Reopen the case of the Walker shot

A newsman asked Jesse Curry on either the 22nd or 23rd if there was any connection between Oswald and the Walker shooting the previous April. I thought the FBI did not associate Oswald with the Walker shooting until about a week later. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tjgH8o4Adw&t=368s

lanceman wrote:A newsman asked Jesse Curry on either the 22nd or 23rd if there was any connection between Oswald and the Walker shooting the previous April. I thought the FBI did not associate Oswald with the Walker shooting until about a week later. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tjgH8o4Adw&t=368s

Not necessarily a contradiction ...

Greg, do you know if the window was open at the time of the shooting and if the Walker home had central air conditioning? I ask because April 10, 1963 was a very hot day and temperatures were still above 80 deg. F at 9:00 PM. 

https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/KDAL/date/1963-4-10

lanceman wrote:Greg, do you know if the window was open at the time of the shooting and if the Walker home had central air conditioning? I ask because April 10, 1963 was a very hot day and temperatures were still above 80 deg. F at 9:00 PM. 

https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/KDAL/date/1963-4-10

This is an excellent question. I also have read that it was a very hot day and your data confirms it. I don't know whether there was central air conditioning in Walker's house or affecting the room of the shot. On the window, I had assumed it was open (bottom pane raised) and the bullet went through a screen, but in rechecking, the police report is ambiguous, referring to Walker hit by either "2 slivers from the bullet, or wood, or pieces of glass" (https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/217/217818/images/img_217818_67_300.png). That is ambiguous, but a Dallas Times Herald newspaper article by Warren Bosworth, who was there the night of April 10, published April 11, 1963 (forwarded to me by Steve Roe) refers to "Gen. Walker was struck in the right forearm by flying slivers of glass and metal as the slug slammed through a window casing, skimmed his head and then plowed through a wall". 

That sounds like glass was shattered by the bullet. However Robert Surrey's Warren Commission testimony refers to with tweezers taking metal pieces out of Walker's arm with no mention of glass. So that raises a question to me whether the Bosworth newspaper story was accurate saying glass shards flew all the way from the window to land in Walker's arm, plus I do not recall any reference to glass shattered on the floor of the room. It would be logical on a hot night that the bottom pane be raised and only a screen through which the bullet passed (not glass). That's all the information I can find on this question, which I realize does not answer the question.

This case is never going to be reopened.

Texas statute of limitations on this offence: 3 years.

And Marina's account of anything is less than worthless.  She sold her soul for 30 pieces of silver at the 6 Flags Inn, and I for one do not blame her.

Greg( D) , I can assure you I was only referring to your argument. Not you personally. 

With all due respect there was nothing " kneejerk" about my comments. Ive studied the Walker shooting pretty closely and it seems obvious " Oswald  Didit "was part of the post facto frame up operation. 

Designed to graft a wholly spurious legacy of politically motivated violence onto Oswald's hitherto relatively blameless violence free past. Underline the underlying proclivities of the brooding sociopath desperate to make his mark on the world that had turned its back on him, and rejected him.

Unless you are willing to rely upon the likes of anti researcher Paul Trejo,  and his jocular attempts at vandalism ( but he was ever so polite as he dumped pile after pile of his stinking ordure) there's absolutely no evidence to suggest Oswald was even considered a suspect in the contemporaneous ( ie pre 22nd November) investigation. 

How can  you examine the available evidence: Kirk Coleman's eyewitness report,  2 shooters leaving in 2 different cars, the discrepancies with the bullet,  the photos etc, and then come to the conclusion Oswald was involved?

Imho I think it was a publicity scam cooked up by Walker and his unsavoury associates. To gild his cowboy hat with the golden aura of a martyr's crown 

Marina knew the score. She knew how the game was played. She knew exactly what to say,  to reap the benefits from her assigned role. Her statements aren't worth the paper they were written on

And I don't think anyone can blame her for doing what she did, for striking whatever deal it was that was eventually struck 

I don't think anyone,  who claims  to possess even a modicum of compassion can criticise her. She was in an impossible situation. Whatever her past " sins" , whatever compromises she made, or was forced to make,  a vulnerable young woman,  far from home ( not merely in the physical sense) with two young daughters to care for,  had to think in terms of survival. 

