"And he said 'I shot Walker'"

[Bill Brown]

Damn.  Michael Griffith is taking a serious beating from Lance Payette and John Mytton.  I almost feel sorry for him.

[Charles Collins]

This is dubious hearsay given by Marina when she was being held in a hotel room and threatened by the Secret Service and the FBI and was scared to death of being deported. Marina also said she saw Oswald cleaning the Carcano rifle early in January 1963, but the rifle was not sent to the "Hidell" post office box until the end of March.

There are numerous problems with the case against Oswald in the Walker shooting, starting with the fact that Walker himself said the bullet looked nothing like an WCC FMJ bullet and that not one of the fingerprints on Oswald's alleged goodbye note to Marina matched his or Marina's fingerprints. Two of the three HSCA handwriting experts said the note was not written in Oswald's handwriting. I should add that the note did not surface until two months after the assassination and came from--guess who?--Ruth Paine.

And why in the world would someone who tried to kill the fanatically right-wing General Walker turn around and shoot JFK? That makes no sense whatsoever.

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

http://22november1963.org.uk/did-lee-oswald-shoot-general-edwin-walker

This is dubious hearsay given by Marina when she was being held in a hotel room and threatened by the Secret Service and the FBI and was scared to death of being deported.

According to James Hosty in his book “Assignment Oswald” an Immigration and Naturalization Service attorney told Marina Oswald, just before his first post assassination interview with Marina on Wednesday 11/27/63, that she definitely was not going to be deported. Here is a snippet from Hosty’s book page 120:

After just a few minutes the INS attorney and Gopadze came out of the room. The INS attorney, acting jittery and nervous, headed straight for the door and quickly left. Brown and I huddled with Gopadze and asked him what that was all about. Shaking his head in disgust, Gopadze told us that the INS man had just informed Marina that the INS was most definitely not going to deport her, but that they still wanted her to cooperate with the FBI.

And if one reads further on about Hosty’s interview, it turns out that Robert Oswald was present and was trying to be sure Marina was treated properly.

[Charles Collins]

Damn.  Michael Griffith is taking a serious beating from Lance Payette and John Mytton.  I almost feel sorry for him.

This is typically when they simply disappear for a while without a response. Then after a long pause they show back up and continue with the same old arguments as if no one had even tried to counter them.

[Michael T. Griffith]

To put this as charitably and statesmanlike as possible, you are a BS  artist of the first magnitude. I don't know why anyone would trust ANYTHING you say. Worse yet, the above factoid - which is pure  - is repeated throughout the conspiracy literature.

This is not a difficult research project, folks. The report of the HSCA handwriting panel is here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=227.

Three documents were related because they were mostly or entirely in Russian. The panel designated them Items 23, 56 and 57, to wit:

Item 23: Russian script on lined paper from Alek to Marina and June dated 2-20-1962.
Item 56: Undated ten-line note in Russian signed Alek.
Item 57: The Walker note.

Here is what the three examiners actually said:

Joseph P. McNally
The Russian language on items 23, 56 and 57 is by the same person.
The portions in Latin conform to all the other Oswald-signed documents.

David J. Purtell
With regard to the Russian portions of items 23, 56 and 57, “this examiner is not familiar with this language and the characteristics of the various writing systems used.”
He thus was unable to render a definite opinion but noted there were similarities between the writing in items 23, 56 and 57 and the other (Oswald-signed) items.

Charles C. Scott
Did not examine items 23, 56 and 57 at all.

"Two of the three HSCA handwriting experts said the note was not written in Oswald's handwriting."
Really?
Only in Factoid City.
Only in Conspiracy World.
Only in Michael's BS  posts.

First off, yes, I stand corrected about the conclusions of the HSCA handwriting experts on the note's handwriting. I got that claim from the usually reliable 22november1963.org.uk website. I should have gone back and double-checked the handwriting experts' report, which the 22november1963 folks actually cite with a link. Clearly, they either misread the report or chose to misrepresent it.

And, oh yes, I see, not surprisingly, that a bunch of WC apologists are hooting and posturing over my mistake, labeling it as proof of my many supposed "lies," etc., etc. Unlike you folks, when I make a mistake, I admit it. You guys have made many egregious errors that I have documented for you, but you have never once acknowledged any of them.

