, as was his wife, Jean….”

    Independently I discovered Devine and Joseph Dryer’s brother Peter were grades K-9 classmates. Joan Mellen confirmed Devine and Joseph Dryer were close friends and met with DeMohrenschildt and Charles on April 25. Charles was known to NYC pols and businessmen, Dryer’s partner Clarke Cassidy is reported meeting with Charles in 1961.: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00015023/00156/17j . Devine
    was the frat brother of Priscilla Johnson’s CIA contact, Garry Coit.
    If you’re not interested in hearing from Bush and Devine or believe they
    aren’t accountable, why not say so, instead of replying as you did? But, as a political scientist, should you tell your students that Bush and Devine need not respond?

    • John McAdams says:

      This is a very convoluted post, Tom, mostly about how somebody knew somebody who knew somebody and isn’t that suspicious.

      The only think you posted suggesting that deM might have known was the Epstein interview.

      But there he doesn’t say he knew. Rather, Epstein says “He thus had a “pretty good suspicion who had taken the potshot” at Walker.”

      But all the sources from 1964 have him joking about it, apparently remembering talk about Walker being a fascist.

      I’m sure you are aware that, by 1977, deM was telling all kinds of tales. This one is not particularly wild, but it lacks support in earlier testimony.

      I have trouble thinking deM would say “How did you miss, Leee” (or some such) if he really though Oswald shot at Walker. If he mentioned it at all to Lee, he would have talked seriously.

  27. Jonathan says:

    I could have been tied to the assassination if I were in Dallas in 1963. I was a disturbed teenager. I made rockets and explosives. I knew how to use guns.

    Oswald was far more. He knew the Russian language. Knew U2 bases. Was multi-cultulural.

  28. ““Surprisingly the conspiracy community, with a few exceptions, has not challenged the charge that Oswald tried to kill Walker”

    I don’t know of any credible JFK researcher who thinks that Oswald tried to shoot Walker. It is absurd.

    Even Gen. Edwin Walker contacted the HSCA and told them that the bullet in evidence was not the one that was found in his house. And that is clear proof of a bullet swap most likely by Hoover’s FBI or someone else in the government.

    The entire evidentiary record of the JFK assassination is corrupted because the murderers of JFK were running the non-investigation into his death.

    • Jonathan says:

      Robert Morrow,

      I welcome your comment.

      As I examine the scene, there are no facts showing Oswald shot at Walker.

      Apart from burden of proof, there just isn’t anything that would hold up in court showing Oswald shot at Walker.

  29. leslie sharp says:

    Dan, Through the fog, I believe one may be able to identify a connection although it requires keen interest and perseverance as well as critical thinking (some of it lateral) to recognize the possibility (emphasis on possible). Certainly some will allege this is the product of a wild imagination:

    However, another lead to follow in this is de Mohrenschildt’s Maydell (some spell it Maydel) family background which I’m sure you’re familiar with.

    I’ve been attempting to identify a relationship between this family and that of a banker for Hitler (no, not Schacht) named Maydell who lived in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee where Heydrich’s abominable conference was held. Maydell’s daughter encountered Adolph Hitler as a young girl when was visiting the neighborhood. Following the end of WWII she immigrated to the States and was living in the Southwest in retirement and until her recent death.

    By chance she and her husband were trekking enthusiasts as was deMohrenschildt and his wife, as were Sam Ballen and his wife who had been friends with deM for years. In fact as stated previously, deM had scheduled a trip to Santa Fe before it was interrupted by his untimely death.

    I haven’t determined how large the trekking community is, particularly in Santa Fe; the surname Maydell may be the equivalent of Smith or Jones in Germany; the Ballens and this Maydell daughter may have never met, and this may be a blind alley.

    But it has been reported that Wannsee Institute (in Maydell;s neighborhood) efforts came under Reinhard Gehlen’s command after the war, and the transfer included several of the players that had been involved with Heydrich’s conference at Wannsee. Make of this what you will.

  30. Ramon F Herrera says:

    Note for the LN crowd:

    If your side can claim that Mr. Ruby loved Jack and Jackie, I can claim that Lee admired and loved them even more.

    Note: Why exactly would Ruby, a person with mafia connections since the Capone days, would hold the minimum amount of love for the Kennedys? The same Kennedys that were well on their way, poised to destroy his world?

  31. David Regan says:

    Intersting how Oswald allegedly was able to get off 3 shots in 6-8 seconds and pick off a moving target in Dealey Plaza, yet misses a much easier stationary target in Walker? Marines Described Alleged JFK Assassin Oswald as ‘A rather poor shot’ – Salem-News.Com http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october202011/judyth-vary-baker-tk.php via

  32. David Regan says:

    When asked by the Warren Commission about an interview given to a German journalist on the morning of November 23rd, Edwin Walker said “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”

  33. Max says:

    Found this Life Magazine article written in 1964 to be very logical and easy to follow. It fits in with the character of Lee Oswald very well. Why deny the fact that Marxism was very important to Lee? When Lee was asked or questioned about his religious beliefs, he clearly said that Marxism was a religion. If you study up on Karl Marx and Marxism, you will find this to be true. Lee was not in love with the communism in Russia nor the politics in the U.S. but liked the ideas behind Marxism.

  34. Max says:

    Knowing what Marxism is all about, a way of life, we can look deeper into the mind of Lee. He was very intelligent and politically minded. A friend Oswald had in his earlier years said that Lee wanted to kill Eisenhower. And that he meant it. Why wouldn’t he want to take a shot at Walker also. It was an opportunity. …all about politics.

  35. Sammy says:

    Yes, it was McBride, Oswald’s friend before his Marine days , who said Lee wanted to kill Eisenhower if given the opportunity because he was exploiting the working public. I guess there is evidence for both sides of the argument. If we accept Marina as being a credible witness then the Walker story is true. It does fit his character. He was on foot and relished the idea that they were looking for someone in a car. He said how they didn’t even know enough to look for someone on foot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more