Anyway,  could she really have done anything? Look what happened to Marguerite ( apologies to my doppelganger obsessed chums,  of course I mean the short dumpy unsmiling imposter) she was vilified and turned into a caricature. 

Marina faced a highly uncertain future. Repatriation to Mother Russia? Some fucking homecoming!! A phalanx of dead eyed operatives from the organs to welcome her home, and usher her into the unmarked ZiS,  straight to the cellars of the Lubyanka no doubt,  then from there, who knows?

Ekeing out a meagre subsistence in one of the ominously named " closed cities ", under the ever watchful eye of the ever vigilant blue tabbed chekists? Ground to dust in the camps? Or perhaps an even darker fate.

Marina knew how the game was played. She grew up amongst the Organs, acting at their behest. 
There's simply no other explanation. A girl from her background,  openly cavorting with foreigners,  much less American defectors? She was acting under orders. 

But,  as soon as she heard the news, that Friday afternoon, feeling her world collapse beneath her feet,  to be replaced by a chasm, as everything suddenly seemed to slow down,  and began moving at the disconnected, dissonant almost dreamlike underwater pace, that so often accompanies sudden life shattering tragedy, she knew she was on her own. 

She had to make the best deal possible. For her, and,  more importantly,  for her children 

The transition from " He good man, he no shoot anyone " to condemning an already condemned man wouldn't have been too great a price to pay. 

She is a survivor,  she knew what she had to do, and say, to emerge ( relatively) intact and unscathed. 

Regarding her statements before the Warren Commission,  it was nothing more than political theatre,  she had been carefully prepped,  rehearsed, to be presented in her full elfin waif like glory. Repeating her lines by rote, and on cue. 

And I don't blame her. She merely did what she had to do. If she had made a stand,  turn up the script and made a tearful heartwrenching defence of her late husband,  would it have made a difference?

No chance.

Before the flashbulbs had even stopped their popping a veritable battalion of top psychiatrists would have been wheeled out,  to explain,  placate and appease with a torrent of high falutin' jargon

Alex W., with due respect, I honestly don’t think you have looked at the paper itself or understand what it is about. You would not make the comments you do if you had. You would not ask how could I possibly look at Kirk Coleman’s witness evidence of (as you say) two shooters and conclude Oswald was involved, as if honestly baffled. I wrote 79 pages of detailed argument with truly new information to the case, go find out. You would not counter with saying you think walker and his cronies staged or faked it, as if that is something different from my paper, as if you are opposed to an argument in agreement.

I wrote 79 pages of detailed argument with truly new information to the case, go find out.


Yes, yes you did. But how about writing just one or two pages and spell it out - what you're actually contending. 
I've read your paper. What's new. And I agree with Alex, why should we not point out Colemans evidence?


But no matter, if you're true to form you'll most likely ignore my post - just have you've done previously. 

I do not understand the nasty tone mick. I don’t know anything about true to form ignoring your past posts. If so wasn’t intentional. You say you’ve read the paper and you ask what’s new?? An identification of Coleman’s car and man no. 2 is what’s new, and implications thereof. No I’m not going to try to rehearse in 2-3 pages here when I’ve linked to the paper especially when asked in this manner and you say you’ve already read the paper. Sheesh. What’s with the attitude? Is original research welcomed or not? If you’ve read it I would be interested in assessment of the specific arguments. I’m willing to answer informed questions if any not be insulted or demanded to repeat what you say you’ve read. I don’t need the attitude.

Greg, there's no attitude or nasty tone so no need to be offended. If you feel insulted then I apologise.

I've read your paper and for the life of me I find it too hard to follow -but that's just me. I'm probably a bit simple that way. I'll  re read it and try and grasp what you're on about.  

I'm not demanding anything so lets not twist things about. Where did I demand anything? You have written a paper - kudos to you. But Greg, the paper is hard to follow in my view so a brief summary might help, key points and all that - 79 pages mate in anybody's language is a hard slog, especially when dealing with just one event. That's of course just my opinion.