Two, I note that you once again failed to address the fact (1) that the one eyewitness saw two men hurriedly leave and said neither man resembled Oswald, and (2) that none of the several fingerprints on the note were Oswald's or Marina's prints. In all your excitement over being able to pounce on one of my rare errors, perhaps you just forgot about these two key facts. So let me discuss them again:

The one eyewitness, Walter Coleman, said he saw two men hurriedly leave the church parking lot next to Walker's house and that neither man looked like Oswald. Coleman said he had seen numerous pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald, and he was shown a photograph of Oswald among several other photographs. He said that neither of the men he saw resembled Oswald, and that he had never seen anyone in or around the Walker residence before or after the night of the shooting who resembled Oswald.

I should add that Robert Surrey reported that days before the Walker shooting he saw two men sitting in a car near Walker's house and that the men later seemed to be inspecting the windows and area surrounding the Walker home. Surrey said that neither of these men resembled Oswald (https://www.tpaak.com/walker-allegations).

And, not one of the several fingerprints on the goodbye note belonged to Oswald or Marina. Seven fingerprints were found on the note, but none of them belonged to Oswald or his wife. How do you write a note and not leave a single fingerprint on it? How did Marina read the note without leaving a single print on it?

Three, yes, Walker said the bullet was mangled, but he also made it clear that the bullet was not a WCC Carcano FMJ bullet. He was adamant on this point:

During the HSCA investigation in the 1970’s, General Walker himself said that
the bullet in evidence was not the same bullet that was found in his house on 10th
April 1963. He wrote to the Attorney General in February 1979 and said that it was
“a ridiculous substitute.” He went on to state that “I saw the hunk of lead, picked up
by a policeman in my house, and I took it from him and I inspected it carefully.
There is no mistake. There has been a substitution for the bullet fired by Oswald and
taken out of my house.”
(https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-and-the-shot-at-walker-redressing-the-balance)

Also, the first police description of the bullet said it "was a steel jacket bullet," and the supposed Walker bullet in evidence, CE 573, does not contain Lt. Day's chain-of-evidence mark. Cole and Gram discuss some of the evidence that CE 573 is not the Walker bullet:

The original and official DPD reports described a relatively rare “steel jacketed”
slug found in the Walker home, on April 10, 1963, the night of the shooting.
The bullet was handled and initialed through inscribing by four DPD officers.
But CE 573—the WC’s purported Walker Bullet—is obviously copper-jacketed.

The extremely thin Warren Commission questioning of FBI agent Frazier, as to
how and why the Walker Bullet could ever be described as “steel jacketed” by
DPD detectives. Frazier answered that “some individuals refer to all rifle bullets
as steel jacketed,” a novel and unique observation. There is nothing in police or
FBI literature to suggest police detectives or FBI special agents anywhere ever
described “all rifle bullets” as steel jacketed—especially when copper-jacketed
rifle bullets were and are the norm.

Lt. Day of the Dallas Police Department, stating unequivocally to the FBI and
then to the WC that he had carved the true Walker slug with his name “DAY” and a
cross. No such markings can be seen on CE 573, even under a microscope.

The lack of same-day April 10, 1963, or indeed any Dallas Police Department
photographs of the true Walker Bullet. The true Walker Bullet was never
photographed or, if it was, the photographs have disappeared. Moreover, there
are no surviving written DPD lab reports on the Walker Bullet that describe the
slug as steel- or copper-jacketed.

The weak chain of evidence confirmation by the FBI-WC on the provenance
of CE 573. The FBI in 1964 showed a slug purported to be the Walker Bullet
only to Norvell, the DPD patrolman, who at best handled the slug briefly 14
months earlier. The FBI did not show the purported Walker Bullet to detectives
McElroy or Van Cleave.
(https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/1408)

Four, I see that Mytton is once again trotting out the backyard rifle photos as supposed proof of Oswald's guilt in both the Walker shooting and the JFK shooting. Those photos are as phony as a three-dollar bill. See

The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view

Are you guys ever, ever, ever going to deal with the parallax measurements showing the impossibly microscopic differences in distances between objects in the backgrounds of the photos? There is no way on this planet that photos taken with a cheap handheld camera that was supposedly handed back and forth to advance the film would have such impossibly tiny differences in the distances between the objects in the backgrounds in the photos. This is not to mention that the variant shadows in the photos have never been duplicated, among other problems with the photos.

Five, apparently it has not occurred to any of you to wonder how your supposed skilled "sharpshooter" assassin managed to miss Walker from less than 120 feet away while having all the time in the world to aim and fire. Yet, you claim this is the same guy who performed a shooting feat against JFK that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's shooting simulation, using the alleged murder weapon, did not even come close to duplicating, even though they fired from only 30 feet up, fired at a stationary target boards, and took as much time as they wanted for their first shot.

