The Walker Case

[Jon Banks]

It is utterly amazing to me that CTs insist on assuming that the explanations provided by police officers are not to be trusted

Even more amazing would be to assume that police officers always tell the truth and never purposely lie.

If and when a police officer finds a piece of evidence, adheres to the chain of custody requirements, places or has placed the evidence into the evidence room as quickly as possible and makes mention of the evidence he found in his report, there would indeed be no apparant reason to distrust that police officer's explanations. But that wouldn't prevent any defense lawyer to explore all options to discredit that officer.

However, when a police officer claims, long after the fact and the death of the suspect, that he found a piece of evidence, which he did not mention in any contemporary report and for which there is no chain of custody, then it is reasonable to question the trustworthiness of that officer.

In the case of the letter, which was shown by handwriting experts to have been written by Oswald,

No. That's a misrepresentation. An expert saying that there are similarities with Oswald's writing is not the same as saying that Oswald wrote it. With this in mind it is fair to say that the experts did not agree about the letter being written by Oswald

Your explanations are common sense in any other legal circumstances but not in the JFK assassination...

[Richard Smith]

It is utterly amazing to see, time after time again, that LNs just don't care about the authenticity of a piece of evidence.

For them the mere assumption that it is authentic seems to be enough.

What is utterly amazing is to suggest any evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fabrication by suburban housewives without a scintilla of support.  Then turn around and deny that you are a CTer or have made any claim.   Here Marina is a liar.  The note is fabricated because it was found in a book.  We are supposed to believe the note, which instructed Marina on what to do in the event of Oswald's death or arrest, might not be related to the Walker shooting.  Those typing classes must have been dangerous.  Who doesn't have photos of General Walker's house in their possession?
It is laughable.  You should be embarrassed and beg the forgiveness of every person who reads your nonsense. 

[Charles Collins]

It's suspicious that it wasn't found by the police when the police searched her home. That doesn't mean the note was planted. It may not have been. It only means we can't rule out the possibility that it was planted given the circumstances of how and when the note was found.

I don't see a judge allowing the note to be admissible as evidence against Oswald in a hypothetical trial.

It's suspicious that it wasn't found by the police when the police searched her home.


Why do you think that is suspicious? You keep repeating this with no real explanation. Did the police have reason or a warrant to search Ruth Paine’s belongings or just the Oswald’s belongings? If they had no reason or warrant to search Ruth Paine’s stuff, then why the heck would they search through what appeared to be Ruth’s kitchen books?

[Martin Weidmann]

What is utterly amazing is to suggest any evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fabrication by suburban housewives without a scintilla of support.  Then turn around and deny that you are a CTer or have made any claim.   Here Marina is a liar.  The note is fabricated because it was found in a book.  We are supposed to believe the note, which instructed Marina on what to do in the event of Oswald's death or arrest, might not be related to the Walker shooting.  Those typing classes must have been dangerous.  Who doesn't have photos of General Walker's house in their possession?
It is laughable.  You should be embarrassed and beg the forgiveness of every person who reads your nonsense.

What is utterly amazing is to suggest any evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fabrication by suburban housewives without a scintilla of support. 

Who exactly is suggesting that?

Here Marina is a liar. 

Marina herself admitted that she lied to law enforcement officers. Or was that her just lying?

We are supposed to believe the note, which instructed Marina on what to do in the event of Oswald's death or arrest, might not be related to the Walker shooting.

Who told you, you were supposed to believe that?

Who doesn't have photos of General Walker's house in their possession?

More to the point; who did in fact have photo's of General Walker's house in their possession? You only assume it must be Oswald, don't you?

It is laughable.

No, what is laughable is that you keep making up things other people (me included) are supposed to have said, suggested or implied, when in fact none of that really happened.

You're not called "Richard 'Strawman' Smith" for nothing.....

[Jon Banks]

Why do you think that is suspicious? You keep repeating this with no real explanation.

I've explained why in this thread.

The timing, days after Oswald was murdered and after Gen. Walker publicly expressed his suspicion that Oswald took a shot at him, is suspicious in my opinion. And the fact that the note wasn't found by the police the first time they searched Paine's home is suspicious in my opinion.

But none of those things mean the note wasn't authentic. It only means you can drive a truck through the amount of reasonable doubt that Oswald wrote the note.

The story of how Oswald became a suspect in the Walker shooting posthumously is described below:


How did Oswald first become a suspect in the Walker shooting incident?

"It was a right-wing German newspaper called the Deutsche National-Zeitung und Soldaten-Zeitung that first highlighted Oswald’s possible involvement in the Walker shooting incident when they published an article on 29th November 1963. This was based on interviews General Walker had given to the newspaper in the days following JFK’s assassination. It was likely Walker who planted the seed with them about Oswald being the person who took the shot at him.

We then have Ruth Paine visiting the Irving Police Department on 2nd December 1963 to hand over some of Marina Oswald’s belongings. Included was a Russian book called “Book of Useful Advice.” When the book was inspected by the Secret Service later that day, they found a two-page note inside written in Russian. This note was allegedly written by Oswald with instructions for his wife on what to do if he was killed or taken prisoner. Marina told law enforcement officials the day after the note was found that it was written by her husband, and she had first seen it on the night of the Walker shooting. She said that Lee had arrived home late that night and admitted to taking the shot and burying the rifle, which he would retrieve later."

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance


Could it have been a mere coincidence that the note surfaced days after speculation of Oswald's involvement in the Walker shooting was mentioned in the Press? Yes. But people can be forgiven for suspecting that might've been planted due to the timing and circumstances of how it came to be discovered and I don't think that piece of evidence would be admissible in court due to the circumstances.