Mick_Purdy wrote:Greg, there's no attitude or nasty tone so no need to be offended. If you feel insulted then I apologise.

I've read your paper and for the life of me I find it too hard to follow -but that's just me. I'm probably a bit simple that way. I'll  re read it and try and grasp what you're on about.  

I'm not demanding anything so lets not twist things about. Where did I demand anything? You have written a paper - kudos to you. But Greg, the paper is hard to follow in my view so a brief summary might help, key points and all that - 79 pages mate in anybody's language is a hard slog, especially when dealing with just one event. That's of course just my opinion.

79 pages on this one topic, which includes opinion we are told is "new information", can only be described as proof by verbosity.


"This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called ' proof by verbosity (PVB)'. PVB is a favorite device among conspiracy theorists who utilize it to obfuscate the weakness of their case. By supporting their theories with so much random information (and misinformation), it gives the impression that their position is superficially well researched and supported by an avalanche of evidence. Sometimes PVB takes the form of a proof by intimidation, especially when an argument is made using sophisticated insider jargon, or when a complex and long-winded argument is made by an eminent scholar in the field. In the spirit of overwhelming the opposition, a PVB can be committed by employing a litany of numbers and statistics. Articulating your arguments in a clear and concise fashion and substantiating the position with well-founded and mutually intelligible premises is the key to avoiding a proof by verbosity."



Whether Greg does this intentionally or he is just unaware of how much his style resembles this, I really don't care. That last sentence is key to fixing it.

A good editor could probably get that 79 pages down to a dozen. Possibly less. Whether that would improve anyone's undertanding of the argument, or indeed, improve the argument, are separate issues. 

I think Greg got his ideas on concision from the Master Bloviator himself, David Lifton. 

As I have already said anyway, Greg's call via the thread title, to have the Walker case reopened is sublimely credulous. It aint happening, even if Greg stumbles upon a glove that fits and a taped confession.

Mick I saw yours driving home (I work for a living) and was preparing a conciliatory reply, maybe I overreacted, appreciated yours. However by the time I got home and logged in again I see Greg Parker's insults. No addressing of content or substance of the argument, no response to substance, no welcome atmosphere or invitation to discuss, just insults. Totally false that I got anything from David Lifton. Obviously by reopen the case I meant in the eyes of history, not in a Texas court, Greg's being ridiculous on that. I doubt my 79 pages, which I sweated blood to edit and craft for concision, could be significantly cut without sacrificing essential content. But even if that is the case, the issue is the substance of the argument and evidence, of which Greg has said not one word. Is Kirk Coleman's man and car No. 2 the car and person of Robert Surrey? Basic question. That is new, and if so reopens the case in a major way going toward the staged-shot interpretation not previously developed, as I explain in the paper. 

It would be like criticizing Greg's book on Oswald and the Cold War not by addressing content or substance but because someone says his book could be said in article length not requiring the length of a book, full stop of response. It sort of is a cheap shot because even if true it avoids addressing of substance. Why Greg behaves with insults instead of welcoming discussion of a fresh argument from a different angle for Oswald's innocence in the Walker case is beyond me (on a site focused on Oswald's innocence in the JFK assassination), but who knows what makes people tick. 

Mick, if you prefer you can hear discussion of the argument by Chuck Ochelli and Larry Hancock and me on The Ochelli Effect two days ago. https://www.spreaker.com/user/ochelli/the-ochelli-effect-3-16-2023-mike-swanso.

Greg (D) , speaking from a purely personal perspective,  ive always found your posts/ articles stimulating,  thought provoking and well researched( and written) 

I find it refreshing to have my own views challenged, and am more than willing to entertain fresh perspectives. 

I confess ive only skimmed through your latest piece,  but,  I give you my word I will read it carefully. 

I gave you my honest opinion. 

To me, the Walker shooting was an obvious link in the post facto patsification chain, attempting to destroy Oswald's character and manufacture,  if not a motive per se, then certainly  conjure up some motivation. 

Regardless of how spurious and illogical. 