Six, the attempts to explain why Oswald would try to shoot the rabid right-winger Walker and then turn around and shoot the man whom Walker had publicly condemned, i.e., JFK, border on incoherent.

Seven, the NAA testing that supposedly linked the Walker bullet to Oswald's rifle was discredited nearly 20 years ago.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18709539
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/900118

[Tom Graves]

[...]

Griffith,

Are you a Russian troll?

You sound like a Russian troll.

Everything you incessantly carp about has been proved true, but with you it's "in one ear and out the other," as though you've either been thoroughly zombified by sixty-two years of KGB JFKA disinfo or you're actually a KGB agent.

Why can't you accept the possibility that Oswald didn't see the wooden cross-piece in the window frame due to a bright light inside Walker's room?

Do you really think only 20-30 bad guys were needed to pull off and cover up the JFKA the way you envision it?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Thanks, I was about to make the correction that she didn't actually find the note itself. She told the WC she was "astounded" when SS agents showed up at her house with the note, and she made no connection to Walker until she later saw the story reported in the Houston Chronicle.

CIA operative Ruth was also in Three Stooges mode at the WC: She said that Oswald, upon returning from a meeting of the right-wing National Indignation Committee, had made a passing remark suggesting he "didn't give much credit" to Walker, but this was not a strong remark at all and certainly not suggestive of violence. And Oswald never said anything at all about JFK. What a missed opportunity on the part of Ruth and her CIA handlers!

I have to admit I was more definitive about the handwriting analysis then it was. Your post cleared that up.

Re the note: The very smart Jean Davison showed that note to some graduate Russian language students for their judgment. The consensus was that it was poorly written, with all sorts of grammatical and spelling mistakes.

One point (hijacking this a bit) about Oswald's views about JFK: This is one mystery that I can't figure out. Reportedly he said positive things about JFK especially on civil rights. Michael Paine said Oswald told him that JFK was the best president of his lifetime. How to explain this? If he was pretending to be a Marxist, if it was a cover story, he was pulling a Herbert Philbrick act, wouldn't he condemn JFK? That would be part of the act. If he was a Marxist (as he understood it) and a Castro supporter, wouldn't he also condemn JFK for his Cuba policies?

But there's little there and what little there is is positive.

On the other hand, he wrote that there wasn't any difference between non-Marxists, that whether they were liberal or conservative or Christian Democrats or anything else, it didn't matter. They were on the wrong side of history. That's always been the Marxist interpretation of history. So in this view there's no difference between JFK and Walker.

And Fritz said that Oswald said this about JFK's death.

Mr. BALL. Did you ever ask him what he thought of President Kennedy or his family?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him what he thought of the President.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. What he thought about the family--he said he didn't have any particular comment to make about the President.
He said he had a nice family, that he admired his family, something to that effect. At one time, I don't have this in my report, but at one time I told him, I said, "You know you have killed the President, and this is a very serious charge."
He denied it and said he hadn't killed the President.
I said he had been killed. He said people will forget that within a few days and there would be another President."

[Michael T. Griffith]

Remember, Mr. Griffith says Sirhan was hypno programmed to shoot RFK.

You say this like it's some wild idea. Just FYI, one of the world's leading experts on hypnosis, Dr. Daniel Brown of Harvard University, interviewed and tested Sirhan for years, and concluded that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to fire at RFK, and that this was why Sirhan had no memory of shooting RFK and why he could not remember several key periods of time leading up to the assassination. Dr. Brown provided a detailed report on his findings in his sworn statement for Sirhan's 2011 appeal. Dr. Brown discusses his findings in this video titled The Real Manchurian Candidate, available on YouTube.

You sound like someone who lapsed into a coma in the 1950s, who has awoken, and who is reacting with disbelief when a friend tells you that the U.S. landed several men on the Moon in the 1970s.

I'm guessing you are unaware of all the evidence that has surfaced about CIA and military mind-control programs in the 1950s and 1960s, right? You might dare yourself to read historian Stephen Kinzer's award-winning 2019 book Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control, published by the respected publishing house Henry Holt and Company. As you may know, Kinzer has authored two other best-selling books, All the Shah's Men and The Brothers.

Kinzer's book on the CIA's mind-control program received favorable reviews from the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times Review of Books, the San Francisco Review of Books, the London Review of Books, among other sources.

This is a perfect, prime example of the fact that you lone-gunman theorists are often blissfully unaware of scholarly, acclaimed research because your echo-chamber world has ignored that research and you then summarily dismiss credible claims that are based on that research. 