Lastly, I've explained several times that I think it's possible that Oswald did it. But the evidence isn't sufficient to draw solid conclusions because none of the evidence places him at the crime scene on the night of the incident.

[Charles Collins]

I've explained why in this thread.

The timing, days after Oswald was murdered and after Gen. Walker publicly expressed his suspicion that Oswald took a shot at him, is suspicious in my opinion. And the fact that the note wasn't found by the police the first time they searched Paine's home is suspicious in my opinion.

But none of those things mean the note wasn't authentic. It only means you can drive a truck through the amount of reasonable doubt that Oswald wrote the note.

The story of how Oswald became a suspect in the Walker shooting posthumously is described below:


How did Oswald first become a suspect in the Walker shooting incident?

"It was a right-wing German newspaper called the Deutsche National-Zeitung und Soldaten-Zeitung that first highlighted Oswald’s possible involvement in the Walker shooting incident when they published an article on 29th November 1963. This was based on interviews General Walker had given to the newspaper in the days following JFK’s assassination. It was likely Walker who planted the seed with them about Oswald being the person who took the shot at him.

We then have Ruth Paine visiting the Irving Police Department on 2nd December 1963 to hand over some of Marina Oswald’s belongings. Included was a Russian book called “Book of Useful Advice.” When the book was inspected by the Secret Service later that day, they found a two-page note inside written in Russian. This note was allegedly written by Oswald with instructions for his wife on what to do if he was killed or taken prisoner. Marina told law enforcement officials the day after the note was found that it was written by her husband, and she had first seen it on the night of the Walker shooting. She said that Lee had arrived home late that night and admitted to taking the shot and burying the rifle, which he would retrieve later."

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance


Could it have been a mere coincidence that the note surfaced days after speculation of Oswald's involvement in the Walker shooting was mentioned in the Press? Yes. But people can be forgiven for suspecting that might've been planted due to the timing and circumstances of how it came to be discovered and I don't think that piece of evidence would be admissible in court due to the circumstances.

Lastly, I've explained several times that I think it's possible that Oswald did it. But the evidence isn't sufficient to draw solid conclusions because none of the evidence places him at the crime scene on the night of the incident.

It only means you can drive a truck through the amount of reasonable doubt that Oswald wrote the note.

There is nothing about your biased suspicious opinions that could be classified as reasonable doubt in a court of law. You need actual relevant and probative evidence that someone planted the note in order to call it reasonable. A vague suggestion about the timing and/or circumstances without any evidence will not suffice. Sadly, this MO is the mantra of the CT crowd, and I think that, after almost 60-years of these suspicions with not a shred of evidence, it is time for people to start seeing these things for what they are - nonsense.


But people can be forgiven for suspecting that might've been planted due to the timing and circumstances of how it came to be discovered and I don't think that piece of evidence would be admissible in court due to the circumstances.


You can suspect whatever you want for eternity, I don't care, so no forgiveness is needed for that. And as long as you state it is your opinion (instead of a claim of fact) you can believe that your "suspicious circumstances" would prevent the note from being admissible in court. However, since none of your suspicions could ever be considered reasonable doubt based on actual evidence, I think that you are dead wrong.


But the evidence isn't sufficient to draw solid conclusions because none of the evidence places him at the crime scene on the night of the incident.

Marina's testimony regarding that LHO confessed to her (on the night of the Walker incident) that he took a shot at Walker most definitely places him at the crime scene on the night of the incident. It is evidence that a jury would have to consider. You cannot just dismiss it entirely and claim that there is no evidence that places him at the crime scene. You can choose to have doubts, but without reasonable doubt based on actual probative evidence, your doubts are just pure conjecture and could not be considered by a jury.

[Martin Weidmann]

It only means you can drive a truck through the amount of reasonable doubt that Oswald wrote the note.

There is nothing about your biased suspicious opinions that could be classified as reasonable doubt in a court of law. You need actual relevant and probative evidence that someone planted the note in order to call it reasonable. A vague suggestion about the timing and/or circumstances without any evidence will not suffice. Sadly, this MO is the mantra of the CT crowd, and I think that, after almost 60-years of these suspicions with not a shred of evidence, it is time for people to start seeing these things for what they are - nonsense.

But people can be forgiven for suspecting that might've been planted due to the timing and circumstances of how it came to be discovered and I don't think that piece of evidence would be admissible in court due to the circumstances.


You can suspect whatever you want for eternity, I don't care, so no forgiveness is needed for that. And as long as you state it is your opinion (instead of a claim of fact) you can believe that your "suspicious circumstances" would prevent the note from being admissible in court. However, since none of your suspicions could ever be considered reasonable doubt based on actual evidence, I think that you are dead wrong.

But the evidence isn't sufficient to draw solid conclusions because none of the evidence places him at the crime scene on the night of the incident.

Marina's testimony regarding that LHO confessed to her (on the night of the Walker incident) that he took a shot at Walker most definitely places him at the crime scene on the night of the incident. It is evidence that a jury would have to consider. You cannot just dismiss it entirely and claim that there is no evidence that places him at the crime scene. You can choose to have doubts, but without reasonable doubt based on actual probative evidence, your doubts are just pure conjecture and could not be considered by a jury.

Marina's testimony regarding that LHO confessed to her (on the night of the Walker incident) that he took a shot at Walker most definitely places him at the crime scene on the night of the incident. It is evidence that a jury would have to consider.

Your premise is wrong. You can not argue that Marina confirmed the authenticity of the document and it's context at trial because she wouldn't be there to testify in the first place. And without her, you've got nothing.