No , perhaps,  in this particular occasion illogical served the cover up agenda far better 

Attempt to transform Oswald into a confused politically motivated sociopath,  desperate to carve his name into the history books

Regarding the actual mechanics of the shooting itself,  I defer to those who have done the necessary hard work and who possess the greater expertise. However,  regarding the Soviet angle  I have a little knowledge and insight. 

Making neither judgement nor comment and without casting aspersions, I am pretty certain Marina was merely fulfilling her pre assigned role( by pre assigned I mean pre Warren Commission)

Once the initial haze had dissipated and she realized her situation,  she played along.

Thus, imho,  her testimony is virtually worthless. 

I will read your paper and give you my honest opinion

Greg, I’ve done a preliminary read of your paper and one addition that would help your paper would be an illustration of the layout of the Walker mansion property, the alley, the church parking lot and the location of the witnesses including the dog that did not bark. Discussions of the Walker incident never seem to include such illustrations. Probably a lot of work, I know. I’ll reread your paper more thoroughly

Your work is always well thought out and presented and appreciated regardless of whether or not one may agree with your conclusions. I do agree with your explanation of Doris Hollan’s claim to have seen a second police car at the scene of the Tippit shooting.

Edwin Walker Records.

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt - Scans by me.

barto wrote:Edwin Walker Records.

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt - Scans by me.

Thanks! I looked through these and have the following questions.

1. If the Walker shooting was staged with Walker’s foreknowledge, wouldn’t he let sleeping dogs lie and not bring up that the bullet examined by the HSCA was not the one he remembered being recovered from his home?

2. The Warren Commission questioned when the surveillance photos of Walker’s home were taken based on the state of the foliage. I had always wondered about that as well as the backyard photos were supposed to be taken within a week or two later yet show plenty of foliage. I have never seen any documentation of how this conflict was resolved.

3. The Walker shooting did not seem to be a complex undertaking. The photographs did not seem to be essential for planning the shooting or the escape unless 1) the person who took the photographs was not the one who was going to do the shooting or 2) The photographs were intended to be used to implicate someone with the shooting or 3) both 1 and 2.

4. Lots of bullets in this case (CE 399, Tippit shells, Walker bullet) seem to be questionable!

I see Greg Parker's insults. No addressing of content or substance of the argument, no response to substance, no welcome atmosphere or invitation to discuss, just insults. 

People are often affronted by facts.

Have made the mistake of engaging you in the past. You may think you "won" those discussions because I simply stpped responding.

But reading your interminable and confusing replieswas making me suicidal. 

I do not think I am some fantastic writer. But I am aware of my shortcomings and try and address them to improve. I gave you great advice on how to address your issues, but you choose to be insulted instead.

Apart from all of that, I was replying to Mick, not you. Specifically to address his statement that  "I find it too hard to follow -but that's just me. I'm probably a bit simple that way. I'll  re read it and try and grasp what you're on about. "

Totally false that I got anything from David Lifton.

FFS. It was joke. You both take 10 pages to say one good sentence.

Obviously by reopen the case I meant in the eyes of history, not in a Texas court, Greg's being ridiculous on that. I doubt my 79 pages, which I sweated blood to edit and craft for concision, 

Which is a perfect example of your lack of logic and insight.

1. History has no closed cases. You cannot "reopen" something that was never closed. Since I assumed you understood this, the only alternative explanation is that you believed you have made a case that could get this incident reinvestigated.

2. Doing your own editing is sometimes like representing yourself in court. It ain't gonna end well.

I doubt my 79 pages, which I sweated blood to edit and craft for concision,  could be significantly cut without sacrificing essential content.

LOL. There it is. We've all seen those hoarder shows where the hoarder sees every piece of trash as an essential item that cannot possible be thrown out.

It would be like criticizing Greg's book on Oswald and the Cold War not by addressing content or substance but because someone says his book could be said in article length not requiring the length of a book, full stop of response. 

What you're not getting is that my criticism IS addressing the content. It is basically unreadable because of the content. 

My book has no padding. it really is as short as it needs to be.

It sort of is a cheap shot because even if true it avoids addressing of substance

Okay. Good. An opportunity for a lesson in concision.