When you're done with Kinzer's book, you might break down and read Lisa Pease's book A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, which draws on numerous scholarly sources regarding disclosures on mind-control programs.

And that we can't reject the possibility that Babushka Lady shot JFK with a camera gun. Or gun camera.

Here, too, you act like this is some kind of crazy idea because you haven't done your homework. You apparently don't know that when the OAS tried to assassinate De Gaulle, one of their weapons was a gun camera, i.e., a gun disguised as a camera. Let me guess: This is all news to you, right? Have you read any of Jeff Sundberg's research on gun cameras in the intelligence world? Have you read Mary Haverstick's book A Woman I Know?, which includes a lengthy discussion on the evidence regarding the Babushka Lady's actions before, during, and after the shooting?

And that all of this, the assassination of JFK et cetera, was done by 25 to 30 people.

This misstates my position. Are you just assuming that no one will go back and read what I've said on this matter? Or, perhaps you only skimmed over my statements on this issue and misunderstood them.

Let me try to explain my view as plainly as I can--again: Obviously, many more than 25 or 30 people would have had to play a role in the assassination and in the ensuing cover-up. However, only a few dozen people initiated the plot, managed the operation, understood the big picture, and drove the cover-up. Similarly, hundreds of people were involved in the Iran-Contra conspiracy, but only one or two dozen people initiated the conspiracy, managed the operation, knew the big picture, and drove the attempted cover-up. In both cases, most of those involved did not realize they were aiding a conspiracy and did not understand how their actions fit into the big picture.

[Bill Brown]

You say this like it's some wild idea. Just FYI, one of the world's leading experts on hypnosis, Dr. Daniel Brown of Harvard University, interviewed and tested Sirhan for years, and concluded that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to fire at RFK, and that this was why Sirhan had no memory of shooting RFK and why he could not remember several key periods of time leading up to the assassination. Dr. Brown provided a detailed report on his findings in his sworn statement for Sirhan's 2011 appeal. Dr. Brown discusses his findings in this video titled The Real Manchurian Candidate, available on YouTube.

You sound like someone who lapsed into a coma in the 1950s, who has awoken, and who is reacting with disbelief when a friend tells you that the U.S. landed several men on the Moon in the 1970s.

I'm guessing you are unaware of all the evidence that has surfaced about CIA and military mind-control programs in the 1950s and 1960s, right? You might dare yourself to read historian Stephen Kinzer's award-winning 2019 book Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control, published by the respected publishing house Henry Holt and Company. As you may know, Kinzer has authored two other best-selling books, All the Shah's Men and The Brothers.

Kinzer's book on the CIA's mind-control program received favorable reviews from the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times Review of Books, the San Francisco Review of Books, the London Review of Books, among other sources.

This is a perfect, prime example of the fact that you lone-gunman theorists are often blissfully unaware of scholarly, acclaimed research because your echo-chamber world has ignored that research and you then summarily dismiss credible claims that are based on that research. 

When you're done with Kinzer's book, you might break down and read Lisa Pease's book A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, which draws on numerous scholarly sources regarding disclosures on mind-control programs.

Here, too, you act like this is some kind of crazy idea because you haven't done your homework. You apparently don't know that when the OAS tried to assassinate De Gaulle, one of their weapons was a gun camera, i.e., a gun disguised as a camera. Let me guess: This is all news to you, right? Have you read any of Jeff Sundberg's research on gun cameras in the intelligence world? Have you read Mary Haverstick's book A Woman I Know?, which includes a lengthy discussion on the evidence regarding the Babushka Lady's actions before, during, and after the shooting?

This misstates my position. Are you just assuming that no one will go back and read what I've said on this matter? Or, perhaps you only skimmed over my statements on this issue and misunderstood them.

Let me try to explain my view as plainly as I can--again: Obviously, many more than 25 or 30 people would have had to play a role in the assassination and in the ensuing cover-up. However, only a few dozen people initiated the plot, managed the operation, understood the big picture, and drove the cover-up. Similarly, hundreds of people were involved in the Iran-Contra conspiracy, but only one or two dozen people initiated the conspiracy, managed the operation, knew the big picture, and drove the attempted cover-up. In both cases, most of those involved did not realize they were aiding a conspiracy and did not understand how their actions fit into the big picture.

Sirhan, when interviewed in 1988 by David Frost, admitted that he killed Bobby Kennedy and even explained his motive for doing so in complete detail.