It is either a cheap shot, or it it isn't. There is no "sort of". 

And a lesson in logic.

Not addressing what you consider "substance" does not make something a cheap shot. I will address whatever the hell I want to address in a post. 

But i did in fact address it when I said it is opinion dressed up as new evidence. 

Is Kirk Coleman's man and car No. 2 the car and person of Robert Surrey? Basic question. That is new, and if so reopens the case in a major way going toward the staged-shot interpretation not previously developed, as I explain in the paper. 

Surrey has long been suspected of involvement for publicity purposes.  That you think your questions add something to that is interesting. And maybe they do.

But your insistence that Oswald was involved is beyond crap. Real or fake.

Why Greg behaves with insults instead of welcoming discussion of a fresh argument from a different angle for Oswald's innocence in the Walker case is beyond me (on a site focused on Oswald's innocence in the JFK assassination),

Again - this could have been said in half the words with twice the impact. 

but who knows what makes people tick. 

Indeed!

(deleted)

"I would like to think my 79 pages on the Walker shot are comparable to Bart Kamp's 335 page "Anatomy of Lee Harvey Oswald's Interrogations"


GregD, are you serious?

Mick_Purdy wrote:"I would like to think my 79 pages on the Walker shot are comparable to Bart Kamp's 335 page "Anatomy of Lee Harvey Oswald's Interrogations"


GregD, are you serious?

No, sorry, poorly worded. I meant as a goal for me. I am going to edit change the wording. Bart Kamp's is better organized by far.

Greg, I will leave aside the grammar and syntax issues in your 79 page essay, since you don't seem to be bothered by either, and get straight to the issue of substance.

From your first paragraph:

The following represents a breakthrough in the case: a solid identification of one of those two vehicles and individuals seen by witness Coleman. The solution to this identification has been missed in all studies until now. This breakthrough is not minor but critical, going to the heart of what happened that evening of April 10, 1963 and the role of Oswald.


Words matter.

With that in mind, I ask in all sincerity what the hell a "solid identification" is supposed to mean? There is no such legal terminology which can be used to pin a meaning to it. 

What it has to mean for your theory to stand up, is something that constitutes proof. 

Yet we both know you don't have proof.

What you have is

-an identification of a similar car as that owned by Surrey, a bunch of interviews by late arriving witnesses, the testimony of the most comprimised witness in modern history, and a life's mission to defend the honor of a fellow member of your religion. 

As for the witnesses, not including young master Coleman, let's rank the value of different kinds of evidence from top to bottom

Real evidence - another name for physical evidence
Demonstrative evidence - charts, diagrams and the like pertaining to the criime and the crime scene
Documentary evidence - anything really from personal diaries through to internal government memos
Testimonial evidence - what people swear to under oath as witnesses

you have no real evidence

you have no demonstrative evidence save a bunch of photos allegedly taken by Oswald.

You have no documentary evidence that directly supports your contention.

What you do have is the worst kind of evidence, because it is the least reliable  - testimonial evidence.

While witness testimony ranks last, the worst of the worst of this type of evidence is the late-arriving witness with a story to tell an eager author. 

The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html



But it is not just psychologists

Government auditors also know it is weak
https://yellowbook-cpe.com/testimonial-evidence

76% of all successful appeals btw, are based on errors in the evidence used in the original case, rather than new evidence introduced. A third of those involve problems with witnesses. 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355030617301144

Skipping to page 3 where you start to list your key facts...

Fact #1: Extensive informal inquiry among the church people using the parking lot
failed to identify either of the cars of No. 1 or No. 2 as belonging to people of the
church. On the other hand the “Renault” was identified; it turned out to be a
Karmann Ghia owned by a young man who attended the church and parked his
Karmann Ghia at the location where Coleman saw what he mistakenly called a
“Renault”. But the cars of No. 1 and No. 2 seen by Coleman were not identified
with any church person despite efforts. Those negative results, and the location of
the activity in the area of the parking lot away from the church and near the
neighboring Walker house, suggest the cars of No. 1 and No. 2 were associated
with the Walker house, not the church

Whilst it may be a fact that "the location of the activity in the area of the parking lot away from the church and near the neighboring Walker house, suggest the cars of No. 1 and No. 2 were associated with the Walker house, not the church"

What is not an established fact is that cars no 1 and 2 were associated withe Walker House and not the church (or some other house)


Establishing the fact that it can be suggested that items A and B were associated with Place B and not Place A is not the same as establishing it as a fact.

You either need to come up with actual facts, not things that might be facts if you only had better evidence - or be far less dispositive in your assertions.

I think the latter is your only reasonable option.

I have no desire to go through all 79 pages like this, nor get into yet another mind-bending debate with you. It is pointless. You will not move an inch on anything that may put Ruth in a bad light. 

In your deleted post, you said something about leaving.

Stay or leave as you will. But don't base that decision on me. I don't "own" this place. I'm just the doorman. 

I do note that you have Larry Hancock in your corner on this, so you hardly need any endorsement from me, anyway.

I think the currect exchange rate is something like 6.4 Parker endorsements equals one Hancock, so congrats on getting Larry onside. You're well in front there. He is a genuinely nice bloke, constitutionally incapable of any conflict with you, even if he wakes up from whatever soporific spell you have cast on him

Greg, just to be clear, you are NOT convinced that Kirk Coleman's report to police of seeing a black-over-white, two-door sedan, parked in the same location of the church parking lot distant from the church and next to the Walker house where Robert Surrey told the FBI he parked his car on a previous occasion; and where a youth at the church also said he had seen the same car parked in that same spot on a previous occasion; and only ca. 3% chance that that color match will come about from a second different car instead of the same car ... means that was Robert Surrey's black-over-white car? (And the car never was identified as anyone else's, and never was denied by Robert Surrey or anyone working for Walker to have been Surrey's car because never asked...)

Just not enough to establish that starting point, eh? 

And the man of that car coming from the alley location behind the Walker house immediately following the shot, and loads of independent reasons for supposing the shot was staged and Surrey the obvious person to run the staged shot on behalf of Walker. Just not good enough for you to say it was Surrey that Coleman saw that night coming from the area of Walker's house to a car of the colors of Surrey's car? Still a deep mystery to you whose car that could possibly have been? More fun to keep it a deep mystery for all time, wonder who could that possibly have been? OK. 

And another thing: I agree that late-coming witness stories are suspect but there is good reason that that is not what is going on with the Surry family members' memories of the night of April 10, 1963 and here is why:

From the Dallas Police, FBI, or Warren Commission documents, and I think from contemporary news reports, you would never know the Robert Surrey family was at and in the Walker house the evening of the shot, prior to the Walker shot. The narrative has always been that Walker was alone, the shot was fired, almost hit him, he called Surrey, Surrey came over, and Surrey and police arrived about the same time, etc. Nothing about Robert Surrey being at the Walker house before then.

But not one but three--three--Surrey family members in the mid-2010's decade tell of their memories of the whole family with all the kids being there that night stuffing envelopes. The late David in his video was one, age 12 then, first quoted 2017 in Gayle Nix Jackson's book. His younger brother William, first quoted 2017 in Jackson's book, says that too. And Gayle Nix Jackson in a footnote says she called their sister Karen (not sure of her age then) who confirmed to Jackson the family was there stuffing envelopes that evening too. Three siblings. They are not all making that up! And little-noticed but the FBI interview of Mrs. Bouve re her dog "Toby", the one who barked a lot and had been poisoned, Mrs. Bouve told the FBI she had taken Toby inside that evening (before the time of the shot at 9 pm) because Toby had been barking so much earlier that evening at activity next door at the Walker house, people coming and going, as well as activity at the church that evening too. That's right there in the FBI report, exactly consistent with the three Surrey children (then) telling (later as adults) of remembering that night. That Walker shot would have been as memorable as my memory 60 years later of where I was when JFK was assassinated--I was in 4th grade in a school classroom and remember the teacher receiving a written note and reading it us bewildered kids and choking up. These Surrey kids, the same re the Walker shot in terms of memory of April 10, 1963.

So Robert Surrey was there that night, then he left, then he returned, unknown presence earlier according to any documents on the MFF site. And one of those Surrey kids, the late David, also said he and his father were in the Walker house when the shot happened and instantly drove away, in exact agreement with the car that Kirk Coleman, high quality witness, saw leaving. q.e.d. This is a strong case.

Greg_Doudna wrote:Greg, just to be clear, you are NOT convinced that Kirk Coleman's report to police of seeing a black-over-white, two-door sedan, parked in the same location of the church parking lot distant from the church and next to the Walker house where Robert Surrey told the FBI he parked his car on a previous occasion; and where a youth at the church also said he had seen the same car parked in that same spot on a previous occasion; and only ca. 3% chance that that color match will come about from a second different car instead of the same car ... means that was Robert Surrey's black-over-white car? (And the car never was identified as anyone else's, and never was denied by Robert Surrey or anyone working for Walker to have been Surrey's car because never asked...)

Just not enough to establish that starting point, eh? 

I never said that. I suggested to you that you either need more evidence to prove it is a fact, or if that proves too difficult a task, you need to pull back from calling it a fact. I also suggested the latter option was your best one (given that you are not going to find proof at this late date).

It is one thing to start out with a fact and build a case from it. It is quite another to build a case from the starting point of conjecture. And calling that conjecture a fact in order to build your case is just n and ot honest.. 

And the man of that car coming from the alley location behind the Walker house immediately following the shot, and loads of independent reasons for supposing the shot was staged and Surrey the obvious person to run the staged shot on behalf of Walker. Just not good enough for you to say it was Surrey that Coleman saw that night coming from the area of Walker's house to a car of the colors of Surrey's car? Still a deep mystery to you whose car that could possibly have been? More fun to keep it a deep mystery for all time, wonder who could that possibly have been? OK. Wink

Coleman can only say his observations occured between 9 and 10. Surrey said he arrived shortly after 9 (just after the shooting). He also said he stayed and helped the cops on the search. Was Surrey lying? 

Your claim that the Renault was really a Ghia is also not a fact, but a suppostion.

Initially it was stated by the FBI that the Renault belonged to the church caretaker - who happened to be a cop. He claims he wasn't there that night but nominates the car as a foriegn make belonging to someone else who sometimes parks in that general area. A 15 year old who apparently was more car savvy than the cop, identified the car belonging to another church member as a Ghia. The FBI however, never did ask this cop what type of car he owned. The inference seems to be that he did in fact drive a Renault. If it was anything different, you can bet it would have been put in te record. 

Why couldn't he be lying? Not just about that, but about the inquiries he allegedly made?

What sort of half-arsed cops are we dealing with here? NOne of the official investigators of this crime managed to interview those in attendance on the night in question? That part of the investigation was left to be informally conducted by another church member who did because he knew the investigators would be interested?
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11640

Heath, the 15 old never said the Ghia was there that night. Only that he "usually" parks there. 

You have transformed all of this into a  positive ID of a Ghia when it is no such thing.

I would put it to you that I could make a case based on this same material that Det Heath was there that night and was involved in the fake attempt. 

And another thing: I agree that late-coming witness stories are suspect but there is good reason that that is not what is going on with the Surry family members' memories of the night of April 10, 1963 and here is why:

From the Dallas Police, FBI, or Warren Commission documents, and I think from contemporary news reports, you would never know the Robert Surrey family was at and in the Walker house the evening of the shot, prior to the Walker shot. The narrative has always been that Walker was alone, the shot was fired, almost hit him, he called Surrey, Surrey came over, and Surrey and police arrived about the same time, etc. Nothing about Robert Surrey being at the Walker house before then.

Going back to the hierarchy of evidence...

have you tried to find the original police reports which should verify who else (if anyone at all) was present?

Do you know what the envelope stuffing was for? 

Once again, you are calling things a fact that are not proven to be fact. 

The Surrey kids may well believe what they said. It also may well be true, but I would not believe it without other forms of evidenced.

Your 3 people independant corroboratuon may in fact be a classic case of memory contamination.  It is the very reason witnesses are kept separate. 

In case you don't get it yet, you are overstating your case. You have no facts. You have a whole lot of conjecture.